[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
I you might thinking of "Utahraptor ostrommysorum" from Utah.
Kirkland, J.I., Burge, D. and Gaston, R., 1993. A large Dromaeosaur
(Theropoda) from Lower Cretaceous of Eastern Utah: Hunteria, Vol. 2, No.
Burge, 1996. Shows this sucker in access of 2.5 meters.
Burge, D. 1996. New Dinosaur discoveries in lower Cretaceous of
Southeastern Utah in eds. Boaz, D. et al, Fossils of Arizona Vol. 4
Proceeding of Southwest Paleontological Society and Mesa Southwest Museum.
Mesa, AZ. p85-105.
At first they were going to Call it "Utahraptor spielbergi" ( I have a 1993
tee shirt from Utah Friends of Paleontology that has this label.) But
Spielberg's lawyers squashed that idea (Bakker 96, conversation at Dinofest
> From: mark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Velociraptor
> Date: Thursday, November 06, 1997 4:46 AM
> At 05:55 AM 11/6/97 UT, you wrote:
> >The "Velociraptor" in Jurassic Park was actually
> >based on Deinonychus, and it was actually pretty
> >well done, except of course for the lack of feathers.
> I am not saying that this is wrong (because I don't know) But...
> I read somewhere (not sure ware) that Jurrasic park was out in the
> when the larger "raptor" was found. The article also said that the
> velociraptors in JP were larger for effect and that it was just luck that
> the newer, larger "raptor" was found
> I have no idea id the "larger raptor" was Deinonychus or not.
> Just trying to separate fact from fiction...Which is all this?