On Jurassic World and real 'raptors': Velociraptor, Deinonychus and Achillobator

The online palaeontological community has no shortage of words on the recently released Jurassic World movie – most of them concerning the deplorable disregard for the last two decades of dinosaur science. What of the movie itself? The critical response seems to divided, most reviewing it as a great popcorn movie, and the rest as a predictable, sexist and cynical summer film. My own take is the latter: Jurassic World was just another forgettable, contrived entry in the Jurassic Park franchise, best noted for having the worst effects, silliest plot, and most outmoded characters of the entire series. Never quite sure if it’s making fun of modern franchise culture or revelling in it, the convoluted story revolves around (SPOILER ALERT) hokey family values, dinosaur-dinosaur team ups, dinosaur-human team ups and weaponised artificial species to form a plot akin to a particularly dumb, low-grade B-movie. There are some good ideas in there that could, in isolation, make for interesting science fiction, but there’s so much going on that nothing has a chance to develop: plot threads are introduced, contradicted and abandoned with rapidity. Most of the story is churned along by really contrived, forehead-slappingly stupid decisions made by the characters, and the pandering to the ‘awesomebro’ crowd is, at times, shameless. Was I the only person cringing when two characters told us, in weirdly meta-fashion, how ‘awesome’ and ‘badass’ they thought the (already shark-jumping) motorcycle/Velociraptor scenario was? In all, while I can’t say I strongly disliked Jurassic World, its few redeeming features are undermined by the contrivances, tropes and fan-servicing, over-stuffed plot, and flat characters. After two other disappointing sequels, Jurassic World is yet another demonstration that the Jurassic franchise really needs to evolve away from the original film to remain interesting. Predictably, it’s made a truckload of money already.

Anyway, this isn’t a review of Jurassic World: we’re here to talk about dromaeosaurs (yeah, not ‘raptors’: sorry, Jurassic fans, but another set of dinosaurs have held priority to ‘raptor’ since 1873). The velociraptors are back in force in Jurassic World, in all their leathery-skinned, broken-wristed, overtoothed glory. Of all the Jurassic World dinosaurs, the velociraptors have moved furthest from being relatively ‘believable’ animals in the first movie to the realm of true sci-fi monster. By Jurassic World, the behavioural and physical attributes they’ve gained in each sequel has finally made them totally unstoppable killing machines, demonstrably invulnerable to all damage except when the script calls for it (and thus largely removing their potential for being thrilling characters or antagonists. Oh, wait, we're not reviewing the film!). Inspired by their movie cousins, I thought I’d share some recently completed dromaeosaurid palaeoart here. Without appreciating it, presenting these three images together acts as a foil to the Jurassic depiction of dromaeosaurs, showing these animals as exploitative and flawed creatures, and as products of natural evolution, rather than reptilian versions of Geiger’s Alien. As usual, prints of all these images are available to purchase from my print store.

Velociraptor: picking on the little guy

Famous dromaeosaurid Velociraptor mongoliensis chases a juvenile oviraptorosaur, Citipati osmolskae. The oviraptorosaur parent doesn't approve.

First up is Velociraptor mongoliensis, the dog-sized namesake of the Jurassic dromaeosaurs. In this revised image (the first version of which topped another Jurassic World inspired piece) Velociraptor is shown predating a much smaller theropod, a juvenile oviraptorosaur Citipati osmolskae. The idea emphasised here is that, like most predators, Velociraptor probably hunted easily dispatched and overpowered prey, like juvenile animals, rather than larger, more dangerous individuals. A distressed oviraptorosaur parent is shown in the background as attempting to scare the predator off, arms extended, jaws agape, probably making a lot of noise. It strikes me this is the ‘classic’ palaeoart pose so often depicted as leaping from canvases to our faces – I think it works a lot better in the context of a full scene rather than in isolation. The Velociraptor is adorned with two small feather fans on its snout, structures for which we have no direct evidence, but which don’t seem too audacious in light of some cranial display features of modern predators.

Deinonychus: superklutz

Deinonychus antirrhopus: Deadly. Savage. Clumsy.

Next is another famous dromaeosaur, the North American species Deinonychus antirrhopus. This image was commissioned by ReBecca Hunt-Foster for the Utah Bureau of Land Management, as part of a public display on the Mill Canyon Dinosaur Tracksite. This Cedar Mountain Formation locality, once a scummy, slimy shallow body of water, preserves a multitude of sauropod, ornithopod and theropod tracks, including several belonging to dromaeosaurs. We call these tracks Dromaeosauripus, and at Mill Canyon their most likely trackmaker is Deinoynchus, it being a Cedar Mountain Formation species of correct stratigraphic provenance and appropriate size to make these specific Dromaeosauripus traces. Some of the Mill Canyon Dromaeosauripus tracks record running animals, which is pretty neat: it’s hard not to wonder what impetus made these animals charge over the Mill Canyon microbial mat 100 million years ago.

Alongside some of these tracks are long gouges in the ancient mud seemingly made by two-toed animals losing their grip on the substate, wobbling about before regaining their balance – are these the tracks of noble Deinonychus almost falling over? Quite possibly, although it’s not definite that they record the same individuals as those leaving the charging Dromaeosauripus prints.

ReBecca thought it would be fun to demonstrate that some Mill Canyon dinosaurs weren’t the most sure-footed of creatures, and requested my services to do so. I was happy to do this. In any sustained bout of animal observation it becomes apparent that all species routinely trip, slip and blunder about in the way that we do, and recreating this seemed a wonderful alternative to our regular diet of epic and ‘awesome’ palaeoart. The fact this image features Deinonychus is even better: even outside of Jurassic Park, dromaeosaurs are regularly depicted as particularly ferocious, cunning predators, earning them the nickname of ‘lions of the Cretaceous’. Well, awesomebros, here's our noble, cunning Cretaceous lion picking a whole bunch of oopsie-daisies, while a couple of normal Deinonychus prey items – Tenontosaurus – look out from the far distance and laugh.

Achillobator: giant dromaeosaur, silly hat

Giant Mongolian dromaeosaurid Achillobator giganticus ominously excavating the burrow of a small dinosaur. Azhdarchid pterosaurs gather to collect the dislodged bugs.

The Late Cretaceous, Mongolian species Achillobator giganticus is not a household name, but that may well change over time. This species is large bodied (only second to Utahraptor in the dromaeosaurid size game) and robust, bearing a deep snout, stout limbs and a large set of hips. It probably wasn’t a fast runner, but all indications are that it was a powerful predator suited to wrestling and grappling, perhaps ideally suited to ambushing larger prey. In this illustration, I’ve speculated that the powerful limb girdles and appendages of Achillobator are for a specific purpose: digging out and killing burrowing reptiles. Lots of tetrapods, including lineages around in the Mesozoic, were burrowers: fossorial activities are known in extinct and modern dinosaurs, as well as crocodylomorphs, certain lepidosaurs, and stem-mammals. The Mesozoic was thus likely full of burrowing species, and it’s not crazy to think that powerful predators could trap and excavate these animals from their own homes with the right equipment. In the scenario depicted above, the robust feet and enlarged hips of Achillobator make for powerful digging tools, while the short but powerful arms are ready to catch and grapple with escaping animals. If their prey doesn’t emerge voluntarily, those feather crowns will block burrow entrances once the head and jaws are inserted to extract the animals directly – this is a nod to the cranial form of Tibetan foxes, which have wide heads for the same purpose.

Of course, this image and concept is little more than an All Yesterdays-style speculation – to be honest, we don’t really have enough of the Achillobator skeleton to know exactly what it did for a living. Nevertheless, following another run with the Jurassic movies, I find it refreshing, grounding and intriguing to think of large dromaeosaurs as real products of evolution, as creatures adapted to the environment they lived in, and the species they coexisted with. As is often the case, reality ends up being far more interesting than fiction.

OK, that’s all for now. If you’d like to know more about the diversity of ‘real’ dromaeosaurs and other feathered dinosaurs, I heartily recommend Matthew Martyniuk’s excellent Field Guide to Mesozoic Birds and other Winged Dinosaurs.

Deinonychus, Parasaurolophus, Dreadnoughtus and Carnotaurus welcome in the MarkWitton.com print store

Since launching a limited print buying service at the close of last year I've had enough interest to warrant investing more resources into print sales. The result is an online print store over at the new slightly revamped MarkWitton.com where you can buy prints at a range of sizes and prices with just a few mouse clicks. Payment goes through Paypal, and delivery should be within a week or so for UK customers, and 2-3 weeks for international orders. There's a catalogue of recent artworks to choose from, which I'll expand over time, but I'm also happy to take orders for artwork not hosted there yet. If you would like a print of an older, unhosted piece, let me know.

To celebrate the launch of the store, I thought it would be cool to show four of my favourite new pieces of art generated within the last few months. These all represent private commissions which I have permission to post and sell as prints. If you want your own copy, you know where to go...

Dreadnoughtus dwarfs Talenkauen, is happy

"Oh, you say you're a medium-sized dinosaur? Sorry, it's hard to hear you with my head all the way above the trees here." Experts predict Dreadnoughtus schrani was jerk it was to other, smaller species like the iguanodont Talenkauen santacruensis. Print.

First up is Chris Wummer's commission of giant, latest Cretaceous titanosaur Dreadnoughtus schrani, an animal which needs little introduction after the publicity of its discovery last year. Dreadnoughtus was publicised as the most massive terrestrial animal of all time at 59 tonnes, but regular readers of the palaeoblogosphere may know that sauropod guru Matt Wedel questioned this over at SVPOW! through rough volumetric estimates of mass and, later, when considering the restored Dreadnoughtus trunk as too long. Palaeoartist Greg Paul has also provided contrary comment on the 59 tonne estimates and restored proportions (although I'm not really sure what context that article is presented in - it looks like an unpublished MS). Estimating the mass of any extinct animal is difficult and especially so at the extreme sizes represented by giant titanosaurs, but there seems good reason to think the Dreadnoughtus holotype individual achieved a mass of 30-40 tonnes. That's still very big of course, but within fairly 'typical' ranges for giant titanosaurs.

There are two versions of the Dreadnoughtus image shown here. Chris wanted the picture to have personal relevance and so asked for his house to be included. That choice was inspired by his residence in Philadelphia, the city were Dreadnoughtus was studied and unveiled to the world. Switching between the version with familiar modern objects and a completely 'natural' scene reinforced how difficult it is to show absolute prehistoric animal size without a frame of reference: Dreadnoughtus looks a lot smaller when its head isn't clearing a rooftop. Two ornithopods - the 4 m long iguanodont Talenkauen santacrucensis - were added to this version to help stress the size of the sauropod. It's still difficult to appreciate a precise size of the sauropod in this image, but hopefully it at least looks very big, which might be the best we can hope for in images without obvious scale references.

Deinonychus pair in the swamps

Two Deinonychus antirrhopus either taking a moment to drink, or looking at something really interesting at the bottom of that pool. Print.

Next up is Patrick Murphy's pair of Deinonychus antirrhopus. The Early Cretaceous dromaeosaur Deinonychus has been restored so many times that it's difficult to come at it from a fresh angle. I thought one way to do that was to not show it on open plains, but in a backswamp. Deinonychus is known from two geological units, the Cloverly and Antlers formations, both of which represent sediments deposited by ancient, subtropical rivers and their floods. Some sediments in the Antlers Formation represent large (10 m wide or more) abandoned river channels, complete with evidence of soils, low velocity or still water, and ancient vegetation (Hobday et al. 1981). The depicted animals are meant to have recently eaten something - their muzzles are still read with blood - and popped down to their local swamp for a drink and some shade. I imagine that these guys are set to sit down and digest after this, waiting until they get hungry enough to chase prey again.

The arms of the foreground animal are pressed tight to the body in the manner proposed by palaeoartistic Queen of the maniraptorans, Emily Willoughby, rather than held half-folded as we're more used to seeing them. As Emily explains, there is good reason to think the 'arms out' postures we're used to is nonsensical - animals just don't carry themselves like that (including ourselves: our arms don't just hang limp - we fold, stow and hold them when they're not in use).

These guys were a lot of fun to paint: Deinonychus has an appealing character - a sort of mash up of a wolf and a raptorial bird - which is fun to try to capture. My thought is that Deinonychus should always look like an animal which we would admire and revere, but would purposely avoid close proximity with.

Parasaurolophus, alone with other dinosaurs

Parasaurolophus walkeri, wondering where his friends are. Print.

Delano DuGarm's Parasaurolophus walkeri brings us back to the Late Cretaceous, specifically the Campanian. Delano's brief was for a fairly minimalist scene, which I think matches one part of the 'Campanian story' quite well. By this time some of the fauna and flora we think of as epitomising the Mesozoic were already gone or showing clear evidence of decline, including ichthyosaurs, some dinosaurs, pterosaurs and ammonites. Although some taxa were doing fine in this interval, and even radiating, seeds of change were already being sown for Cretaceous biospheres. We have to wonder how long many 'classic' Mesozoic groups would have lasted even without the global catastrophes occurring at 66 million years ago: even without them, the post-Mesozoic world might have been quite different.

Delano's lone Parasaurolophus painting gave a good opportunity to hint at this changing world. The left of the painting features a few (speculative) wading birds and two bird flocks leaving the trees - these, of course, are the 'new dinosaurs' that will live on through the late Cretaceous troubles. The Parasaurolophus on the right looks a bit big and cumbersome by contrast, sort of like an old design which can't compete with new technologies. Aiding this comparison is the relative chunkiness of the Parasaurolophus skeleton: hadrosaurs are hardly a svelte bunch, but the bones of Parasaurolophus are especially big and robust, with expanded areas for muscle attachment. As far as I'm aware, the significance of this is unknown (but let me know otherwise in a comment below!).

Carnotaurus with a difference

Azhdarchids > theropods, as demonstrated by this lousy predation attempt by Carnotaurus sasteri. Print.

Finally, we're popping back to Maastrichtian South America for Chris Tait's Carnotaurus sasteri vs. azhdarchids image. An obvious artistic departure from the rest, this is an attempt to achieve a comic-book style in line with Chris' intention to give this to his son as a present. I've tampered with minimalist, comic-book styles before and quite enjoy it. Comic-book palaeoart - especially Ricardo Delgado's Age of Reptiles graphic novels - has influenced my work since the age of nine because of the energy, character and personality infused into the animals. Of course, you have to try hard not to find character in animals like Carnotaurus which, with its strange proportions and anatomy, looks almost like work of comic book fiction already (must... resist comment... about fictional theropod design and Jurassic World...). Carnotaurus, like other abelisaurs, was adapted for speed more than manoeuvrability, and this attempt to grab a passing pterosaur snack is an example of how nimble, agile prey might easily evade one. The pterosaurs shown here are quite small, which might seem odd for very late Cretaceous azhdarchids - aren't the small pterosaurs meant to be gone by then? Fragments of pterosaur jaw from Late Cretaceous Hungary indicate that some azhdarchid species retained small absolute body sizes even when most of the group represented medium-giant species (Prondvai et al. 2014). The discovery of these smaller Late Cretaceous pterosaurs does not buck the overall trend of average pterosaur size increase throughout the Mesozoic of course, but it does show that there were some exceptions to this wider trend.

Yes yes yes... but how are the bees doing?

Regular readers will know that I'm donating all funds from February sales of one print to the Bumblebee Conservation Trust. The good news is that I'm now up to a donation of £130, and there's still eight days left to get your order in. I'm really happy to have sold enough of these to break £100 - huge thanks to everyone who's bought one - and exceeding £150 is my new goal. 

It's now easier than ever to buy a copy of the bee-charity print, so you can get yourself a copy and help our struggling wildlife with just a few mouse clicks. Prices start at £20 (+shipping), and I'm giving as much as I can from each sale to the trust. 

References

• Hobday, D. K., Woodruff, CM, Jr., McBride, MW. (1981), Paleotopographic and structural controls on non-marine sedimentation of the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation and correlatives, north Texas and southeastern Oklahoma. Recent and ancient nonmarine depositional environments, 71-87.
• Prondvai, E., Bodor, E. R., & Ősi, A. (2014). Does morphology reflect osteohistology-based ontogeny? A case study of Late Cretaceous pterosaur jaw symphyses from Hungary reveals hidden taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 40(2), 288-321.

Prints, custom palaeoart, and antisocial Triceratops

Hey now - look at this: there's a way to buy high-quality prints of my artwork, and it's dead simple. Drop me an email at wittonprints@gmail.com with your requirements, pay off the invoice, and wait for your prints to arrive - hopefully within a week or so of order confirmation. Prices, sizes and all are discussed over here. Added 02/2015: visit my print store!

To celebrate this occasion, I'm also offering a limited number of über-cheap palaeoart commissions for private clients:

Yep - your own palaeoartwork, a print and delivery for just £100, which is a stupidly cheap price for original artwork. Full details (including a few important conditions) are here (edit 02/2015: not any more!). As you may expect, I can't sustain working at that price for long. For that reason, there's only five of these deals being offered, and at time of writing, three of these deals have been taken. If you want in, don't delay. Don't despair if you miss this deal but would still like your own commission: drop me a line and we might be able to work something out.

Finally, because things have been a bit quiet about here for the last month or so, here's something to fill the void: a monochrome bristly Triceratops horridus, the dromaeosaur Acheroraptor temertyorum, and an interaction inspired by the wise, yellow philosophy of The Simpsons.

"...and like people, some [animals] are just jerks."

Apologies for yet another short post. Coming soon (when I'm allowed to publish them): Mammaliaformes! Heaps of pterosaurs! Deinonychus! Diminutive tyrannosaurines! And perhaps other subjects too!

Does Deinonychus really have one of the most powerful bites of all dinosaurs?

Quick sketch of Deinonychus antirrhopus with expanded, bone-puncturing jaw muscles, a requirement of having a bite as strong as a modern alligator. Say what? Read on...

There's a part in Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park novel where Velociraptor attempt to bite through bars to reach a people-shaped lunch. Presumably, they're meant to give readers something to rally behind seeing as one person in the line of fire is Ian Sodding Malcolm - I'd be chewing through steel too if it meant we could enjoy a few moments without another preachy monologue. Crichton describes them as hyena-like in their ability to bite through steel, delivering thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch and gnawing their way through thick metal bars in 15 minutes.

Dromaeosaurids biting through steel bars - heck, any animal biting through steel bars, including hyenas - intuitively sounds like crazy talk*. But was Crichton at least right about the strong bites of dromaeosaurids? I've been doing some investigating on dromaeosaur jaw muscles for a new palaeoart commission, but I've come unstuck. Here's why.

*Is there any substance to claims about modern animals biting through steel? Given that tooth enamel is only very slightly harder than straight steel, I wonder how long teeth would last when gnawing through anything but the thinnest metal sheet.

Recently, Gignac et al. (2010) presented a suite of bite marks on Tenontosaurus bones argued to show Deinonychus as capable of deeply puncturing bone with powerful bites. The tooth gouges match those of large Deinonychus in many aspects (bite mark size, shape, correspondence with dental arcade) and broken teeth associated with the same Tenontosaurus corroborate suggestions that Deinonychus fed from the carcass. Other teeth, not from Deinonychus, were also at the site, but their owner does not seem to have left any other obvious traces. Experiments with modern cow bones suggest Deinonychus needed a whopping 8200 N to puncture Tenontosaurus bones to the degree seen in the fossil remains. This value puts Deinonychus bites on par with those of adult alligators and leaves hyenas in the biomechanical dust. It also grants Deinonychus one of the highest estimated bite forces of any dinosaur, even greater than animals of much larger size. The tooth marks only match the largest known Deinonychus individuals, possibly indicating that juveniles were incapable of delivering such bite forces. Because Deinonychus puncture wounds are rare, Gignac et al. argue that puncturing bones was not common in Deinonychus, and that their powerful bites were primarily used for aggressive behaviours instead.

Bitemarks in the radius of Tenontosaurus specimen FMNH PR 2261, below, compared to the dental arcade of Deinonychus antirrhopus, above. This is one of many pathologies on FMNH PR 2261, almost all of which have been attributed to Deinonychus feeding behaviour. From Gignac et al. 2010.

For artists, Gignac et al.'s paper has important implications. Generating 8000 N of bite force requires a lot of muscle, so we might predict that Deinonychus jaws had the same swollen jaw muscles of modern crocodiles to generate all those bone-smashing newtons. This is at odds with other reconstructions of Deinonychus, where the jaw muscles do not atypically alter the contours of the face. I don't know how visible expanded, crocodile-like jaw muscles would be on deeply feathered maniraptorans, but reconstructions with sparse or naked faces would certainly need to take this on board. I've had a quick play about with this concept in the conservatively feathered Deinonychus above.

Problem is, Gignac et al.'s conclusions are not uncontested. Biomechanical assessments of Deinonychus jaws have found they were mechanically weak and ill-suited to delivering powerful bites (Therrien et al. 2005; Sakamoto 2010; Fowler et al. 2011). Therrien et al. (2005) estimated Deinonychus bite force at a relatively wimpy 15.7% of alligator jaw power, which Gignac et al. translate into 1450 N. This isn't unimpressive - as strong as that of a 30 kg wolf - but a far cry from an alligator-like bite, and certainly deflates our reconstructed jaw muscles to their traditional size. On the face of it, I certainly find the arguments for weak jaws more convincing. Hyenas and alligators have robust, wide and solidly-built skulls with generous room for jaw muscle placement, whereas the skull of Deinonychus is full of holes, is relatively narrow and slender, and with comparatively little room spaces jaw for muscles.

So, what to do? Jaws with relatively small muscles have been the norm in Deinonychus palaeoart since its discovery, but is it time we changed that? Were their jaws actually visibly and powerfully muscled as inferred by their trace feeding evidence, or is there something missing here? Is it significant that lower estimates of their bite forces match those of animals which can also puncture bone (wolves - see Haynes 1982)? If anyone has anything to add, please let me know...

References

• Fowler, D. W., Freedman, E. A., Scannella, J. B., & Kambic, R. E. (2011). The predatory ecology of Deinonychus and the origin of flapping in birds. PLoS One, 6(12), e28964.
• Gignac, P. M., Makovicky, P. J., Erickson, G. M., & Walsh, R. P. (2010). A description of Deinonychus antirrhopus bite marks and estimates of bite force using tooth indentation simulations. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30(4), 1169-1177.
• Haynes, G. (1982). Utilization and skeletal disturbances of North American prey carcasses. Arctic, 266-281.
• Sakamoto, M. (2010). Jaw biomechanics and the evolution of biting performance in theropod dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1698), 3327-3333.
• Therrien, F., Henderson, D. M., & Ruff, C. B. (2005). Bite me: biomechanical models of theropod mandibles and implications for feeding behavior. The carnivorous dinosaurs, 179-237.

The 'no feathers' Jurassic Park tweet: statement of intent, or simply ruffling feathers?

No surprise about what this post will cover: the announcement by Jurassic Park IV director Colin Trevorrow that his new JP instalment will not feature feathered dinosaurs (unlike the new image, above, which features a fully feathered Dromaeosaurus raiding a giant azhdarchid nest). Like many folks in the palaeoblogsphere, my reaction to this hasn't been particularly positive. It seems like an overlooked opportunity to bring the dinosaur-bird themes of the first movie full circle, jars with overwhelming evidence that some JP dinosaur stars were feathered, and misses a terrific chance to affirm modern concepts of dinosaur palaeobiology with a wide audience. The JP franchise would also probably benefit more from featuring feathery species than it will from maintaining its flimsy creature design continuity (see Laelaps for more on this) as the series clearly needs some fresh ideas and content. It hasn't really delivered much else than people being chased by dinosaurs since the one hour mark of the first film, and a certain amount of repetition has set in ("Oh, look, they're running away from a large predatory dinosaur. Oh, look, they're running away from smaller predatory dinosaurs. Oh, look, one dinosaur is fighting another dinosaur. Oh, look, it's a sweeping shot of peaceful dinosaurs", etc.). The introduction of feathers could provide some nuances to the JP story and provide a new edge for its overly familiar creatures. Beyond this, as someone with an interest in science education, I find broader concepts to be upset about as well here. Feathering dinosaurs in JP IV would demonstrate the incremental processes through which science works, highlighting the way in which the dromaeosaurs of the series became progressively more feathered as the dinosaur bird link was cemented by mounting evidence*. There's obvious utility with this movie being a basis for teaching concepts of evolution, too. And yes yes yes, I know this movie isn't being made to educate people, but I genuinely think featuring feathered designs would be of advantage to many.

*Before anyone mentions it, I know the JP franchise didn't leap on the feather bandwagon quick enough, but it's one of the few major areas of common knowledge of dinosaurs, and provides a good focal point for educating laymen or children about these topics.


There's a truckload of things we could talk about concerning the lack of feathers in JP IV, but I don't want to focus on that here. Instead, I want to highlight one point that troubles me with all this discussion and outrage. This whole episode was started by Colin Trevorrow tweeting only two words: "no feathers" (well, three, if you include the '#JP4' bit). As others have noted, that doesn't really tell us much about the plot, the species under discussion or anything else. This has got me wondering how much of the film has actually been set into place yet. To my knowledge, Trevorrow has only been at the helm of JP IV for a couple of weeks, and the movie is still in pre-production. No casting details have been announced, no shooting schedule, no sneak-peaks of the plot. So are Universal Studios, the JP franchise wranglers, playing their cards close to their chest, or is much about the movie may still up in the air? If the latter is true (and it may not be: I'm not claiming any insider knowledge, just that I pay attention to movie news), I'm wondering if the glib 'no feathers' tweet was simply put out there to test the waters. See what the reaction was from JP fanboys and other demographics to see if they should keep their dinosaurs canonical or give them a much needed update. The movie isn't destined for release until June 2014 - perhaps that's enough time to design and implement feathery integuments to their dinosaurs? Note that I don't know much about VFX in movies, so I could be talking out of my bottom on this. That said, movie release dates change all the time, so the projected release may not mean much at this early stage.

If the feathers comment is a cheeky PR exercise for this franchise, it's in good company. Universal Studios have made repeated attempts to reignite interest in the JP franchise over the last few years. We had the core of the franchise, the first movie, back in cinemas in 2011 to coincide with the JP Blu-ray launch. The same film is returning to the big screen again this year, this time in 3D. We saw the first licensed Jurassic Park video game for 8 years in 2011. Concept art for the aborted JP IV dinosaur-man movie was revealed late last year. That in itself seems pretty unusual to me. There must be piles of discarded movie concept art in Hollywood which never sees public eyes, and creature design imagery is typically owned by movie studios. Heck of a coincidence if that just happened to slip onto the internet as rumours of a new JP film are circulating. Even if the latter was coincidental, we've had a lot of JP events in a short space of time, and only one of them coincides with a sensible franchise anniversary (this year's 3D Jurassic Park release, for the 20th anniversary of the original movie). Seems to me that Universal really, really want to remind us that Jurassic Park exists, perhaps because well over a decade has passed since the last chapter of the story. Generating discussion about whether the next instalment should feature feathered dinosaurs is an excellent way to get some free PR for the upcoming movie as well as, possibly, testing reaction to realistically feathered dinosaur species.

Of course, this may all be the wailing, cynical conspiracy theory of a madman. Time will tell, I suppose. In the mean time, I'd best get back to other things.