Please do better, Animalogic!

[HD-man]

I originally posted the following at deviantART ( www.deviantart.com/jd-man/journal/SD-Please-do-better-Animalogic-983333583 ).

Hi everybody!

I don't normally post about things so soon after they happen, but I recently watched Animalogic's Velociraptor video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfEgbXxJyFU ), & it's so bad that I had to comment on it. Given how long my comment ended up being, I figured I might as well share it w/you. 1 more thing of note: Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of the cover image, but objectively it's 1 of the only non-terrible life reconstructions used in said video.

Cheers,
Herman Diaz

I'm sorry to bother you guys about this, as I mostly like your videos. However, w/the exception of Dufault's life reconstruction, this video is very not good:

-Most obviously, almost every life reconstruction used in this video is varying degrees of terrible. More specifically, there's Dinoraul's very shrink-wrapped models (E.g. The Velociraptor in the thumbnail; The Microraptor at ~2:30; The Deinonychus at ~6:20) & several very shameless JP/JW rip-offs (E.g. The Velociraptor at 0:00 & 4:47; The T. rex at 2:27, 2:35, & 3:30), most of which depict Velociraptor in non-desert environments, & all of which are very cheap-looking CG. There's also Julian Johnson-mortimer's Utahraptor family (0:11 & 4:54) & JW's Indominus model (0:21 & 3:58), which this video shows as Velociraptor even though they clearly aren't 😕

-This video's writing is WAY too declarative/hyperbolic throughout (E.g. "Everything you think you know about this ferocious dinosaur is probably incorrect"; "[...]definitely did not hunt human-sized prey in packs"; "I'm here to ruin your childhood"; "[...]their ridiculously long tails"; etc), especially compared to the thematically-similar cassowary video. Both videos are about flightless feathered dinos w/infamous reputations, yet 1 has a casual-but-intelligent style ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK5azP5xJC0 ) & the other an anti-teen smoking ad style (I.e. Trying to be relatable & cool, but coming across as cringy & patronizing).

-The "theories" discussed at 3:10 & 5:32 are actually hypotheses ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA ). On a related note, 3:10 is written as if those hypotheses are mutually exclusive ("Some suggest[...]Others speculate[...]The most likely answer[...]"), but flightless birds use their feathers for all those things.

-The part about "the three large, sickle-like claws[...]on each bird-like foot" is not only wrong, but contradicted by the foot shown at the same time (I.e. The 2 walking claws are clearly smaller & straighter than the actual "sickle-like" claw).

-The parts about quill knobs & olfactory bulbs visually highlight the wrong body parts (finger joints & nostrils, respectively).

-The part about size is very misleading. Yes, 7 kg/~15 lb is a valid estimate, but also a very low 1 among a range of estimates. According to the NHM, Velociraptor "was about the size of a Thanksgiving turkey", which, last I checked, range from 8-40 lb. In fact, the fighting Velociraptor discussed in this video is estimated as ~24 kg (See Hone et al. 2010).

-The part about "human-sized prey" is not only wrong, but contradicted by the fighting Protoceratops discussed in this video, which "probably weighed three or four times" more than the fighting Velociraptor (See "Locked in Time: Animal Behavior Unearthed in 50 Extraordinary Fossils"). Last I checked, 24 kg times 3 is 72 kg/~158 lb/human-sized.

-The part about pack hunting is based on Frederickson et al. 2020, which is very flawed for reasons I discuss elsewhere (See "SD: Most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses addend"; TLDR, its results don't really support its conclusions & it ignores A LOT of contradictory evidence). See the Naish quote for a near-perfect summation of what we currently know.

-The part about Crichton is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaf_f1a8ZA ).

Quoting Naish (I added the brackets for more info): "Ostrom's view that Deinonychus was a pack-hunter has been the source of considerable debate. Some experts have outright stated that group hunting wasn't likely for these animals (it's more of a mammalian habit than a reptilian one, so the argument goes), nor is it well supported by geological data, since the individuals Ostrom regarded as members of a social group more likely came together by accident (they were washed together by floodwater, say). But none of this appears exactly right; social behavior is reasonably well supported in these animals and can't be easily explained away[...E.g. See Maxwell & Ostrom 1995...]Deinonychus isn't the only dromaeosaurid where several individuals have been discovered in association[...E.g. See Li et al. 2007...]and the diversity of group-hunting strategies present in modern lizards and birds shows that cooperation and group living are far from "mammal-only" behaviors[...E.g. See Ellis et al. 1993...]It's plausible that Deinonychus sometimes hunted alone, but it's also likely that individuals stalked and foraged in bands, cooperated in the flushing and pursuing of prey like small ornithischians, and slept and nested in groups."