REBOR 1:35 Utahraptor ostrommaysorum Museum Class Replica “Wind Hunter” [updated]

[Takama]

Is it bad for me to say that, i figured it was only a matter of time before he got banned

[Dobber]

Sorry everyone, I really didn't want this to devolve into another Rebor accuracy debate. I just noticed something about the model that bothered me and wanted to know if it was a valid issue to have ie the hanging jaw. I really wasn't bashing Rebor, as I was considering getting this one but the jaw thing just stuck out to me. No pun intended 

I do have a Dromaeosaur question. Looking at fossils I am very confused as to how the arms/wings worked or moved. We're they folded back along the animals sides, similar to modern birds. Or were they more forward so they could grab prey? I've been making rough sketches of dinosaurs...including completely feathering a Tyrannosaur and want to start some serious drawings but the arm/wing thing confuses me a little. I understand that.....using this model as an example....llthere should be larger primary feathers from the middle finger that would cover the outer finger correct? Did the wrist bend...sideways to fold back the feathers. Sorry if these are stupid questions but looking at the actual fossils can be a little confusing for me some times and Dromaeosaur fingers look strange to me because of their length and positioning.

Again, sorry if I inadvertently stirred the pot by asking about the jaw, or if these questions are too basic.

Chris

[tyrantqueen]

Maybe this might be interesting to read, although it doesn't cover Utahraptor specifically:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282006%2926%5B897%3ACOFFBD%5D2.0.CO%3B2#.U-FD5oBdUp8

EDIT: Oops, I just realised it's behind a paywall That sucks

I found this on Emily Willoughby's site though:

This was largely inspired by an interesting Facebook discussion with paleoartist Julius Csotonyi about arm-folding in paravian dinosaurs. It occurred to me that people seldom reconstruct paravians, particularly dromaeosaurs, with their arms folded in a reasonable and accurate way. Julius made the fair the point that these animals probably didn't carry their arms out in front of the body, as is so often depicted (in skeletals and otherwise — it makes sense in skeletals, to adequately show the hand and arm anatomy), because such an awkward orientation would leave the hand and arm feathers open to damage and breakage. But they also can't fold them tightly against the breast or back like birds do, because they lack the mobility to do so.

So how did Deinonychus normally carry its arms? Senter's 2006 paper on forelimb function in Deinonychus and Bambiraptor shows that the humerus couldn't rotate much past the horizontal with respect to the scapula. In addition, Sullivan et al. 2010 — winningly translated to layman coherency by Matt Martyniuk — shows that wrist mobility in many paravians is much less than you might expect, given their similarity to birds. The wrist of Deinonychus antirrhopus specifically would not have allowed it to bend its hands even 90° with respect to the arm!

Given these limitations, most of the flexion would have to occur at the elbow, but a fully flexed elbow would mean that the hands would be hanging below the body, not held sleek and secure alongside the body. The arm orientation in my illustration above is based on what I think is probably the perfect configuration for carrying the arms: a fully-flexed shoulder, a fully-flexed wrist, and a nearly fully-extended elbow. A few other people have drawn their dromaeosaurs with the same arm configuration, like Smnt2000 and Pilsator, so kudos to them.

As for your question about feathers, this diagram could also be useful:

[Dinoguy2]

As in modern birds, they could be folded slightly back when at rest, probably an adaptation to keep the wing feathers up and out of the way. But they would swing forward to grab objects like prey animals.

[Dobber]

Thanks for the input, both of you.

Though it looks like the B diagram contradicts what Tyranqueen posted...as in there is too much range of motion. Though, I fully admit I may just be misunderstanding what I'm looking at.

Chris

[Dinoguy2]

Thanks for the input, both of you.

Though it looks like the B diagram contradicts what Tyranqueen posted...as in there is too much range of motion. Though, I fully admit I may just be misunderstanding what I'm looking at.

Chris

The post by Tyrantqueen is talking about normal "walking around" posture not total range of motion. in fact the pic I posted is from the same paper mentioned in that post

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Is it bad for me to say that, i figured it was only a matter of time before he got banned

You say he, I got the feeling watching that one, that it was a female....not sure why, just felt that way

[Dobber]

Thanks for the input, both of you.

Though it looks like the B diagram contradicts what Tyranqueen posted...as in there is too much range of motion. Though, I fully admit I may just be misunderstanding what I'm looking at.

Chris

The post by Tyrantqueen is talking about normal "walking around" posture not total range of motion. in fact the pic I posted is from the same paper mentioned in that post

Oh I get it was the resting/walking pose. Maybe it is just the art, it just looks like the wrist in the first picture would be able to turn forward anymore than it is. Like I said Dromaeosaur arms and figure confuse me for some reason....like I have some mental wall making it hard to comprehend what I'm looking at. It's quite embarrassing.

So, if we start at a position as TyrantQueen posted, the wrist can move forward to be in line with the forearm....but likely no further. The elbow can extent the arm to nearly a straight line also. The shoulder has about a 100 degree range of motion from either pointing straight back, as the resting position that TyrantQueen posted, and rotating to just past straight down. How much could they stick their arms out to their sides.....like how we do if we imatated birds.

Chris

[Dobber]

Just wanted to say thank you for your patience with my slowness, and helping me to understand what I'm looking at. 

Chris

[tanystropheus]

I think he is referring to lifelike as in being detailed in a manner that looks like it could be a real animal, as opposed to being lifelike by being true to the scientifically supported real life appearance for the animal. Probably similar to how many of the Papo figures appear lifelike in a sense.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to figures as being 'lifelike' and I would have hoped that most of people in the forum would know by now.  It is great to be on the same page. Papos, Rebors, Sideshows are 'lifelike'.  WS Postosuchus and Carnegie Tylosaurus are also 'lifelike'.

However, 'lifelike' doesn't necessarily mean accurate or scientifically sound.

[tyrantqueen]

I think he is referring to lifelike as in being detailed in a manner that looks like it could be a real animal, as opposed to being lifelike by being true to the scientifically supported real life appearance for the animal. Probably similar to how many of the Papo figures appear lifelike in a sense.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to figures as being 'lifelike' and I would have hoped that most of people in the forum would know by now.  It is great to be on the same page. Papos, Rebors, Sideshows are 'lifelike'.  WS Postosuchus and Carnegie Tylosaurus are also 'lifelike'.

However, 'lifelike' doesn't necessarily mean accurate or scientifically sound.

I understand what lifelike means. I just don't agree that the Utahraptor is lifelike.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

We know exactly how Yutyrannus should look like and how Utahraptor should be feathered, we're absolutely agree with the diagram provided by tyrantqueen, however as a company we also need to consider the public acceptance of these dinosaur replicas, therefore please consider the inaccuracy was the result of artistic embellishments.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think he is referring to lifelike as in being detailed in a manner that looks like it could be a real animal, as opposed to being lifelike by being true to the scientifically supported real life appearance for the animal. Probably similar to how many of the Papo figures appear lifelike in a sense.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to figures as being 'lifelike' and I would have hoped that most of people in the forum would know by now.  It is great to be on the same page. Papos, Rebors, Sideshows are 'lifelike'.  WS Postosuchus and Carnegie Tylosaurus are also 'lifelike'.

However, 'lifelike' doesn't necessarily mean accurate or scientifically sound.

I understand what lifelike means. I just don't agree that the Utahraptor is lifelike.

I think this concept was first really aired out in the one the Jurassic park threads , but the soft and thick of it seemed to center around the concept of....realistic vs Accurate. I think it was generally agreed that jurassic park dinosaurs by example were presented in a realistic fashion but were not factually accurate....and the same argument could be potentially offered here, in that it is a figure that might for some seem realistic, but is nowhere near accurate.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thank you REBOR for acknowledging this and chiming in, much appreciated.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

I think he is referring to lifelike as in being detailed in a manner that looks like it could be a real animal, as opposed to being lifelike by being true to the scientifically supported real life appearance for the animal. Probably similar to how many of the Papo figures appear lifelike in a sense.

This is exactly what I mean when I refer to figures as being 'lifelike' and I would have hoped that most of people in the forum would know by now.  It is great to be on the same page. Papos, Rebors, Sideshows are 'lifelike'.  WS Postosuchus and Carnegie Tylosaurus are also 'lifelike'.

However, 'lifelike' doesn't necessarily mean accurate or scientifically sound.

I understand what lifelike means. I just don't agree that the Utahraptor is lifelike.

I think this concept was first really aired out in the one the Jurassic park threads , but the soft and thick of it seemed to center around the concept of....realistic vs Accurate. I think it was generally agreed that jurassic park dinosaurs by example were presented in a realistic fashion but were not factually accurate....and the same argument could be potentially offered here, in that it is a figure that might for some seem realistic, but is nowhere near accurate.

Exactly. Dragon characters from movies can look super realistic however we all know dragon doesn't exist.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Thank you REBOR for acknowledging this and chiming in, much appreciated.

No problem, BTW we love your park 

[tanystropheus]

Are feathers generally frowned upon by consumers? I think the main issues is that people don't want dinosaurs to resemble chickens... but what if the representations are vicious and menacing in demeanor but also features full wings and plenty of plumage?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Are feathers generally frowned upon by consumers? I think the main issues is that people don't want dinosaurs to resemble chickens... but what if the representations are vicious and menacing in demeanor but also features full wings and plenty of plumage?

I'd say yes. Mostly because popular media tends to compare them to chickens quiet frequently. The public at large used to see dinosaurs as outdated, plodding creatures that were the archetype of extinction..it's poster boy if you will. With the popularity of Jurassic Park people started accepting dinosaurs as more intelligent, but vicious , scaly creatures.  The feathers concept and their relation to birds are generally joke fodder if you do a search..it will take something that affects the mass media and grips people to really accept it. Some never will.  When I discuss birds and dinosaurs at the Park here I usually use raptors, birds of prey, like hawks and eagles for example. Really gives them a better mental picture than a rex head on a chicken.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thank you REBOR for acknowledging this and chiming in, much appreciated.

No problem, BTW we love your park 

Thank you.  I'm looking forward to your Ceratosaurus.

[tyrantqueen]

Are feathers generally frowned upon by consumers? I think the main issues is that people don't want dinosaurs to resemble chickens... but what if the representations are vicious and menacing in demeanor but also features full wings and plenty of plumage?

The awesomebro crowd hates feathers. I can understand where the kind of thinking comes from even though I don't agree with it. Most people want their dinosaurs to have a cool or fearsome appearance. If you look back at popular monster and horror movies, you'll see that vast majority of them are scaly or slimy. There is a reason for this.

In the Gremlins movies, Gizmo is furry and cute, whereas the evil gremlins are scaly and reptilian. When people say "feathers are not scary" I can understand why they say it. In many cultures reptiles are considered to be unpleasant or "evil".

Plus the idea of scaly dinosaurs has been ingrained into the public consciousness for so long people are probably afraid of embracing something new. Personally I think people need to stop thinking of dinosaurs as "cool" and just accept them for what they are.

Just my