Bare Minimum Feathers on V-Raptor Toys

[no longer available]

Why do a great majority of dinosaur toy producers (Schleich, Papo, etc.) always put in the bare minimum effort when it comes to putting feathers on Velociraptor mongoliensis toys?  The only toy that even remotely comes close to looking like a (properly) feathered Velociraptor is Safari LTD's 2015 Velociraptor that is part of the now-discontinued Carnegie Collection.  It greatly annoys me to no end that these toy producers continue to insist on doing the bare minimum effort on feathered Velociraptor toys.  I can easily understand the lack of feathers if the toy is based off the Jurassic Park Velociraptors, but this is 2016, and it's been proven that Velociraptor mongoliensis had feathers since 2007 when a fossil with quill knobs was discovered.  The day that these toy manufacturers finally make a Velociraptor mongoliensis toy that is properly feathered will be the day I celebrate.

[Bucklander]

Whilst I, and many (most?) others on this forum sympathize completely, I think you need to check out the Papo 2016 feathered Velociraptor. I don't (yet) own it, but from the photos others have posted, I have to say it looks pretty good. If not perfect, certainly a big improvement!

[CityRaptor]

I kinda fail to to see how this:

is comparable to this:

That does not even look like feathers, it looks like flabby skin...

As for why: Well, JP look sells. And then there are those awesomebros and feather haters...

[MLMjp]

Why do a great majority of dinosaur toy producers (Schleich, Papo, etc.) always put in the bare minimum effort when it comes to putting feathers on Velociraptor mongoliensis toys?  The only toy that even remotely comes close to looking like a (properly) feathered Velociraptor is Safari LTD's 2015 Velociraptor that is part of the now-discontinued Carnegie Collection.  It greatly annoys me to no end that these toy producers continue to insist on doing the bare minimum effort on feathered Velociraptor toys.  I can easily understand the lack of feathers if the toy is based off the Jurassic Park Velociraptors, but this is 2016, and it's been proven that Velociraptor mongoliensis had feathers since 2007 when a fossil with quill knobs was discovered.  The day that these toy manufacturers finally make a Velociraptor mongoliensis toy that is properly feathered will be the day I celebrate.

Ooooohhh girl.......Here we go again..........

There´s plenty of reasons:

-Because some companies do not care and they just want to sell dinosaurs.

-Because JP raptors are so cool an iconic that companies now figures based on them will sell.

-Because they think feathers look dumb, and they don't want so sell that because people would not buy it....

-Because feathered dinosaurs are not "cool" and "scary", so people will not like them. Dinosaurs needs to be AWESOME; BRO!

And there´s also the anti-feathers resistance. Which sadly is a big part of the dinosaur fanatic community. They basically think what I just have said before and they are so attached to nostalgia and Jurassic Park dinos that they don´t want to accept the true, that the real dinosaurs did not looked like those in the movies.

Thank god Collecta´s and Safari´s direction goes to more accurate and feathered dinosaurs. Even Papo decided to try it and it turns out to be a decent feathered raptor figure. They still need to improve a bit, specially Papo...... But at least is a step forward.

[stargatedalek]

The Papo Velociraptor has what I would describe as the bare minimum. It has just barely enough to be plausible, anything with less is simply not even passably accurate.

[no longer available]

I kinda fail to to see how this:

is comparable to this:

That does not even look like feathers, it looks like flabby skin...

Although I agree that the feathered Papo Velociraptor is 400 times better than Schleich, it still has its share of issues, such as shrink-wrapped feather coating, the head, which could use a bit of work, and the lack of feathers on the face.

[tyrantqueen]

Why do a great majority of dinosaur toy producers (Schleich, Papo, etc.) always put in the bare minimum effort when it comes to putting feathers on Velociraptor mongoliensis toys?  The only toy that even remotely comes close to looking like a (properly) feathered Velociraptor is Safari LTD's 2015 Velociraptor that is part of the now-discontinued Carnegie Collection.  It greatly annoys me to no end that these toy producers continue to insist on doing the bare minimum effort on feathered Velociraptor toys.  I can easily understand the lack of feathers if the toy is based off the Jurassic Park Velociraptors, but this is 2016, and it's been proven that Velociraptor mongoliensis had feathers since 2007 when a fossil with quill knobs was discovered.  The day that these toy manufacturers finally make a Velociraptor mongoliensis toy that is properly feathered will be the day I celebrate.

I think it's a lack of research and a desire to pander to what is popular.

[Megalosaurus]

Talking about the kind and extesion of feathers in Velocicaptor, we can't know for sure the real look of it. Was its cover like the one of an eagle or vulture or ostrich? The answer: We don't know... yet. The Papo effort is an educated guess.

But I think the main reason is:

[...]
-Because JP raptors are so cool an iconic that companies now figures based on them will sell.
[...]

[Patrx]

The new Papo is a step forward, but still pretty far off. The only toy Velociraptor I know of that could call itself "accurate" is the Kaiyodo "Kitadaniryu," amusingly enough. But, we'll get there, I think, in time. If the new Papo sells well enough, maybe somebody else will make a proper attempt 

[Dinoguy2]

Talking about the kind and extesion of feathers in Velocicaptor, we can't know for sure the real look of it. Was its cover like the one of an eagle or vulture or ostrich? The answer: We don't know... yet. The Papo effort is an educated guess.

But I think the main reason is:

[...]
-Because JP raptors are so cool an iconic that companies now figures based on them will sell.
[...]

That's being a little generous. It is barely within the range of plausibility. So it's an educated guess, but not a conservative guess. It's a guess that says what can we do to stay within the letter of the evidence that says it had feathers but not the spirit of the evidence that says they were basically birds?

And what's with those horns, if you only showed me the head, I would have guessed this was a Gorgosaurus...

[fason]

Talking about the kind and extesion of feathers in Velocicaptor, we can't know for sure the real look of it. Was its cover like the one of an eagle or vulture or ostrich? The answer: We don't know... yet. The Papo effort is an educated guess.

But I think the main reason is:

[...]
-Because JP raptors are so cool an iconic that companies now figures based on them will sell.
[...]

That's being a little generous. It is barely within the range of plausibility. So it's an educated guess, but not a conservative guess. It's a guess that says what can we do to stay within the letter of the evidence that says it had feathers but not the spirit of the evidence that says they were basically birds?

And what's with those horns, if you only showed me the head, I would have guessed this was a Gorgosaurus...

isnt this an  argument about feathers (it could have had fibrous crests an horns that dont preserve well ,kinda like how feathers dont preserve well but hey let me get to the topic

you most still remember that they had reptilian blood running through them(yeah  , no beaks , longtails , flightless ,  )  kinda like dimetrodon (not the best example but it was a reptile mammal)we dont know  what bird they would look like mainly because (in  my opinion )of trex , now trex had shown evidence of scales and that it may have had feathers ,maybe it had both , so would velociraptor? we  have quill knobs and relatives to  base this theory off but modern day theropods have changed so much that it seems like a baseless claim ....  it could have been like a vulture turkey or ostrich and been hairless on parts of its body  and because it is reptilian those parts could be covered in scales,  but really we dont know  ,sure it could look more birdlike but this seems plausible to me


again sorry for bad english and format

[Bucklander]

Velociraptor was NOT a bird. It was a Deinonychasaurian. Deinonychosauria is the sister clade to Avialia  (or is it Avialae?). Together the clades Deinonychosauria are united as Paraves. To call a Deinonychasaurian a bird, is like calling a dog (Canidae) a bear (Ursidae) simply because they are both Canoidean Carnivorans.

That being said, for it isn't really what this thread is about, I for one look forward to the day that JP style velociraptors are looked upon with the same bemusement as reconstructions (like the Favorite desktop - awesome figure) of the Waterhouse - Hawkins' Iguanodon are today. Bring on the feathers! And the gorgeous iridescent colours!

May rapidly, the day come when JP itself (though laudable - at least the first - for accuracy in its day (yes I know, Velociraptor should have been Deinonychus etc. but these are trivial details compared to the overall cinematic realization of the revolution started by Ostrom)) causes one to smile that superior, indulgent smile one currently offers for the old B grade dinosaur movies of the 1950s.

[stargatedalek]

you most still remember that they had reptilian blood running through them(yeah  , no beaks , longtails , flightless ,  )  kinda like dimetrodon (not the best example but it was a reptile mammal)we dont know  what bird they would look like mainly because (in  my opinion )of trex , now trex had shown evidence of scales and that it may have had feathers ,maybe it had both , so would velociraptor? we  have quill knobs and relatives to  base this theory off but modern day theropods have changed so much that it seems like a baseless claim ....  it could have been like a vulture turkey or ostrich and been hairless on parts of its body  and because it is reptilian those parts could be covered in scales,  but really we dont know  ,sure it could look more birdlike but this seems plausible to me

Actually it's entirely plausible that Dromaeosaurs could have had beaks. Genetically speaking if we chose to interpret the flat section of the upper jaw in most Therizinosaurs as a beak than it actually makes a lot of sense dromaeosaurs would also posses them. Some Dromaeosaurs were not flightless, species such as Microraptor and the juveniles of several other species (namely Deinonychus and Changyuraptor) were probably using powered flight and if not were at least capable of it in a pinch.

Tyrannosaurus is very far from Velociraptor so it's not a good point for comparison.

Quill knobs don't simply show presence of feathers, they can even show us potential specialization of these feathers. Quill knobs are present when feathers are in need of extra support, enlarged display feathers are most typical but also strengthened feathers for fighting or fast turning. They are far from a baseless claim.

Ostriches, turkeys, and vultures are all bald for very specific reasons, so to an extent we can in fact claim that Velociraptor did not likely resemble them. Ostriches are not only very bulky animals but they live in arid environments and are reliant on their running abilities. Ostriches are not meaninglessly bald in random places, they are feathered so as to maximize efficiency of airflow and comfort when running to improve their stamina and mobility. Turkey are bald purely for display, so yes Velociraptor could have had a bald face to display like a turkey does, but that would apply exclusively to its head, as it does in turkeys. Vultures heads are bald to help with thermoregulation. When the animal is on the ground it often experiences very warm temperatures, whereas when they are in flight they need to keep warm. This has created a situation where the vulture needs a way to loose heat quickly and to shield itself from harsh wind when rising quickly, hence the bald head and corresponding neck "ruff" which they use to shield their bald neck while rising. Large storks often have bald heads for the same reason.

Keep in mind that Velociraptor was a lot more light weight than an ostrich, nor was it built for long periods of running. It was also flightless unlike a vulture or large stork. There is simply no environmental situation in which any amount of feathers less than that seen on the Papo Velociraptor is at all respectable.

Velociraptor was NOT a bird. It was a Deinonychasaurian. Deinonychosauria is the sister clade to Avialia  (or is it Avialae?). Together the clades Deinonychosauria are united as Paraves. To call a Deinonychasaurian a bird, is like calling a dog (Canidae) a bear (Ursidae) simply because they are both Canoidean Carnivorans.

I've known Dinoguy2 for some time and he isn't the type to make such an impractical claim of Velociraptor literally being a bird. He was referring to Velociraptor in terms of aesthetics, not genetics.

[Dinoguy2]

Velociraptor was NOT a bird. It was a Deinonychasaurian. Deinonychosauria is the sister clade to Avialia  (or is it Avialae?). Together the clades Deinonychosauria are united as Paraves. To call a Deinonychasaurian a bird, is like calling a dog (Canidae) a bear (Ursidae) simply because they are both Canoidean Carnivorans.

That being said, for it isn't really what this thread is about, I for one look forward to the day that JP style velociraptors are looked upon with the same bemusement as reconstructions (like the Favorite desktop - awesome figure) of the Waterhouse - Hawkins' Iguanodon are today. Bring on the feathers! And the gorgeous iridescent colours!

May rapidly, the day come when JP itself (though laudable - at least the first - for accuracy in its day (yes I know, Velociraptor should have been Deinonychus etc. but these are trivial details compared to the overall cinematic realization of the revolution started by Ostrom)) causes one to smile that superior, indulgent smile one currently offers for the old B grade dinosaur movies of the 1950s.

I never said it was a bird. I said "basically". Deinonychosauria is one or two steps down the tree from Archaeopteryx. They're so closely related and so similar that the phylogenetic position of basal avialans and basal deinonychosaurs switch around with each other in every single study published in the last five years. There are tiny, tiny anatomical differences between these groups, that's it. This isn't the difference between dogs and bears, more like the difference between neanderthals and humans.

This isn't just me by the way. Here's the current head of the American Museum of Natural History saying the same thing:
""The more that we learn about these animals the more we find that there is basically no difference between birds and their closely related dinosaur ancestors like velociraptor," said Mark Norell."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm

Not that an argument from authority matters, the evidence should be enough.

Quill knobs don't simply show presence of feathers, they can even show us potential specialization of these feathers. Quill knobs are present when feathers are in need of extra support, enlarged display feathers are most typical but also strengthened feathers for fighting or fast turning. They are far from a baseless claim.

Not only that, but it's important to note that quill knobs don't anchor feathers directly. They anchor the ligaments that attach feathers to an ulnar pataigum. The feather quill anchors into a wide muscle and soft tissue patagium behind the rm, which is in turn connected to the bone. Even without feathers, this would look more like a turkey wing with claws rather than a standard theropod arm. See the new description of Apatoraptor for a good technical overview of how quill knobs support not just feathers, but the whole soft tissue feather complex. This would radically alter the overall shape of the forelimb.

If you want to make raptor toys that look scary and evoke the style of a 25 year old monster movie, you should make the ones shown above. If you want to make one that is realistic and based on science, you should make one based on these:

you most still remember that they had reptilian blood running through them(yeah  , no beaks , longtails , flightless ,  )  kinda like dimetrodon (not the best example but it was a reptile mammal)we dont know  what bird they would look like mainly because (in  my opinion )of rex ,

Dimetrodon is a mammal-like tetrapod just like Velociraptor is a bird-like reptile. But Dimetrodon is a very, very primitive stem-mammal. Velociraptor is a very advanced one. A better comparison for Velociraptor would be Cynognathus, which would have looked pretty darn mammal-like and probably had fur.

it could have been like a vulture turkey or ostrich and been hairless on parts of its body  and because it is reptilian those parts could be covered in scales, 

Birds are just as reptilian as Velociraptor. Aves is a subgroup of Reptilia just like Deinonychosauria is. You might as well make a partly scaly Gargantuavis or Hesperornis too.

[fason]

problem is we are talking about velociraptor which had preserved  its jaws ,(with teeth too)  and lived in an arid location , aka  mongolia  i am most likely wrong but  many signs indicate mongolia was still a dessert ,signs such as the plant life or even how well some fossils preserved.also we dont know velociraptors lifestyle or its muscle build we can get good guesses but not a defined answer, because mesozoic mongolia  would be similar to the arid desserts of current day earth the it might have been like the ostrich after all , for the other point  ostriches' skeletons dont indicate  a  robust animal , as a matter of fact they look quite similar to bird mimics skeletons however if you look at an ostrich they are more fatty and compact (in the bodily section i mean not on their long beautiful legs ), than they lead on to be (im getting somewhere believe me )now look at a hawks skeleton or another flying birds skeleton, all the birds have one thing in common, there   compact build which houses muscles to power their wings , microraptor had a more slim , lizard like build meaning it most likely would not have flied but glide ,(kinda like gliding reptiles or pterosaurs i guess i really am not sure )no raptor has direct evidence of powered flight (to my knowledge ) and are really different from modern day birds .lastly birds branched of from reptiles long ago and have changed drastically they are closer related to crocodilians  than most basic reptiles and you can see the difference , so i dont see any reason for  anything a tiny bit below papos raptor is  a" MOVIE MONSTER"                                                                                                                               








ps. im a newb by the way so im not very experienced in the topic of raptor morphs  also sorry for bad english  ,(man typing is hard)

[stargatedalek]

Velociraptor was no matter how you stretch speculation a lithe animal. It was certainly not bulky, and it was not running any marathons. It was a nocturnal or semi-nocturnal ambush predator, not a pursuit predator. No matter what it wasn't analogues to an ostrich.

Microraptor was not "lizard like" any more than a crow is. Microraptor was simply not adapted for gliding, it's aerodynamics are inefficient so at slow gliding speeds it would do no more than basic parachuting. At speed however the legs and tail generate lift, similar traits can be seen in birds of prey today that specialize in hunting in deep forests. There are also no known gliding pterosaurs, they also flew.

Most (if not all) theropods are closer to birds than to crocodiles, and crocodiles are a lot closer to birds than to any other extant reptiles.

[Dinoguy2]

ostriches' skeletons dont indicate  a  robust animal , as a matter of fact they look quite similar to bird mimics skeletons however if you look at an ostrich they are more fatty and compact (in the bodily section i mean not on their long beautiful legs ), than they lead on to be (im getting somewhere believe me )

Superficially similar in overall shape, almost completely different in the details... The neck of Ornithomimus is more than three times as short as an ostrich, the legs are twice as short as an ostrich, the torso is twice as long as an ostrich.

now look at a hawks skeleton or another flying birds skeleton, all the birds have one thing in common, there   compact build which houses muscles to power their wings , microraptor had a more slim , lizard like build

Not even close. The reason they think Microraptor couldn't fly is because it had smaller breast muscles and slightly downward pointing shoulders, but this is controversial and some people think Microraptor could fly, though weakly.

Slim and lizard like, maybe if you look at some 20 year old outdated pictures before we found good fossils like this one...

http://renum63.deviantart.com/art/Microraptor-fossilising-603202829

If you showed this picture to people who weren't dinosaur experts, and asked them if this is a bird or not, what do you think they'd say? To make them think it was just a bird-like dinosaur, you'd have to exaggerate a few things, like giving it a snarling, scaly lizard head...

lastly birds branched of from reptiles long ago

In phylogenetic nomenclature, no they didn't. Birds still are reptiles just like birds are still dinosaurs and birds are still vertebrates.

and have changed drastically they are closer related to crocodilians  than most basic reptiles and you can see the difference , so i dont see any reason for  anything a tiny bit below papos raptor is  a" MOVIE MONSTER"

Yes, you can see the difference between birds and crocodiles. you can see a pretty big difference between dromaeosaurids and crocodiles too. Microraptor looks a lot more like a bird than a crocodile to me. The Papo raptor looks like a movie monster for the same reason their Archaeopteryx looks like a movie monster. They're making a false bird/reptile hybrid using the most obvious features of each in a way chosen specifically to remind people of the scary monsters made for movies. The real Archaeopteryx didn't have horns or scales on its head or belly and neither did any other known maniraptoran.

[fason]

Velociraptor was no matter how you stretch speculation a lithe animal. It was certainly not bulky, and it was not running any marathons. It was a nocturnal or semi-nocturnal ambush predator, not a pursuit predator. No matter what it wasn't analogues to an ostrich.

Microraptor was not "lizard like" any more than a crow is. Microraptor was simply not adapted for gliding, it's aerodynamics are inefficient so at slow gliding speeds it would do no more than basic parachuting. At speed however the legs and tail generate lift, similar traits can be seen in birds of prey today that specialize in hunting in deep forests. There are also no known gliding pterosaurs, they also flew.

Most (if not all) theropods are closer to birds than to crocodiles, and crocodiles are a lot closer to birds than to any other extant reptiles.

yeah i was just trying to show velociraptor could have  been bald since we dont  know definately what it would have lived like.   


microraptor had four wings which would have suggested that it glid , why do i say this ? most creatures that glide use more of their body  like a parachute , if microraptor was trying to fly  it wouldnt evolve  four wings and a lighter body type , if it were trying to fly it would have had a more advanced body type  adapted to well flying .


At speed however the legs and tail generate lift, similar traits can be seen in birds of prey today that specialize in hunting in deep forests. There are also no known gliding pterosaurs, they also flew.
large pterosaurs  would have had to glide  it would be too much of a strain on their hollow bones (which were hollow to reduce weight  a trait helpful in gliding ) the tail and legs would  generate lift ,  because if you are going to glide you need to have lift to keep your altitude



Most (if not all) theropods are closer to birds than to crocodiles, and crocodiles are a lot closer to birds than to any other extant reptiles 
i said that because evolution caused birds to branch of away from them , crocodiles while closer to birds  still share the overall body type of a lizard or reptile . this shows even though  theropods were close to birds they could have had a different build and skin covering

[fason]

ostriches' skeletons dont indicate  a  robust animal , as a matter of fact they look quite similar to bird mimics skeletons however if you look at an ostrich they are more fatty and compact (in the bodily section i mean not on their long beautiful legs ), than they lead on to be (im getting somewhere believe me )

Superficially similar in overall shape, almost completely different in the details... The neck of Ornithomimus is more than three times as short as an ostrich, the legs are twice as short as an ostrich, the torso is twice as long as an ostrich.

now look at a hawks skeleton or another flying birds skeleton, all the birds have one thing in common, there   compact build which houses muscles to power their wings , microraptor had a more slim , lizard like build

Not even close. The reason they think Microraptor couldn't fly is because it had smaller breast muscles and slightly downward pointing shoulders, but this is controversial and some people think Microraptor could fly, though weakly.

Slim and lizard like, maybe if you look at some 20 year old outdated pictures before we found good fossils like this one...

http://renum63.deviantart.com/art/Microraptor-fossilising-603202829

If you showed this picture to people who weren't dinosaur experts, and asked them if this is a bird or not, what do you think they'd say? To make them think it was just a bird-like dinosaur, you'd have to exaggerate a few things, like giving it a snarling, scaly lizard head...

lastly birds branched of from reptiles long ago

In phylogenetic nomenclature, no they didn't. Birds still are reptiles just like birds are still dinosaurs and birds are still vertebrates.

and have changed drastically they are closer related to crocodilians  than most basic reptiles and you can see the difference , so i dont see any reason for  anything a tiny bit below papos raptor is  a" MOVIE MONSTER"

Yes, you can see the difference between birds and crocodiles. you can see a pretty big difference between dromaeosaurids and crocodiles too. Microraptor looks a lot more like a bird than a crocodile to me. The Papo raptor looks like a movie monster for the same reason their Archaeopteryx looks like a movie monster. They're making a false bird/reptile hybrid using the most obvious features of each in a way chosen specifically to remind people of the scary monsters made for movies. The real Archaeopteryx didn't have horns or scales on its head or belly and neither did any other known maniraptoran.

now for the ostrich bird mimic comparison i was showing overall body shape anyway ,

ot even close. The reason they think Microraptor couldn't fly is because it had smaller breast muscles and slightly downward pointing shoulders, but this is controversial and some people think Microraptor could fly, though weakly.

but i basically said that
now look at a hawks skeleton or another flying birds skeleton, all the birds have one thing in common, there   compact build WHICH HOUSES MUSCLES TO POWER THEIR WINGS.            , microraptor had a more slim , lizard like build what i meant by this is that it wasnt as thick as a bird was.


If you showed this picture to people who weren't dinosaur experts, and asked them if this is a bird or not, what do you think they'd say? To make them think it was just a bird-like dinosaur, you'd have to exaggerate a few things, like giving it a snarling, scaly lizard head  ,

well the thing is  fossils like this prove what ive been trying to say if you look at just the skeleton without the feathers and imprints  and it shows how different it was to a bird , (dont think i dont see that  the picture doesnt show what fossils of other specimens  show which is a jaw ).

In phylogenetic nomenclature, no they didn't. Birds still are reptiles just like birds are still dinosaurs and birds are still vertebrates.sorry by reptiles i meant reptilian forms


Yes, you can see the difference between birds and crocodiles. you can see a pretty big difference between dromaeosaurids and crocodiles too. Microraptor looks a lot more like a bird than a crocodile to me.


put wings on and add wing legs  to a young crocodiles skeletons then youll see

[stargatedalek]

I wish I was sorry to say this but I am running low on patience to "debate" these points with you. You simply ignore everything that is said and then interject your own ideas no matter how contradictory to the evidence they are. But in the spirit of debate I will respond this last time.

Not even close. The reason they think Microraptor couldn't fly is because it had smaller breast muscles and slightly downward pointing shoulders, but this is controversial and some people think Microraptor could fly, though weakly.

but i basically said that
now look at a hawks skeleton or another flying birds skeleton, all the birds have one thing in common, there   compact build WHICH HOUSES MUSCLES TO POWER THEIR WINGS.            , microraptor had a more slim , lizard like build what i meant by this is that it wasnt as thick as a bird was.

The above Microraptor skeleton and illustration is shown in death, in life it would look a lot more compact like this.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j99kSw62d_4/UXqxh2HdpAI/AAAAAAAAAaM/60Yi1ul40Io/s1600/07microraptor3.jpg

Take a look at this ibis skeleton, if anything this is less compact than Microraptor.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/jegcvczi5qj5c0ezlyup.jpg

Even a very compact bird like this Munia Finch isn't any more compact.
http://product-images.highwire.com/5249029/23d68327-a6bf-402b-8c74-e2d5513b1a0a.jpg

If you showed this picture to people who weren't dinosaur experts, and asked them if this is a bird or not, what do you think they'd say? To make them think it was just a bird-like dinosaur, you'd have to exaggerate a few things, like giving it a snarling, scaly lizard head  ,

well the thing is  fossils like this prove what ive been trying to say if you look at just the skeleton without the feathers and imprints  and it shows how different it was to a bird , (dont think i dont see that  the picture doesnt show what fossils of other specimens  show which is a jaw ).

A little paranoid much? The actual fossil is damaged and is missing the tip of the snout.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Microraptor_gui_holotype.png

In phylogenetic nomenclature, no they didn't. Birds still are reptiles just like birds are still dinosaurs and birds are still vertebrates.sorry by reptiles i meant reptilian forms


Yes, you can see the difference between birds and crocodiles. you can see a pretty big difference between dromaeosaurids and crocodiles too. Microraptor looks a lot more like a bird than a crocodile to me.

put wings on and add wing legs  to a young crocodiles skeletons then youll see

Well you're lucky I was very bored today because I should have just told you it wouldn't look anything like a dinosaur.

yeah i was just trying to show velociraptor could have  been bald since we dont  know definately what it would have lived like.

And I was trying to explain that you can't show something that simply isn't true. We actually know an impressive amount about how Velociraptor lived. We know what times of the day it was most active, we know what it ate, and we even know the exact method that it and other large dromaeosaurs used to dispatch their prey.

microraptor had four wings which would have suggested that it glid , why do i say this ? most creatures that glide use more of their body  like a parachute , if microraptor was trying to fly  it wouldnt evolve  four wings and a lighter body type , if it were trying to fly it would have had a more advanced body type  adapted to well flying .

No actually, that was disproved time and again. Microraptor simply lacked any specialization of its hips that would have been necessary in order to hold its legs at an angle where the "leg wings" were actually useful in gliding. Depictions such as this below are not only highly outdated in general but physically impossible.
http://f.tqn.com/y/dinosaurs/1/S/w/-/-/-/microraptorgetty.jpg

The "wings" on the legs are being held in a position where they are directing, not catching, the air underneath the animal. See below diagram.

Blue represents the maximum possible spread before Microraptor breaks its hip. Red represents the position which performed best in a wind tunnel. Red good blue bad.

At speed however the legs and tail generate lift, similar traits can be seen in birds of prey today that specialize in hunting in deep forests. There are also no known gliding pterosaurs, they also flew.

large pterosaurs  would have had to glide  it would be too much of a strain on their hollow bones (which were hollow to reduce weight  a trait helpful in gliding ) the tail and legs would  generate lift ,  because if you are going to glide you need to have lift to keep your altitude

Reducing weight is helpful in literally every aspect of an animals life from mating to catching food, not just gliding. I don't think you really understand aerodynamics or what constitutes the traits required for gliding or flight. Loosing weight is, if anything, more important for flight than for gliding because flying animals need to be able to exert a lot more effort and for a lot longer than a gliding animal.

Most (if not all) theropods are closer to birds than to crocodiles, and crocodiles are a lot closer to birds than to any other extant reptiles 

i said that because evolution caused birds to branch of away from them , crocodiles while closer to birds  still share the overall body type of a lizard or reptile . this shows even though  theropods were close to birds they could have had a different build and skin covering

I've been avoiding the ultimate short answer up until now but I honestly don't know what I can say to this besides "no" short of giving you a complete crash course on evolution itself as a concept.


Now to everyone else reading here I am honestly very sorry you had to put up with my tone here and I understand completely if anyone thinks I shouldn't have continued here and should have said nothing. But I've already dug myself this deep so if I'm just feeding a troll here sobeit I felt it was appropriate to finalize my statements on this.