HOME | DD
JoshuaDunlop β Raptor
Published: 2008-09-22 19:51:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 5045; Favourites: 186; Downloads: 89
Redirect to original
Description
Just a random raptor i drew
Related content
Comments: 100
They are birds, they have feathers, therefore they create a comparison. It was a metaphor, obviously they are not going to look just like chickens, yet the comparison is to emphasize the feathers. For example some people compare water to a person's personality, which is to emphasize a quality, it is not to say that their personality is really water. This is also kind of random, considering I made this comment what seems to be eons ago.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thankyou very much, but ill be doing some non feathered dinos aswell 
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh good, hardly anyone draws dinosaurs(good ones that is of course) on dA any longer, especially raptors. I look forward to them!
π: 0 β©: 1
All animals known to have feathers are dinosaurs. Because, you know, dinosaurs are Triceratops, the common sparrow, their latest common ancestor and all of its descendants...
π: 0 β©: 1
I said it betrayed the word dinosaur in the sense that dinosaur means "giant lizard". Dinosaurs are not exactly to my knowledge a branch of feathery creatures, they would not exactly be dinosaurs then. You said dinosaurs are triceratops... they are a kind of dinosaur yes... you then randomly burst into an appositive about the common sparrow. What about it? You fail to elaborate your statements, and furthermore present any feasible evidence...
π: 0 β©: 2
I don't think you know what you're talking about
And dinosaur means "terrible lizard", not "giant".
π: 0 β©: 2
They are dinosaurs, you never stop belonging to a clade. That's why Reptilia is a paraphyletic grouping, while Sauropsida isn't.
Oh, and Amniotes are not descendants from Amphibians, Amphibia is just the sister clade of Amniota, who comes from basal Tetrapods.
Also, Pisces doesn't exist, you end up having half of the Clades within being closer to the rest of vertebrates that to other clades, to end up taking away from it one of its crown groups. Craniata is where we are.
Birds are a kind of dinosaur. Dinosaur is broader that bird, just like ape is broader that human. It's not differentiation, it's especification.
π: 0 β©: 1
Aves
I always thought they stopped being dinosaurs, and became something else.
π: 0 β©: 0
...I actually corrected myself later if you would deign to read forward. I do not claim, neither will I ever claim to be an authority on dinosaurs, I know little to nothing about them. What exactly makes it seem like I don't know what I am talking about?
I first started with an incorrect statement, that is true. Then I state that I did not know that any dinosaurs had feathers. hence I know nothing about them. Then I asked why he said triceratops, a question... I am again not defying myself. Then I ask why he makes an appositive about the common sparrow, again nothing strange there, again a question. Then I stated that his comment did not elaborate in enough detail in order to answer my looming questions about dinosaurs.
There is not exactly anything in the context of message that would suggest I don't know what I am talking about. I know well what I speak of, and considering the response I was given, apparently the person whom I was originally speaking to, understood what I was trying to get across as well.
Anything that I did not give sufficient evidence to support the your statement is completely opinionated... and wrong...
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't really make a statement. There was nothing to argue, except your 'knowledge' on dinosaur taxonomy and phylogeny. See, there are feathered dinosaurs. And then there's birds. At one point down the coelurosaurian tree, dinosaurs stop being dinosaurs and become birds. Totally different group.
Modern birds are NOT dinosaurs. They are birds.
But there were dinosaurs that were feathered, for insulation purposes, or display. Birds then evolved them for flying. But that's as far as it goes.
π: 0 β©: 1
...Yes, but I never made that claim in the first place! So there is no knowledge to dispute. What I was arguing was your claim that I did not know what I was talking about notice my wording, "to my knowledge". I figured that quite clearly made the distinction that I did not understand the concept and desired clarification on the matter, I was not stating my message as a irrefutable fact. Apparently I was mistaken.
Yes, I would say that, "I don't think you really know what you are talking about", is indeed a statement. For it is not imperative, interrogative, or exclamatory, which means it is declarative, which means it is a statement. Of course so far as this goes, it was obviously an opinion, as a fact would not have the word "really" in it... Your facts would have been helpful and in a way still are if I had not received the earlier responses that I did. I thank you for your description.
π: 0 β©: 1
Keep your wordiness to a minimum. Rewrite it as:
I never said that. There is nothing to argue. I clearly made the distinction that I did not understand the concept, and I wanted to know more about it.
Fluffy comments make me lazy!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. Too wordy. Make your point as quick as possible when writing english. You could have said that in less words.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course I could, but that is not the way I write, I never have, I likely never will. I am long-winded, I make everything more complicated than it has to be. I am not doing it to "sound fancy" it is just something I always have and will likely always do.
When writing English? What, is there some other language that you would think I would or rather, should utilize? I do not see any benefit in being abrupt anyhow, so is there any specific reason you are telling me that I am being "too wordy"? Short of speaking or writing to someone from another country, that style of writing holds little value to me really...
π: 0 β©: 1
Just some advice I thought I'd pass along. Complicated people usually get shot, like me. So now I try to be as concise as possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
Shot? XD Okay, I don't know about getting shot for being English savvy...
π: 0 β©: 0
That definition is the one of Dinosauria in scientifical papers, and makes a nice monophyletic group. Dinosaur does not mean giant lizard, thinking so means you have an outdated idea of them. Also, all major groups within Coelurosauria had feathers in some way or another, and, seeing that Coelurosauria is one of the most sucessful clades within dinosaurs, being the only one to survive the K-T mass extinction (birds fall within Coelurosauria), I can assure you most dinosaurs had feathers, although they were the smaller ones.
Why those species? Dinosauria is comprise of two orders, Saurischia and Ornithischia. Each one of them is comprised of two suborders, Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha in the first case; and Tyerophora and Cerapoda in the second. To define a clade, all animals that fall within it should be included, so the definition has to include animals of both orders, and, rather that from a steam group, from a crown group. The common sparrow fits the role for Saurischia, being alive while Tyrannosaurus or Hesperornis are dead; and Triceratops fits the role for Ornithischia, being one of the last ones.
And there is no way to remove birds from Dinosauria without making things look bad as you move through the Coelurosauria evolutionary record. Just no.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, I am being serious dinosaur means "Terrible Lizard" in Greek, which is why I say it betrays the word dinosaur. Thank you for your knowledge though, it was just your statement was just a bit confusing to me, thank you for clearing that up...
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, understood, sorry if I went overboard
The word was coined when Iguanodon had a horn and quadrupedal Megalosaurus hunted it, so its original meaning is a bit iffy...
π: 0 β©: 1
You can never go overboard after all, you just know a lot more than I do about dinosaurs.(Which I actually no close to nothing about them)
π: 0 β©: 0
I love his face - he's got a lot of personality for a critter that had limited facial muscle.
He kinda reminds me of the little Baeolophus bicolor that hang around our yard. Those little birds have attitude for as tiny as they are.
π: 0 β©: 3
lol cool, thankyou very much
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree wholeheartedly my african-american brother.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey Josh how is PokΓ©mon Source coming along? Seems very abandoned
π: 0 β©: 1
At the moment its at a standstill... its annoying me tbh, its cos kink has a lot on his plate with uni etc but itll all get started back up december time hopefully, i did tell him to leave a message but yer... sorry bro
π: 0 β©: 1
Then I'll be sitting in the corner waiting :3
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks bro means alot
π: 0 β©: 1
Dunno, bit weird since I am not in the team
π: 0 β©: 1
fair enough, keep at it and get in touch
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool! That looks really good! Why'd you give it 4 toes?
π: 0 β©: 1
dunno tbh, just kinda happened, i was gonna change it back but i kinda liked it
π: 0 β©: 1
I like it too, surprisingly!
π: 0 β©: 1
lol
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow very nice and I like how you kept the feathers because you know how people thought raptors didin't have feathers
π: 0 β©: 1
yer, its all been back and forth, but feathers look really elegant
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah they do don't they?
π: 0 β©: 1
im pretty sure they have proven they do now
π: 0 β©: 1
Good thing too they better with em if you ask me.
π: 0 β©: 1
yer same, tho i miss the oldies at times
π: 0 β©: 1
Yea they were good with the biting and the clawing being the best
π: 0 β©: 1
It's so cute! Hah, I love velociraptor, and you've done a fantastic job on the shading, feathers and pose. The detail around the eyes is especially nice, as is the jaw with the little teeth sticking out. Very nice work, Josh, and lovely pattern across the body! <3
π: 0 β©: 1
Thankyou very much, glad you like it
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |