Traumador the Tyrannosaur Profile
Subscribe To Traumador the Tyrannosaur's Blog
Having been released 15 years ago, it is often taken for granted these days just how cutting edge a sci-fi movie Jurassic Park was when it came out. Of course this was not due to the hard technical science about cloning featured in the film. It was simply a water downed version of Micheal Criton’s superior presentation of the concept in the original novel. Rather the film was a true break through in bringing Dinosaurs to life, in a way no novel or written work could, and with the advice of several palaeontologists these were the most scientifically accurate Hollywood Dinosaurs ever!
With the advance of special effects and the lowering of the budgets needed to use them, the market has since flooded with numerous CG Dinosaur documentaries that in some cases present Dinosaurs even more realistically than Jurassic Park did. This has lead to some in the modern era to come down rather harsh on the Jurassic Park franchise despite all the things it got right (keeping mind JP 3 aka “Attack of the Fish Eaters” does deserve this harsh treatment in my opinion).
The funny thing about especially the first film, is that many of its portrayals of / speculations about Dinosaurs have been proven correct through new fossil evidence coming to light well after the film.
A famous example is that of the films popular saurian villains the ”Raptors”. Originally modelled after Deinonychus, the than largest Dromaeosaurid known at the time of film’s production, Speilberg insisted the animals be enlarged for dramatic effect. Though there was no scientific logic behind this size increase, the same year as Jurassic Park’s release Utahraptor was discovered proving this family of Coelurosaurs did indeed at one stage reach the same size as the film’s animals.
Now this month yet another of the film’s speculations has been proven correct.
This one here. The classic Gallimimus stampede scene. Not only was it a thrilling display of special effects, but it drove home the then fresh new scientific view of Dinosaurs as social and bird-like animals. However there was no hard evidence that Ornithomimids ever “flocked” as shown on screen.
That is till this month with the publication of a new bonebed from China that preserves a “herd” of Ornithimimids (here is a link to the actual paper itself). The bonebed in question preserves around 20 individuals of the primitive Ornithimimid Sinornithomimus in varying states of articulation (that’s a fancy wording for bones together), and from what is known about the species all these animals are older than a hatchling but younger than an adult. In other words, it is a group of nothing but juveniles.
Often with Dinosaurs or other animals known only from fossils, social behaviour can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine from their long dead remains. A big part of this has to do with the timing involved in the burial and preservation of the animals after they have died. Even animals found together as fossils (aka dead in their own time) can not be reliably said to have interacted with each other when alive because they may have simply been buried together hours, days, months, or even years after each other.
This bonebed in China is a rare find though, as there is very strong evidence these individuals were all killed and buried at the same moment of time by the same mechanism and/or event. Which makes for a tight case on their having lived together in a herd (or “flock”) as to die together like this they would have had to all be alive together in close proximity at the time of death. A random running into each other (mind you, these were the fastest of Dinosaurs, so no pun intended!) and dying like this seems very unlikely!
This is a big discovery, but not the first indicator of Ornithimimid social behaviour.
Typically Ornithimimids are discovered as lone individuals. Which could led one to the false conclusion they were solitary animals in life. After all if they were found alone they must have lived alone. By this logic (the view of them until the 1970’s) Jurassic Park was taking a real artistic liberty showing them as herding animals.
However this loner skeleton was more likely caused by what scientists call a preservation biasis. Due to their being “small” theropods, Ornithimimids have bones that are light and small. In many natural environments these types of bones don’t last long. Due to the efforts of scavengers and the elements they are broken down before they can be buried and thus protected. Meaning they’re a lot less likely to fossilize than the bones of large animals.
This is why when looking through the pictures in many popular books larger Dinosaurs appear to have a larger amount of diversity than smaller Dinosaurs. This certainly, based on the real world, was not the case. It simple has to due with more larger species getting fossilized, and sadly only a small percent of smaller animals (of which Ornithimimids were actually quite a large example of) be fossilized for us to see.
Meaning any examples of ostrich mimics we find today is pretty impressive on their own.
However in the case of the Sinornithomimus bonebed we get lucky with a whole group not only dying together, but also in this rare instance fossilizing together as well. Though as I’ve hinted, this is not the only instance of multiple Ornithimimids being preserved together.
Many years earlier than Jurassic Park a pair of Dromiceiomimus young were found with a fully grown adult in Alberta Canada. This was the first evidence of social groups and offspring care in Ornithomimids. It is also this find which probably prompted the scientific advisors on Jurassic Park to suggest the Gallimimus herd in the film. Which when one thinks about it was still a fairly speculative move on the part of the film. A single adult with offspring doesn’t by any stretch mean what we saw in the film.
That is till now. Sort of anyways. This bonebed certainly suggests we could see a herd of Ornithomimids, but at the same time one still quite different than the one in the film. Again only juveniles were found together.
Which seems to indicate some sort of complex life cycle for these animals. When a hatchling they were tenderly and dutifully watching by their parents, but once they grew past this they may have been forced to go it alone minus the company of other animals their own age until they grow to parenthood themselves. This of course is mere speculation. There are any number of possible explanations.
The only for sure thing is, yet again the classic Dinosaur film Jurassic Park boasts one more accurate portrayal of Dinosaur behaviour, well before the actual evidence was found. With a minor edit being needed though of all the adult Gallimimuses be reduced in age a bit…
Traumador the Tyrannosaur from The Tyrannosaur Chronicles
(Also be sure to check out my reviews of Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park The Lost World, and Jurassic Park 3)
Write your blog with non-techie tools and be widely read thanks to our large, active community.
more posts...
Awesome article Traum! Incredible and definitely could be used in Jurassic Fight Club.
yes, JP opened the door for all the Walking with … and related dinodramas.
sometimes we have to hallucinate a little bit.
great article Traum
Amazing i didn’t know all of this about the movie.
I think Ornithomimids are one of the few dinosaur families I don’t know much about. Are they theropods?
As a fan of Jurassic Park this is a fantastic dinosaur site. Loved it.
Interesting, though i still havent got round to reading the book ;(
im doing a project in science about ornithomimus dinosaurs, they are big birds that look like reptiles, their name means “bird mimic” which means they were birds but didnt look like it. The ornothomimus and ornithomimid have a lot of the same charachteristics, for example: a long, stiff tail- long neck- three toes on each foot- a toothless beak- large eyes and short arms so if im not mistaken, this is an ornithomimus and you just got the names mixed up. im sorry about sounding like a smart alec but its just my opinion.
-sami (dino expert)
Uh…Sam? YOU have mistakes too. I think Traumador is the REAL expert on theropods here, as he IS a theropod and because he worked in the Royal Tyrrell Museum, which happens to have specimens from the family Ornithomimidae. The theropods like Ornithomimus, Struthiomimus, and Gallimimus belong to the Ornithomimid family. Know your taxonomy, dude! Besides, you are NO expert since you make simple mistakes like that! Know your field BEFORE you make conjectures like that!! You just sounded like an ignorant fool (no offense). So..no duh, they have the same characteristics. Ornithomimid is a family of Dinosauria, not a specific genus. “Bird-mimic” literally means bird copy. They are NOT birds, though they are really close. There you have it, I have proved YOU worng, though I’m no expert. Have the guts to admit it man.
Sam- You don’t sound like a smart alec, but at the same time your opinion is not sadly entirely correct. At the same time you are not completely wrong either ;p
To start off with in a way you are right when you say Ornithomimids are birds that are doing they’re best to look like their reptile ancestors… HOWEVER that is the case of nearly all meat eating Dinosaurs! They are the intermediate form between reptiles and birds. They are a mix match of characteristics of both… thus why we call them Dinosaurs, and not birds or reptiles.
The name Ornithomimus, the “bird mimic”, was given to the first very incomplete remains of these animals found by Marsh in the 1890’s which were hand and foot bones. He choose the name bird mimic as the toe bones in ornithomimids (that’s the family of ostrich like dinosaurs) were tightly packed together in the foot LIKE those in the feet of modern bones. They however were still somewhat different from birds (hence his calling it a “mimic”).
It wasn’t till long after Marsh’s death that a whole skeleton was found showing how much these animals looked LIKE an ostrich.
At the same time they are quite different than ostrichs, and for that matter all other modern birds. If you look at an ostrich skeleton you’ll notice what you’d think of a knee bends opposite to a humans. This is actually the ankle. On the skeleton you’ll notice an ostriches knee is ABOVE the rib cage. This is not the case in an Ornithomimid Dinosaur. Their knee is roughly where we think a knee should be, and the ankle though still high is way lower than on the ostrich.
Additionally no modern birds have three fingers hands or long tails like an Ornithomimid.
As for this “ornothomimus” I know of no such animal. Was it a typo in my post? I was only discussing the ostrich like Ornithomimid Dinosaurs.
I suggest you read
Thomas Holtz’s “Dinosaurs The most complete, up-to-date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of all ages”.
Wikipedia’s descent article on the Ornithomimid family here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimidae
or if you need more I can send you a very long list of good Dinosaur books.
raptor lewis: You are pretty mean and insulting to sam! i think it’s always best to not insult people even if you disagree with them. afterall we are all dinosaurfans here right?
and i visit your blog and see that you have a post saying that you don’t want people to be mean to others, but now you are doing the same thing!
sam might be wrong but you also make yourself come off as not-an-expert and really quite nasty!
@ Sam:
““bird mimic” which means they were birds but didnt look like it”
Are you sure? if you are something you wouldn’t need to mimic it. Am I wrong?
Cruziana: I’m sorry if you think so. I wasn’t trying to be mean, just making a point. He made a conjecture that I thought was understandable, but he called himself an expert. Read my comment again and tell me if I was still insulting or you see my point. I said “no offense” meaning I wasn’t being “mean,” but merely making a point. I admit I was wrong at some points too, but, again I was merely making a point. So Calm Down.
Traumador: Thanks for looking into this. ;-)
Dinorider: He obviously messed up that “bird mimic” literally means bird look-alike. You are, in fact, correct in that statement. Sam just messed up the meaning of what it is to be a mimic. What bugs me is called himself (or hersself, as the case may be) an expert. Read my comment and tell me if I was mean or if you get my point (the one below Sam’s comment.)
I guess Cruziana didn’t like this: “You just sounded like an ignorant fool (no offense)” as that may not sound really polite for a few of this site’s readers. However, I don’t consider you were “really quite nasty” either, reading your phrase in context helps to understand your point. When I read Sam’s comment I thought he was just another “know-it-all-kid”, you know sometimes they use that kind of talk (I hope this doesn’t sound rude, I’m just being sincere)… On the other hand, it may be better to avoid using some phrases in some places. Anyway! … BTW If any of us makes a mistake and somebody else notices that, a correction should always be welcome. Wait! We aren’t commenting the post itself! Let’s move on guys! We all put our feet in our mouths sometimes.
===
My mother tongue is not english but I think you can get my point.
Haha, I guess you’re right, Dinorider, and thank you. Yes, Let’s move on. BTW, Dinorider, I got your point just fine.
Aparrently (sp?), the ornithomimid Siornithomimus either does not exist or is not on the web yet. I just looked on Google search and it gave me No results other than a “did you mean” thing for Ornithomimus. I have two words for that “Muy interesante.”
Perhaps Siornithomimus is the lost devilish twin of Sinornithomimus!
¡Muy interesante! LOL
Glad you caught my humor, Dinorider (though I was trying to be serious with the “muy interesante.”) What do you mean by “evil twin,” Dinorider?
1.- Yes, we also use the “muy interesante” seriously, that’s even a polite way of showing sarcasm among us. 2.- When someone says that he/she has seen someone pretty similar to me, I say “oh, that must have been my ‘evil twin’”. Just a “joke”!
SORRY!!!!!!!!!! I MAY HAVE MADE A FEW MISTAKES… oops all caps lol. btw im a girl
-sam (dino disaster)
Sam- Don’t worry about it. I’ve already dropped it. Just watch what you say next time. Mistakes happen to everybody, especially in Paleontology. Even the experts make mistakes. Sorry for the gender confusion, though I’m not at all surprised. I wasn’t sure if your name was “Samuel” or “Samantha.” Although I always tried to refer to you with “him/her” or “s/he.”
Thanks. You’ve helped me a lot in school because now in science i think my opinions through before I raise my hand, my teacher said “Sam, your a very smart student but I’ve noticed you seem to take your opinions out of hand, but you have also slowed down a little, too” So I’ve been doing research and I’ve noticed that some of my opinions are correct and some were WAY off contact.
Sam- Good to see some improvement…but do I know you? Were you really talking to me?
Yes and no, I was directing that to anyone who commented about my mistake. Thanks
Ooooooooh….ok. I get it Sam. Sorry. I’m now Moderator of this Forum.