Ken Kinman wrote:
Christopher,
I must admit that the Dilophosaurus depiction in Jurassic Park I really
made me angry when I found out later that there was no evidence of a frill
or spitting. I knew very little about dinosaurs at that time, and naively
assumed if spitting was referred to verbally by Richard Kiley's description
and visually when the computer guy was attacked, then there must be some
evidence to back it up.
I guess the big distinction I have yet to get over is this; what is the difference between JP showing a _Dilophosaurus_ with a neck frill and a spitting attack and Luis Rey's "Deinonychus: A New Look For The Year 2000"?
(Now, before I start getting angry emails about this, let me say this; I'm not really trying to draw a direct comparison between Luis Rey's work and the creature designs of JP; Luis Rey's work just happens to spring to mind when I think about depictions of dinosaurs that boldly explore speculative surface anatomy.)
So what kind of evidence is needed before the possibility of a neck frill can be allowed? Unless a _Dilophosaurus_ "mummy" is found, I don't see how anyone can say that there is evidence for or against it.
Now, I'm not suggesting that such speculation is good science. By that method, we could hypothesize all sorts of outlandish things; but a neck frill doesn't seem to me to be that outlandish. It's not like it was depicted with laser beams coming out of its eyes, you know...