RE: JP3 Thoughts (frilled Dilophosaurus revisited)

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Adam Britton
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:02 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: JP3 Thoughts (frilled Dilophosaurus revisited)

From: "ANN SCHMIDT" <ashmidt@flash.net>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:47 AM


> Also wouldn't a frill on a creature that large need some
> bones/stiff rods and/or muscle scars on the neck that would be relatively
> apparent on the fossil?  Venom glands would leave marks on the skull as
well
> right?

Yes, there would be morphological evidence on fossils to support the
existance of supporting bones (or more likely cartilage) and areas for
muscle attachment. However, I think the point of this "but what if?" thread
is not to suggest that this species did have a frill etc, but rather to
question the assumption that it was impossible in the context of the film.
As I understand it, there are three species of _Dilophosaurus_ that have
currently been found in the fossil record, and none have evidence or frills
or poison glands. This meagre evidence does not catagorically rule out the
existence of other taxonomically similar species of Dilophosaurus does it?
Who knows what morphological variations they may have had. If JP was saying
that _D. wetherilli_ had a frill and poison glands, then it would be wrong
because the fossil clearly shows it didn't. If they are saying that a
previously unknown species of _Dilophosaurus_ could have had a frill and
poison gland, then we can't prove categorically that this was not the case.
We can argue that these adaptations were highly unlikely given the limited
knowledge we have of the time and habitat, but we can't be completely and
totally sure.<<

I tire of these kind of posts, and people trying to justify a movie. As has
been often said 'It's just a MOVIE'. They do what that want and damn
science.

>>That's all the movie makers need - an admittedly remote possibility - to
justify a plot device that makes a film more "fun" to a wider audience. Who
cares if it annoys a bunch of pedantic scientists such as ourselves?
Frankly, that's not where the multi-million dollar profit comes from. The
value of Jurassic Park is far greater in its ability to interest and inspire
current and future generations. Don't tell me that we're "annoyed" about the
current JPIII when you see what publicity it is bringing to science in
general and paleontology in particular. We're the ones who have to take the
spark of interest that's generated and then run with it.

AFAIK, movie producers/makers what ever, don't ask if something is actually
possible, just 'Hey wouldn't that look great! Lets do it'. They don't care
about facts, just what draws people to the theater. They don't try to
justify things, they don't have to. Need I remind you all of Anaconda? Like
that could REALLY happen. Yea, and a whole new crop of people asking
questions and stating facts of the movie because they saw it on the big
screen. I hate RAPTOR!!! Thanks to JP etc, it is forever etched into the
public. I have a Deinonychus claw necklace (I made) and have to explain to
people that it's a raptor claw not a Deinonychus because of the
misinformation of JP and that is the only way they will know what it is.
They could have easily said Dromaeosaurs in the movies. But it doesn't sound
as good as a raptor to them so that gets used instead. I'm just glad that
when they do investigate things for themselves they are disappointed in the
movie for their misinformation.

I wonder if Ichthyologist went through the same thing with JAWS?

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074