I’ve been reading through Michael Crichtons Jurassic park and procompsognathus actually play a fairly big role in the books. It’s cool trying to conceptualize what they would have really looked like
Yesss. There are so many. I do wish that the Jurassic franchise played fast and loose with its title (since they already gave us many Cretaceous animals) and gave us animals from many different time periods, including therapsids from the Paleozoic. Imagine an Inostrancevia or Rubidgea atrox in this franchise.
It's not proven that Compy had feathers or not since just it's cousin was discovered with it, but not itself so it's up for debate and as of now, only wrists are different.
Thats like saying that fur in sabretooth cats is up for 50%/50% debated because there is no hard proof for it. There is irrefutable proof for feathers in multiple really close relatives and all over its extanded family, so yeah feathers in compsognathus are all but confirmed. Just like every single cat, and even every single terrestrial carnivoran mammal living today has fur, so its safe to assume sabretooth tigers had aswell.
In Jurassic World Dr. Henry Wu said that's because they had to use frog DNA to fill in the gaps. The dinosaurs turned out totally different from what they would have actually looked like. That's a Canon explanation.
It was proven that the movie version is smaller it’s about as big as an average chicken in real life. Version it is as big as 5.4 feet long that’s a very big difference.
Indeed. I mainly mentioned the Novels Procompsognathus in order to establish they are a seperate genera from Compsognathus. Due to the fact I often hear the two mixed up in discussions.
@@DinoGuy8 coelophysids are the most basal family of theropods, while compsognathus was a coelurosaur, which means compsognathus was more closely related to Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and even birds.
Afaik compsognathus are only assumed to have been feathered; but there was never any fossil evidence of this. While one could say because their cousin had it then it's fairly likely they did, all fossils not showing evidence also creates it's own case....best not to state something as an absolute fact until more concrete evidence is known.
I’ve been reading through Michael Crichtons Jurassic park and procompsognathus actually play a fairly big role in the books. It’s cool trying to conceptualize what they would have really looked like
can you make a video about prehistoric creatures that need more media attention?
Yesss. There are so many. I do wish that the Jurassic franchise played fast and loose with its title (since they already gave us many Cretaceous animals) and gave us animals from many different time periods, including therapsids from the Paleozoic. Imagine an Inostrancevia or Rubidgea atrox in this franchise.
@@Betweentheraindrops8 what about creatures from early Cenozoic South America.
It's not proven that Compy had feathers or not since just it's cousin was discovered with it, but not itself so it's up for debate and as of now, only wrists are different.
Well, allow me to rephrase. Proto-feathers on Compsognathus are very likely. It’s mainly an example of phylogenetic bracketing.
actually it's VERY likely they had protofeathers
@@DinoGuy8 Yeah certainly, but it's not proven yet it's 50%/50%,
@@velociraptorserbian4364more like 80/20%
Thats like saying that fur in sabretooth cats is up for 50%/50% debated because there is no hard proof for it.
There is irrefutable proof for feathers in multiple really close relatives and all over its extanded family, so yeah feathers in compsognathus are all but confirmed.
Just like every single cat, and even every single terrestrial carnivoran mammal living today has fur, so its safe to assume sabretooth tigers had aswell.
In Jurassic World Dr. Henry Wu said that's because they had to use frog DNA to fill in the gaps. The dinosaurs turned out totally different from what they would have actually looked like. That's a Canon explanation.
Can you do the Jurassic world allosaurus to the real life
The procompys in the book has a very nasty venom as well
The fact that the real life version is bigger than the Jurassic Park version is crazy.
It was proven that the movie version is smaller it’s about as big as an average chicken in real life. Version it is as big as 5.4 feet long that’s a very big difference.
Dilophosaurus and triceratops are also smaller in Jurassic Park
You should do jurassic brachi vs accurate brachi
Technically the "accurate brachiosaurus" isn't even a brachiosaurus lol (Giraffatitian)
Compare a real giganotosaurus to both the Ingen and Biosyn versions
Honestly it would be cooler to see a comparison between all the giga designs in the jp franchise and the real animal
Procompsognathus was a coelophysid, which means that it wasn't closely related to compsognathus.
Indeed. I mainly mentioned the Novels Procompsognathus in order to establish they are a seperate genera from Compsognathus. Due to the fact I often hear the two mixed up in discussions.
@@DinoGuy8 coelophysids are the most basal family of theropods, while compsognathus was a coelurosaur, which means compsognathus was more closely related to Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and even birds.
@@billyr2904 Yes… I know. As I said. I was mainly establishing that they were different in the video…
Afaik compsognathus are only assumed to have been feathered; but there was never any fossil evidence of this. While one could say because their cousin had it then it's fairly likely they did, all fossils not showing evidence also creates it's own case....best not to state something as an absolute fact until more concrete evidence is known.