Meet Screature, the latest in a long line of robotic dinosaur companions, including Roboraptor and their kin. Like many other robotic dinosaur "pets", Screature can be put into guard mode, roars, responds to your touch, and can interact with you via an infared sensor. But wait, Screature is different, can't you tell? Still can't get it, well look at this...
(Image Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Meet Dilophosaurus wetherelli, a large coelophysoid theropod found across North America, known from both fossils in the Arizona Kayenta Formation, and footprints scattered across New England and labelled "Eubrontes". "Screature", is the first robotic dilophosaurus...with a frill.
For those of you that have been living under a rock for the past decade or two, Dilophosaurus' first and only appearance in film was in the famous (or among palentologists, infamous) movie Jurassic Park. Well, I guess I shouldn't call it a Dilophosaurus anymore, seeing as how it was the size of a dog, had a frill, and spat poison at its enemies (and the occasional obese man
Now, don't go blaming Michael Crichton for this. He actually has an excuse. In the original book Jurassic Park, Crichton has Dilophosaurus at its normal size (20 feet long), and is completely frill-less. Now, it does spit poison, but there is a reason for this. Dilophosaurus had rather weak jaws for a theropod, probably using its flexible, weak jaws to snag smaller animals, and then using its massive ripper talons on its forelimbs to bring down larger animals. Crichton, thinking that Dilos had to have another way to catch prey if its jaws were so weak (and getting a dose of misinformation from one Gregory S. Paul), gave it poisonous saliva, like a Komodo Dragon, and the ability to spit it.
Enter Steven Spielberg. Spielberg screwed up the original telling of Jurassic Park in so many ways. He edited out the compy scene, gave the raptors steroids, and changed the plot of the book (originally ALL the dinosaurs couldn't see you if you stood still, because of the frog DNA) so that the "he can't see you if you don't stand still" was part of the T-rex's natural genome. But by far, his greatest screw-up was with the Dilophosauruses. To "distinguish them from the raptors", he shrunk the Dilos down (ironically, to the natural size of a Velociraptor), and gave them a gaudy frill.
This is a great injustice to Dilophosaurus. Dilophosaurs were the first large carnivorous dinosaurs ever, that's what made them so interesting. Not to mention there is no evidence of frills or poison in Dilophosaurus. One can tell if an animal was poisonous or not, by the way their teeth are built; they are grooved. Dilophosaurus...no grooved teeth. In fact NO dinosaur, save a possible tooth from Baja California, has any evidence to suggest they were venomous. As for the frill, frills are attached to the body by muscle (especially if they can be erected and moved), and so we would be able to tell if Dilophosaurus had a frill...it didn't.
So why is Screature so bad? Despite all of the evidence pointing against a Spiebergian Dilophosaurus, pop culture seems to refuse the actual idea of a non-venomous, frill-less, though bigger and tougher Dilophosaurus. Screature is just the latest in a long line of these, ParaWorld and other pop culture items (even in places like DeviantArt) have a frilled Dilophosaurus, and seem to be following the "Rule of Cool" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool more than any actual science. The only non-Spiebergian Dilo out there? Turok. Yes, Turok. Turok is the sole non-scientific piece of pop culture that shows Dilos as they truly are, rather than what the public wants them to be. This really has to stop, we can't be holding onto disproven ideas, just because they are cool. That's not how the world works...
This post brought to you by a Dilophosaurus wetherelli playing an electric guitar.
I've gotta see a dilophosaurus play an electric guitar! LOL!
I disagree with you that Spielberg "Screwed it up". It was a DNA side effect to replace dilophosaurus' absence for frog DNA. So they used a possible animal like a frilled lizard DNA. And some cobra DNA, for spitting.
Despite Screature's copied appearance, he is still a cool toy and I think it is awesome that they follow Jurassic Park. JP Dilophosauruses are AWESOME. Personaly, I like them better than the original.
The reason why it was the size of a dog is because it was a 7 month old baby. That is why it waited and watch Dennis Nedry (Fat guy) because he was confused or was waiting for the right momment.
And why do you have to make such a big deal about it? "The MADNESS continues"? MAYBE, THEY GOT THE IDEA FROM JURASSIC PARK AND IT WAS INTENDED THAT WAY...I mean you should REALLY look at what is going here...
ONE: We don't know for sure about dilophosaurus, and you can't tell if they had a frill from their mussels. Dilophosaurus had a VERY weak jaw, and it was small too, for his body size. Dilophosaurus wetherelli "Venefer" had a radius-angled jaw, so it could expand its mouth greatly. Dilophosaurus had thick 'neck bones' which are strong enough to hold, oh, say, a 20 pound RETRACTABLE FRILL. In fact, on the 1st dilophosaurus skeleton discovered, there were these long, feather-like scars, kinda looking like FRILLS. But however, there are many rumors today that fossilized plant material was buried over it while it died, or perhaps fossilized feathers.
TWO: What's the point of making a big deal about something that is probably not true? People chase things that aren't proven ALL THE TIME. Until proven wrong or right. That IS how the world works, my friend...
Don't take it personally. Metalraptor has a right to his opinion too.
Several lizards have extendable frills, such as anoles and the frilled lizard. However, all of these lizards have large, complex hyoid bones, to support the frill. Dilophosaurus does not have this.
As for the spitting poison, an angular jaw does not mean the animal spat poison. Spitting cobras are able to do it because of the way their fangs are built. Dilophosaurs did not have these kinds of teeth.
Secondly, where did you hear about the "venefer" specimen. Was it in Prehistoric Times? Because I seem to remember the author of the Dilophosaurus article doing a fake abstract of a "new" Dilophosaurus specimen based on the fictional Jurassic Park one.
"MAYBE, THEY GOT THE IDEA FROM JURASSIC PARK AND IT WAS INTENDED THAT WAY..."
That is the entire point I am trying to make, that every representation of Dilophosaurus in pop culture (except one or two), is the frilled, spitting Jurassic Park version. I wouldn't mind so much if some real Dilophosauruses were interspersed in there, but the fact that a fictional representation is actually better known than the real thing can be rather irritating.
However, I do see your point about the "baby" hypothesis.
If they had handwaved the spitting behavior and frill of the Dilophosaurus in the movie as being the above, I probably would have excepted it. But instead they went out of their way to say thats really how alike to the originals the dinosaurs were. Crichton had an excuse for the poison spitting, but Spielberg had no excuse for the spitting or the frill.
I gotta say that i used TO Love dilophosours from JP, It wasnt until recently i found this "Screature" on an advert for christmas toys, lol i tryed to find what it was, but then i found it, i would definaltly get one, but is a 14 year old to old tp get a cool CHIBI like version of one of his fave JP Dinos ever?
I don't think it's too old. I collected JP stuff when I was 20. Don't tell my partner though. ;)
Post a Comment