Lockwood Estate Dioramas

So, according to EW, the dioramas in Lockwood Estate don't contain models of dinosaurs, but are in fact taxidermied specimens. This seems to infer, that these were early clones at some point prior to Jurassic Park.

So far the ones seen in the film that are taxidermied are:

* Apatosaurus
* Concavenator
* Dilophosaurus
* Dimetrodon
* Dracorex
* Mononykus
* Velociraptor

This leads to a bit of an issue. Concavenator and Dracorex were formally described in 2010 and 2006 respectively, and one of the pages of InGen's list mentions Suchomimus which was formally described in 1998.

So does this imply that InGen ended up discovering new species due to the DNA extraction progress, before their actual fossils were discovered?

Wait...they are taxidermied specimens?? It's my headcanon, but I never imagine this is canon. Is this confirmed? Can you give me the link?

http://ew.com/movies/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-concept-art/#bone-up

Quote: "This isn’t the Museum of Natural History but the private collection of Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), John Hammond’s former InGen partner who has his own fascination with dinosaurs. Not only are there assembled skeletons, but Lockwood has stuffed dinosaurs as well. “J.A. chose a whole series of dinosaurs that you haven’t seen in the movie before — in any of the franchises before — and put them into dioramas and gave them each a little story,” Nicholson adds, before teasing, “This room is quite important in the film — quite a lot of things happen in there.”"

Oh I see. I only read the first sentence. I think it's possible that InGen found New species' DNA before paleontologists discovered them. They didn't know exactly what it is. For example, Troodon pectinodon (although it's a soft-canon). Dr. Sorkin didn't know what she extracted and cloned. She figured out it's a Troodon after hatching.

IDK it doesn't feel that Lockwood would do something like this and taxidermied animals. Especially some young Apatosaurus. To me, they are just some models of the JP dinosaurs.

I don't know, I think that this is something that should be brought up with Colin Trevorrow on Twitter, and see what his thoughts are on this.

Alas, I don't have a Twitter myself, but since this is well within the grey area of canonicity, it should be brought up to get an official word on it.

I think Bayona's wording is informal and not necessarily indicative of a canon fact.

I've chosen to dismiss the implied appearance of species described later in canon than the science behind the series implies, but I can play. Given genetic science is obviously more advanced in the series than in real life, we can assume paleontology is also moving at a similarly advanced pace, and assume these recent discoveries were a few decades earlier. There's a lot of "butterflies" (butterfly effect) that might mess that up, but we also know we have Grant, Burke, and presumably other fictional paleontologists with their ideas, theories, and work. We also know inGen, and possibly BioSyn or other companies, have been funding paleontological digs.

So, there's no obvious "point of divergence", but say in the '70's, early inGen starts funding digs with fictional paleontologists, you have twice as much money and twice as many discoveries and work being done, and that increases through the '80's and '90's as inGen grows. This also places inGen on the cutting edge of paleontology since, as investors, they'll be quick to know about the new discoveries. So by the present, they're decades ahead of where we are in reality, and for some reason, Burke or Grant or someone came up with the exact fossil and name Suchomimus twenty to thirty years earlier, and so forth.

Of course, Dracorex is probably synonymous with Pachycephalosaurus in real life, much less in a fictional universe where we generally accept the clumping of species like Deinonychus and Velociraptor, so it's entirely possible Dracorex is basically a Pachy. (Hell, without dialogue reference to Stygimoloch, I keep pretending it's a younger Pachy in-series.)

1money wrote:

Alas, I don't have a Twitter myself, but since this is well within the grey area of canonicity, it should be brought up to get an official word on it.

I would happily do this but I recently bothered him about something else and I worry shooting too many questions his way from me would reduce the chance of a response to any. Also, my account is supposed to be retired :p

NikoRex wrote:

IDK it doesn't feel that Lockwood would do something like this and taxidermied animals. Especially some young Apatosaurus. To me, they are just some models of the JP dinosaurs.

Not to mention some of them clearly are vastly physiologically different from their living depictions. The Raptor is also shown to be a male, which we know would be impossible unless Lockwood has illegally poached one from Isla Sorna. That would feel REEEEAAALLY out of character for him.