Jurassic World Species List?

I have decided I want to do a somewhat deep analysis of the animals surrounding Jurassic World to see if we can get ourselves a species list of animals that are in the park/have been cloned.

First, it would be worth nothing that in the movie, Gray says that there are "fourteen herbivores and six carnivores." I am not sure what this entails. Does it include Mosasaurus, Pteranodon, and Dimorphodon? Because if it includes those three than we have a problem, because then we have seven carnivores.

Here is the list of 100% confirmed animals that we know are in the park somewhere. For this list, I am going to make the assumption that aerial and aquatic animals are not included in the list that Gray stated. Indominus rex and Velociraptor are not included because neither is known by the public.

Carnivores
Baryonyx walkeri
Indominus rex (not included in Gray's species count)
Metriacanthosaurus parkeri
Suchomimus tenerensis
Tyrannosaurus rex
Velociraptor ?mongoliensis? (not included in Gray's species count; does anyone know what the species name is? I doubt it is V. antirrhopus mainly because of something that I'm putting in the list later on, but I'm very skeptical that it is supposed to be V. mongoliensis)

Herbivores
Ankylosaurus magniventris
Apatosaurus ?ajax? (is it perhaps A. excelsus, thus making it Brontosaurus?)
Edmontosaurus ?annectens? (perhaps E. regalis?)
Gallimimus bullatus
Microceratops gobiensis
Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis
Parasaurolophus walkeri
Stegosaurus stenops
Triceratops horridus

Aerial
Dimorphodon macronyx
Pteranodon longiceps

Aquatic
Mosasaurus maximus

What you'll notice about this list is that it is lacking five herbivores (with only nine) and two carnivores (with only four).

Thus, I turned my attention to the image of the Innovation Center on the Website that has:
Allosaurus fragilis? (possibly Alioramus or Aucasaurus?)
Brachiosaurus altithorax
Deinonychus antirrhopus
Dilophosaurus wetherilli/"venenifer"
Elaphrosaurus bambergi
Hadrosaurus foulkii
Hoplitosaurus marshi
Lesothosaurus diagnosticus
Nipponosaurus sachalinensis
Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus

This gets us to fourteen herbivores, but adds more carnivores than six.

What do you guys think?

I believe on the JPL Encyclopedia the working name for the Raptors was V. antirrhopus "masranii" (basically the four Raptors were set as that species, but I cant really remember since I dont think it was ever put into action).

The Jurassic Park Velociraptor is supposed to be Deinonychus antirrhopus. SWS based the Raptors in JP off of their depictions in the novel, which were in turn based off of Deinonychus antirrhopus. To research for Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton used Gregory S. Paul's book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". Greg Paul got most of HIS information from Bakker, who like Paul and Jack Horner, is a clumper. Clumpers like to take closely related genera and combine them under one species. So, Deinonychus antirrhopus and Sauronitholestes langstoni became Velociraptor antirrhopus and Velociraptor langstoni respectively. In the first printed editions of Crichton's book, there's even a passage where Grant tells Tim that "Deinonychus is considered one of the Velociraptors now." Spielberg, who also sourced Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World," followed suit with the odd naming convention and it's been controversy ever since.

CT-1138 wrote:

The Jurassic Park Velociraptor is supposed to be Deinonychus antirrhopus. SWS based the Raptors in JP off of their depictions in the novel, which were in turn based off of Deinonychus antirrhopus. To research for Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton used Gregory S. Paul's book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". Greg Paul got most of HIS information from Bakker, who like Paul and Jack Horner, is a clumper. Clumpers like to take closely related genera and combine them under one species. So, Deinonychus antirrhopus and Sauronitholestes langstoni became Velociraptor antirrhopus and Velociraptor langstoni respectively. In the first printed editions of Crichton's book, there's even a passage where Grant tells Tim that "Deinonychus is considered one of the Velociraptors now." Spielberg, who also sourced Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World," followed suit with the odd naming convention and it's been controversy ever since.

I'm aware of that, but I wasn't sure if it still applied in Jurassic World.

.

Taking into account the possibility that some dinosaurs might have multiple versions, Gray's comment about the number of dinosaurs in the park could still be accurate. If there are fourteen herbivores and six carnivores, here is how they'd have to work out.

We know there are a total of 18 species in the park at the time of the film. They are:
-Ankylosaurus (herbivore)
-Apatosaurus (herbivore)
-Baryonyx (carnivore)
-Dimorphodon (carnivore)
-Edmontosaurus (herbivore)
-Gallimimus (herbivore)
-Indominus (carnivore)
-Metriacanthosaurus (carnivore)
-Microceratus (herbivore)
-Mosasaurus (carnivore)
-Pachycephalosaurus (herbivore)
-Parasaurolophus (herbivore)
-Pteranodon (carnivore)
-Stegosaurus (herbivore)
-Suchomimus (carnivore)
-Triceratops (herbivore)
-Tyrannosaurus (carnivore)
-Velociraptor (carnivore)

This gives us nine herbivores and nine carnivores, assuming that the omnivorous Gallimimus and others like it are listed as herbivores. Now, this means that in order to match the film-canon given numbers, we need to reduce the carnivore list by three and increase the herbivores by five.

For the carnivores, I'm going to remove the species that aren't on display yet, Velociraptor and Indominus. Then, we only have to take off one more. I'm choosing Dimorphodon for this, as it's primarily an insect-eater and occasional fish-eater and so not a "traditional" carnivore. This gives us our six carnivores:
Baryonyx
Metriacanthosaurus
Mosasaurus
Pteranodon
Suchomimus
Tyrannosaurus

The herbivores are a bit more of a challenge, as we have to come up with more that aren't listed. This, however, isn't as tough as it sounds. I'll use Parasaurolophus as an example. The website for the park displays this as a picture of a Parasaurolophus:

Parasaurolophus: Website:

But when it appears in the film, it looks like this:

Parasaurolophus: Film:

What we have here are two different versions of the same animal. Most people assume that the website is simply wrong, but I'm going to posit a different explanation. Both parasaurs DO exist in the park. The one we saw in the film was the older version, either recaptured on Isla Nublar or transplanted from Isla Sorna (the Masrani website confirms that Sorna animals were captured and transported to the park). The version displayed on the website is a new version, more genetically pure, created by Wu in more recent years. These "old" and "new" parasaurs can be considered different animals.

I'm proposing that there are other dual-version animals in the park too. For example the Stegosaurus seen in Gyrosphere Valley have flexible, droopy tails and grayer color, while the ones on the Jungle River have upright tails more like those seen in TLW and are greener. What I believe is that the animals that were living on Isla Nublar before Jurassic World were recaptured and some remain in the park alongside new versions. If we use this method, doubling each of the herbivores that were present in Jurassic Park as well as Jurassic World, in addition to the Pachycephalosaurus which is portrayed differently between the website and the film similarly to Parasaurolophus, we get this for herbivores:
Ankylosaurus
Apatosaurus
Edmontosaurus
Gallimimus, Park version
Gallimimus, World version
Microceratus
Pachycephalosaurus, Sorna version
Pachycephalosaurus, Masrani version
Parasaurolophus, Park version
Parasaurolophus, World version
Stegosaurus, Park version
Stegosaurus, World version
Triceratops, Park version
Triceratops, World version

...We get exactly 14 herbivores.

So, in total, the official list of species advertised in Jurassic World is this:
Ankylosaurus, herbivore
Apatosaurus, herbivore
Baryonyx, carnivore
Dimorphodon, insectivore/piscivore
Edmontosaurus, herbivore
Gallimimus, old stock, herbivore
Gallimimus, new stock, herbivore
Indominus, not in park yet, carnivore
Metriacanthosaurus, carnivore
Microceratus, herbivore
Mosasaurus, carnivore
Pachycephalosaurus, old stock, herbivore
Pachycephalosaurus, new stock, herbivore
Parasaurolophus, old stock, herbivore
Parasaurolophus, new stock, herbivore
Pteranodon, carnivore
Stegosaurus, old stock, herbivore
Stegosaurus, new stock, herbivore
Suchomimus, carnivore
Triceratops, old stock, herbivore
Triceratops, new stock, herbivore
Tyrannosaurus, carnivore
Velociraptor, not in park yet, carnivore

LeGribouilleur wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

The Jurassic Park Velociraptor is supposed to be Deinonychus antirrhopus. SWS based the Raptors in JP off of their depictions in the novel, which were in turn based off of Deinonychus antirrhopus. To research for Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton used Gregory S. Paul's book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". Greg Paul got most of HIS information from Bakker, who like Paul and Jack Horner, is a clumper. Clumpers like to take closely related genera and combine them under one species. So, Deinonychus antirrhopus and Sauronitholestes langstoni became Velociraptor antirrhopus and Velociraptor langstoni respectively. In the first printed editions of Crichton's book, there's even a passage where Grant tells Tim that "Deinonychus is considered one of the Velociraptors now." Spielberg, who also sourced Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World," followed suit with the odd naming convention and it's been controversy ever since.

While this hypothesis seemed for a long time to suit the available data provided by the film canon, the sole fact that the Holoscape from the fourth film is seemingly making a distinction between Velociraptor and Deinonychus contradicts in itself the supposition that InGen is using the nomenclature and taxonomy of the Dromaeosauridae of Paul (1988).
Taking in account Jurassic Park: The Game and the official Jurassic World website, the evidence is overwhelming, as Sorkin stated in the InGen Field Journal that the cloned raptors are “definitely Velociraptors”, and as the site's page dedicated to the sickle-clawed predator describes the animal as being of Mongolian origin, as well as using what appears to be a Velociraptor mongoliensis skull as a background illustration.

Additionally, despite being indeed based on Deinonychus, it is important to bear in mind that the novel's raptors also are of Asiatic origin.

Sorkin is a biased source, and even the Developers of the game said that anything she says is not to be trusted. The dino profiles on the site were written by Brian Switek, a paleontologist, who used mostly real-world information when writing the profiles. There are several profiles that Switek wrote that contradicts what we see in the final film. For example the Tyrannosaurus page mentions male T. rex in the park, where as the film implies there was only Rexy. The coloration for Parasaurolophus is different from the final film, and the Mosasaurus is said to be 60ft long, when the film size is clearly much larger than that, and indeed other supplementary material describe a much larger size. 

Also, it's important to keep in mind, the Holoscape, like the website, are just advertisements, and may not reflect reality. For example, the original JP brochures had maps that were more cartoonish than reality, and showed dinosaurs to be there (such as Segisaurus and Baryonyx) that we are simply unsure of being there or not. We presume they were cloned, but whether or not they were actually on Isla Nublar in 1993 is unknown. 

The Raptors from the novel are indeed problematic. There's a hypothesis that has been proposed that Paul was referencing the recently discovered Achillobator, which would fit the profile, while other sources say that Crichton based them on Deinonychus the whole time and Wu was wrong about the Amber origin. That would corroborate with the information we have in-novel, where Grant discovers an infant "antirrhopus" skeleton in Montana, and admires the baby Velociraptor in the nursery, where he immediately recognizes the infant as a Velociraptor like the one he was just digging. Although Tim seems to differentiate the two, Grant, like Paul, seems to consider both D. antirrhopus and V. mongoliensis to be Velociraptors.

Nice to see some very thorough, well-thought out responses, especially you Troodon, that is a very interesting hypothesis. I am inclined to doubt it immediately because it seems disorganized somehow, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Though I wonder why Jurassic World would have these random dinosaurs on the holoscape (many of which are quite random and obscure, Hoplitosaurus and Nipponosaurus especially) unless they were in the park or at least they had the DNA on them.

As far as the species goes, I like LeGribouilleur's explanation right now, because it is different and does indeed make sense. The ones in the novel are identified as Velociraptor mongoliensis, but with the proportions of Deinonychus. I heard somewhere that Crichton chose Velociraptor as the name and Deinonychus size because it was more dramatic, which would make sense. At this point I am inclined to think they might just be oversized Velociraptor mongoliensis.

This also makes me wonder about Metriacanthosaurus and the lore surrounding that. Just because Tom Holtz (my current idol by the way) said that it could possibly maybe be Yangchuanosaurus because it was more popular and was lumped into it at the time means that that is the proper canon? I'm not sure about that. Maybe we should think of what the InGEN scientists would identify the creatures as. If these geneticists cloned this animal and attempted to identify it, would they use just one book by Greg Paul to decide what the animal is? I mean I guess InGEN is rather sloppy. Maybe in the Jurassic Park universe, Velociraptor is just that size. Maybe it was indeed found in Montana as well as Mongolia in this alternate universe and is actually oversized by nature. I don't know.

Also, CT-1138/Dinos4Ever/D4E/whatever you prefer to be called, Bakker is a splitter not a lumper. He is the opposite of Greg Paul. In fact he oversplits EVERYTHING. Just thought I would point that out. I consider myself a moderate lumper as well, because I think things like Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus libratus, just for example.

Monolophosaurus wrote:

Nice to see some very thorough, well-thought out responses, especially you Troodon, that is a very interesting hypothesis. I am inclined to doubt it immediately because it seems disorganized somehow, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Though I wonder why Jurassic World would have these random dinosaurs on the holoscape (many of which are quite random and obscure, Hoplitosaurus and Nipponosaurus especially) unless they were in the park or at least they had the DNA on them.

As far as the species goes, I like LeGribouilleur's explanation right now, because it is different and does indeed make sense. The ones in the novel are identified as Velociraptor mongoliensis, but with the proportions of Deinonychus. I heard somewhere that Crichton chose Velociraptor as the name and Deinonychus size because it was more dramatic, which would make sense. At this point I am inclined to think they might just be oversized Velociraptor mongoliensis.

Also, CT-1138/Dinos4Ever/D4E/whatever you prefer to be called, Bakker is a splitter not a lumper. He is the opposite of Greg Paul. In fact he oversplits EVERYTHING. Just thought I would point that out. I consider myself a moderate lumper as well, because I think things like Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus libratus, just for example.

Crichton choosing the name Velociraptor over Deinonychus because he thought it sounded cooler is a horribly perpetuated myth. As I explained above, Michael Crichton used Gregory S. Paul's research to research for "Jurassic Park". Greg Paul believed that the skull of Deinonychus resembled the skull of Velociraptor more so than the skull of Allosaurus (which had been the go-to reference for reconstructing theropod skulls back in the day). Because of that, Paul believed that Deinonychus, as well as a few other dromaeosaurs, could be grouped under the Velociraptor genus. So, Deinonychus antirrhopus and Sauronitholestes langstoni became Velociraptor antirrhopus and Velociraptor langstoni respectively. We know that this is where the naming convention comes from as Greg Paul is mentioned by name (along with Bakker, Horner and Ostrom) among the acknowledgements of the paleontologists he gathered research from. 

As for the clumping/splitting thing, I erroneously assumed it was Bakker as Greg Paul said in the preface of "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" that he studied under Bakker several years prior to writing the book.

CT-1138 wrote:

Monolophosaurus wrote:

Nice to see some very thorough, well-thought out responses, especially you Troodon, that is a very interesting hypothesis. I am inclined to doubt it immediately because it seems disorganized somehow, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Though I wonder why Jurassic World would have these random dinosaurs on the holoscape (many of which are quite random and obscure, Hoplitosaurus and Nipponosaurus especially) unless they were in the park or at least they had the DNA on them.

As far as the species goes, I like LeGribouilleur's explanation right now, because it is different and does indeed make sense. The ones in the novel are identified as Velociraptor mongoliensis, but with the proportions of Deinonychus. I heard somewhere that Crichton chose Velociraptor as the name and Deinonychus size because it was more dramatic, which would make sense. At this point I am inclined to think they might just be oversized Velociraptor mongoliensis.

Also, CT-1138/Dinos4Ever/D4E/whatever you prefer to be called, Bakker is a splitter not a lumper. He is the opposite of Greg Paul. In fact he oversplits EVERYTHING. Just thought I would point that out. I consider myself a moderate lumper as well, because I think things like Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus libratus, just for example.

Crichton choosing the name Velociraptor over Deinonychus because he thought it sounded cooler is a horribly perpetuated myth. As I explained above, Michael Crichton used Gregory S. Paul's research to research for "Jurassic Park". Greg Paul believed that the skull of Deinonychus resembled the skull of Velociraptor more so than the skull of Allosaurus (which had been the go-to reference for reconstructing theropod skulls back in the day). Because of that, Paul believed that Deinonychus, as well as a few other dromaeosaurs, could be grouped under the Velociraptor genus. So, Deinonychus antirrhopus and Sauronitholestes langstoni became Velociraptor antirrhopus and Velociraptor langstoni respectively. We know that this is where the naming convention comes from as Greg Paul is mentioned by name (along with Bakker, Horner and Ostrom) among the acknowledgements of the paleontologists he gathered research from. 

As for the clumping/splitting thing, I erroneously assumed it was Bakker as Greg Paul said in the preface of "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" that he studied under Bakker several years prior to writing the book.

I'm aware of Paul's ideas, we've been over this. But that doesn't mean that it is actually Velociraptor antirrhopus. The novel states that it was found in Mongolia and is Velociraptor mongoliensis. Crichton chose to name the animal Velociraptor mongoliensis, and so that it is what it is. I'm pretty sure Greg Paul is never mentioned in the movie, and so it can be assumed that the movie just tried to copy the novel's raptors and ended making something that looks like Deinonychus. Even if Deinonychus was indeed the basis for the novel and movie raptors, and it is, the novel does say that it is Velociraptor mongoliensis, and that could be some weird inconsistency between the Jurassic Park universe and reality.

Actually, for the movies we see Grant not only digging up Velociraptors in Montana, but we have concept art by Mark Hallet of the JP raptors with the label "Deinonychus". Furthermore, we have physical evidence that Spielberg utilized Greg Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", as we have scans of pages from the book that have production notes written on them. The novels, like I said, are fuzzy on their Rapfor classification, but the movie raptors are definitively Deinonychus under a Velociraptor moniker.

CT-1138 wrote:

Actually, for the movies we see Grant not only digging up Velociraptors in Montana, but we have concept art by Mark Hallet of the JP raptors with the label "Deinonychus". Furthermore, we have physical evidence that Spielberg utilized Greg Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", as we have scans of pages from the book that have production notes written on them. The novels, like I said, are fuzzy on their Rapfor classification, but the movie raptors are definitively Deinonychus under a Velociraptor moniker.

First off, I know it was shown in Montana. I'm saying that maybe this some weird alternate universe where Velociraptor is found in Montana. I mean in real life you can't extract dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes, so the movie/novel doesn't exactly cling to reality.

Well so far we have had multiple forms of Jurassic Park media that have had both Deinonychus and [/i]Velociraptor[/i]. Most of these are not canon (The Lost World PlayStation game and the canned animals for JPOG), but one is: Jurassic World. We can see on the Holoscape Deinonychus AND Velociraptor. This means that even if Deinonychus isn't in the park, it is at the very least acknowledged to be an entirely different animal. I find this to be better evidence than some old concept art. I'm not denying that they might be based on Deinonychus, but I am saying that in the Jurassic Park universe they could still be two completely different animals.

Oh yeah, about those scans? Are they around somewhere? I'd love to look at those, if they are readable.

The supposed website discrepancies can be reasonably explained. I've already gone over the differing colorations for certain animals, with the website skins potentially being new, more genetically-pure versions created by Wu and introduced to the park (but not showcased in the film itself).

With the male tyrannosaurs, it would actually make sense for Masrani Global to have a couple young rexes on stock for the future. Rexy's getting old; she won't live much longer, and they would be foolish to wait until she's died to clone replacements. The young males are probably kept in a paddock somewhere out of the main park, hinted to be near the IMAX in the website. When Rexy dies, they'll just transport one or more of these young males into Paddock 9 to repopulate it. She's old enough that she isn't looking for a mate, so they can't just keep all of them together; that would cause VERY undesirable infighting.

Finally, the mosasaur. Official material puts the mosasaur's length at 72 feet, which is reasonable based on a comparison with Indominus as she grabs her at the end of the film. The website lists the mosasaur at 60 feet long, which is reasonable if that section hasn't been updated in a while in-universe. No real-life mosasaur is known to grow longer than that (M. hoffmanni can reach 60 feet long), so it stands to reason that Jurassic World's scientists would assume that's as big as they get. But their mosasaur hit sixty feet and just kept growing. Now it's over seventy feet long, probably due to a lack of predators and disease, and a constant supply of healthy food in its environment. Further supporting the "lack of oversight" theory I put forth here, the mosasaur's weight is listed at 5 tons on its species page, but 15 tons on the feeding show page.

Monolophosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Actually, for the movies we see Grant not only digging up Velociraptors in Montana, but we have concept art by Mark Hallet of the JP raptors with the label "Deinonychus". Furthermore, we have physical evidence that Spielberg utilized Greg Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", as we have scans of pages from the book that have production notes written on them. The novels, like I said, are fuzzy on their Rapfor classification, but the movie raptors are definitively Deinonychus under a Velociraptor moniker.

First off, I know it was shown in Montana. I'm saying that maybe this some weird alternate universe where Velociraptor is found in Montana. I mean in real life you can't extract dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes, so the movie/novel doesn't exactly cling to reality.

Well so far we have had multiple forms of Jurassic Park media that have had both Deinonychus and [/i]Velociraptor[/i]. Most of these are not canon (The Lost World PlayStation game and the canned animals for JPOG), but one is: Jurassic World. We can see on the Holoscape Deinonychus AND Velociraptor. This means that even if Deinonychus isn't in the park, it is at the very least acknowledged to be an entirely different animal. I find this to be better evidence than some old concept art. I'm not denying that they might be based on Deinonychus, but I am saying that in the Jurassic Park universe they could still be two completely different animals.

Oh yeah, about those scans? Are they around somewhere? I'd love to look at those, if they are readable.

I don't deny that they may both be recognized species, but as far as JP is concerned, they're meant to be Deinonychus with the name of Velociraptor. Always have been: 

Spoiler:

And here's one of the scans that I could find in my archives: 

CT-1138 wrote:

Monolophosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Actually, for the movies we see Grant not only digging up Velociraptors in Montana, but we have concept art by Mark Hallet of the JP raptors with the label "Deinonychus". Furthermore, we have physical evidence that Spielberg utilized Greg Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", as we have scans of pages from the book that have production notes written on them. The novels, like I said, are fuzzy on their Rapfor classification, but the movie raptors are definitively Deinonychus under a Velociraptor moniker.

First off, I know it was shown in Montana. I'm saying that maybe this some weird alternate universe where Velociraptor is found in Montana. I mean in real life you can't extract dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes, so the movie/novel doesn't exactly cling to reality.

Well so far we have had multiple forms of Jurassic Park media that have had both Deinonychus and [/i]Velociraptor[/i]. Most of these are not canon (The Lost World PlayStation game and the canned animals for JPOG), but one is: Jurassic World. We can see on the Holoscape Deinonychus AND Velociraptor. This means that even if Deinonychus isn't in the park, it is at the very least acknowledged to be an entirely different animal. I find this to be better evidence than some old concept art. I'm not denying that they might be based on Deinonychus, but I am saying that in the Jurassic Park universe they could still be two completely different animals.

Oh yeah, about those scans? Are they around somewhere? I'd love to look at those, if they are readable.

I don't deny that they may both be recognized species, but as far as JP is concerned, they're meant to be Deinonychus with the name of Velociraptor. Always have been: 

Spoiler:

And here's one of the scans that I could find in my archives: 

So I guess we are kind of somewhere near the same page. That Hallett art isn't near as talked about as Crash Mcreery's.

That scan is interesting. I've no clue what they mean, they just look like random gibberish (probably important for Spielberg and the crew), but it is proof that Predatory Dinosaurs of the World was used as a source for the movie as well as the novel. Interesting.

I'm gonna buy that book at some point. I know it has some "interesting" taxonomical decisions... Deinonychus=Velociraptor antirrhopus just being one.

i'd just like to throw this out there: if this Wikipedia image is anything to go by, Deinonychus is too small to be the true identity of the raptors


my headcanon is that they're actually either Utahraptor (if they're North American, which would admittedly mean that now the raptors in the FILM are too small) or Achillobator (if they're Mongolian, much like we'd decided for the novel canon--Achillobator is just the right size), but i won't push that with respect to Ty's policy against headcanons. though perhaps it would be easier to reason that they're ALSO hybrids (or otherwise genetically contaminated) of several different dromaeosaurs in light of Wu's comment in JW? if the intention was to clone Deinonychus, at the time recognized as Velociraptor, but it inadvertently hybridized with something bigger like Utahraptor, that could explain size discrepancies while still being more recognizably Deinonychus

Utahraptor wasn't publicly described until after the movie already started filming, so that one's out. In fact, Stan Winston is quoted saying "We designed it, we built it, and then they discovered it." saying that it was on pure coincidence that they should find a Raptor similar to the 5'6" Raptors they built (there was even discussion of naming the animal Utahraptor spielbergi due to the delightful coincidence). Tarbtano did a very interesting analysis of the Raptors here (yes, I know it's a pony website, just bear with me  ). As he points out in the blog post, the JP Raptors are only human height because they rear up often. Stan Winston said they only built the Raptors only a foot taller than normal, to make them more formidable, yet they still only stood 5 feet and a half tall. Interestingly enough, when you watch the movie, and pay attention to the way they stand, they are in fact only human sized when they're rearing: 


And shorter when they're carrying their body more horizontally: 


This is a pretty true to size depiction of the Raptor's height next to the the average 6ft human had the Raptor been more prone to a more horizontal body position: 


Larger than the typical Deinonychus? Yes, but as dramatically oversized as Utahraptor? I don't think so. 

The Jurassic World Raptors once again break standard by being the tallest (and most heavyset) Raptors in the franchise, able to look Owen in the eye even when standing in a horizontal position. Whether this is due to genetic engineering, or just plain good health from being well kept and fed is an unknown. Animals in well kept captivity do tend to grow larger than animals in the wild, or kept in poor captivity (like a tiny pen).


A headcanon that I like to have is that the JP Raptors are Dakotaraptor, that InGen just assumed to be exceptionally large Deinonychus.

i can't believe Dakotaraptor slipped my mind! i think i'd meant to bring them up in my previous post as another possible alternative

Dakotaraptor would make the most sense, but that would just feel... wrong, somehow. I don't know.