June 8, 2012
In Defense of Raptors
A high-kicking Utahraptor outside the College of Eastern Utah's Prehistoric Museum in Price. Photo by the author.
Prior to the summer of 1993, “raptor” was synonymous with “bird of prey.” If you said “raptor,” whoever you were talking to knew you were talking about some kind of hawk, owl, eagle or other sharp-taloned aerial predator. Then Jurassic Park came along. Thanks to some taxonomic muddling and abbreviation, the cunning, sickle-clawed villains of the film’s third act immediately came to be known as “raptors.” Velociraptor, Deinonychus and kin had stolen the term for themselves.
Among non-avian dinosaurs, raptor might refer to the entire group of feathery coelurosaurs with grasping hands and hyperextendable toe claws—the deinonychosaurs—or to a specific subset of that group, called dromaeosaurids. It depends on where you care to draw the line. Just like its use among avian dinosaurs, the word “raptor” is informal and is a quick way to draw a conceptual outline of any dinosaur similar to Velociraptor.
But not everyone is happy with how “raptor” has been co-opted. A few months ago, paleontologist and Tetrapod Zoology author Darren Naish wrote:
Oh, and can everybody please stop using the word ‘raptor’ as a popular term for deinonychosaur, or dromaeosaurid? Admittedly, this rarely causes confusion, but it looks dumb and naive given that THE WORD RAPTOR IS ALREADY IN USE FOR ANOTHER GROUP OF ANIMALS. It would be like deciding to call sauropods ‘elephants’ or something.
And earlier this week, a reader sent me an email questioning the Los Angeles Times‘ use of the word raptor to describe a new genus of dromaeosaurid found in the Early Cretaceous rock of Utah. If birds of prey had claim to “raptor” first, and the term is just a bit of pop culture fluff, should we drop the word and push for deinonychosaur instead?
I don’t think so. Even though some informal dinosaur terms make me cringe—such as “parasaur” for Parasaurlophus and “Trike” for Triceratops—I think “raptor” provides a useful hook. To borrow a bit from another Steven Spielberg monster flick, you say “deinonychosaur,” and people say “Huh? What?” You say “raptor,” and your audience immediately has a general image of what sort of dinosaur you’re talking about. Rather than lament the reapplication of the word raptor as misappropriation or dumbing down, we might as well take advantage of the instant recognition the word triggers when trying to communicate with people who are not up on the latest theropod phylogeny. Almost twenty years after Jurassic Park debuted, it’s a little late to put “raptor” back in the cage.
More than that, I think “raptor” is a perfectly wonderful term for dromaeosaurids, if not deinonychosaurs as a whole. Not only has the “raptor” suffix been used in numerous dromaeosaurid names—Velociraptor, Utahraptor, Bambiraptor, Pyroraptor, Microraptor and so on—but these feathery dinosaurs were close cousins of the lineage which spawned the first birds. Some dromaeosaurids may have even hunted like avian raptors, using their huge tow claws to pin down prey rather than slash at it. Since “raptor” was always an informal term that applied to various lineages of avian dinosaurs anyway, I think it’s perfectly legit to use the word for the more ancient, non-avian precursors of today’s formidable falcons and eagles. Avian and non-avian raptors were dinosaurs of a feather.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“Raptor” is an excellent “hook” (claw and talon) indeed.
“Not only has the “raptor” suffix been used in numerous dromaeosaurid names—Velociraptor, Utahraptor, Bambiraptor, Pyroraptor, Microraptor and so on—but these feathery dinosaurs were close cousins of the lineage which spawned the first birds.”
True. But then you also have things like Ozraptor, Oviraptor, Megaraptor, Condorraptor – there’s enough raptor-named dinosaurs that aren’t dromaeosaurs, or were even in the Maniraptora. So it’s simply not a simple subset of dinosaurs with this name and thus I’m with Darren. It might be catchy, but it’s not clear or unambiguous and that for me makes it more of a problem than a boon.
Not convinced: what are you going to do about Oviraptor, Conchiraptor, Gigantoraptor, etc. which are clearly not dromaeosaurids, but have the term in their name? If you’re not careful you’ll end up with “Raptor” = non-avian coelurosaur. I think I’m with Naish on this one.
“You say “raptor,” and your audience immediately has a general image of what sort of dinosaur you’re talking about.”
… but the question remains: what if you’re talking about eagle, hawk, owly-type dinosaurs? The two gentlemen above demonstrate that the term’s already well-muddied among the non-avians, and I think “But see – they’re all dinosaurs anyway!” is likely to earn you a quiet stare (at best) out there in the world.
That said, I completely agree with this:
“Almost twenty years after Jurassic Park debuted, it’s a little late to put “raptor” back in the cage.”
With such a weighty subject, I say “Let The NBA Decide!” They’re professionals. Hey, if Toronto uses a (cringe) dinosaur in their logo, THAT’S good enough for me. ‘Raptor’ it is! ‘Cause if they used an eagle, everyone would think they’re from the USA!
A little big problem.
Raptor in English means bird of prey, but the raptor in Velociraptor is not English, is Latin.
In Latin raptor means plunderer, thief, robber, or even rapist and deserter/drifter/stray person.
When raptor is used for naming a dinosaur, is used as a Latin word, with its meaning, that has nothing to do with birds.
Valerio
@David Hone, chris y & Warren B.
To be fair, 1 could argue that “raptor” was already muddied b-4 JP in that it consisted of several distantly-related groups (Specifically, strigiforms, falconids & accipitrids). Just to be safe, though, I always use “raptor” in association w/”dromaeosaur” or “deinonychosaur” (E.g. “It’s a kind of dromaeosaur, or raptor dinosaur”).
While it used to bother me, personally I would argue that the adoption of ‘raptor to mean deinonychosauria in general is actually a good thing in terms of paleontology’s relationship with the general public. Let’s face it, most dinosaur names are big, long, confusing tongue-twisters to the average joe & jane. I’m not just talking about names like Opisthocoelicaudia or Futalognkosaurus or Tuojiangosaurus, even simple names like Iguanodon & Polacanthus trip people up. Nearly every other animal out there has a shorter, simpler name than their binomial designation that people can ascribe to them, and actual bird-of-prey raptors already have plenty to themselves (eagle, falcon, & hawk are a lot easier to say & spell than Velociraptor, Achillobator, & Deinonychus). Dinosaurs, short of T.rex and now ‘raptors, simply don’t have that, and I would venture so far as to say that may play a part in why dinosaurs other than, well, T.rex & ‘raptors, don’t have the fame & recognition that they should.
I say let deinonychosauria have the term “‘raptor,” and let’s find some similarly easy to pronounce names for other dinosaurian clades. Just because these big, long, complicated jumbles of letters make perfect sense to us doesn’t mean they work for the far & vast majority of everyone else, and science’s relationship with the general public needs every boost it can get these days. Even if it is something as simple as simpler informal names for animals that currently don’t have them.
Brian wrote in the post: <>
Yes, we know what those calling a “raptor” are talking about: bunny-handed, scaly, varanid-faced movie monsters… That’s what “raptor” means form most of those using the name outside extant ornithological discussions. Since we know that a dromaeosaurid is not what the term “raptor” means form most of those using that name, I strongly agree with Darren’s words.
Sorry, my last comment was incomplete, and I re-post it.
Brian wrote in the post: You say “raptor,” and your audience immediately has a general image of what sort of dinosaur you’re talking about.
Yes, we know what those calling a “raptor” are talking about: bunny-handed, scaly, varanid-faced movie monsters… That’s what “raptor” means form most of those using the name outside extant ornithological discussions. Since we know that a dromaeosaurid is not what the term “raptor” means form most of those using that name, I strongly agree with Darren’s words.
Herman has an excellent point.
And some day, some mischievous palaeontologist could formally name a non-avian dinosaur clade “Raptors” (perhaps the Microraptor + Velociraptor node?). I think that would be quite amusing.
Am I the only person who thinks “bird of prey” is a silly phrase? You’d never say “mammal of prey” or “dinosaur of prey” or “pseudosuchian of prey”.
I disagree with what Darren says here. According to modern phylogenetic studies, the term “raptor” never even referred to a monophyletic group of birds in the first place. As Herman mentioned before me (and I meant to mention but got ninja’d), modern “raptors” are more or less just a mishmash of birds which happen to be predators and have big talons. Under that logic, should we stop calling owls and falcons raptors as well? Not to mention “raptor” is not a formally defined phylogenetic term in the first place, so its not as if we are breaking up a monophyletic group.
Additionally, saying that using the name “raptors” for Velociraptor and kin is like “would be like deciding to call sauropods ‘elephants’ or something” is completely misleading. In that case, the two groups are very distantly related from one another, and most of their adaptations for size are convergent. Plus there are big morphological differences between the two, like the presence/absence of a trunk, long tail, extensive pneumatization, long neck, huge grinding molars, etc. There isn’t as much difference between dromaeosaurs and birds of prey in contrast, as a lot of their similar adaptations (e.g. feathers) are homologous.
The term “raptor” also helps to get across the bird-like nature of these animals. The modern “raptors” are predatory birds with big talons. Prehistoric “raptors” are bird-like predators with big talons. And if you want to get into terminology, the greek root where raptor comes from, raptor means plunderer, robber, or rapist. That word seems more applicable to dromaeosaurs, which one could easily picture raiding nests or taking down juvenile dinosaurs, than most modern birds of prey who usually go after individuals rodents and other small prey.
Finally, the term “raptor” is short, memorable, and immediately familiar to the lay person, something the names of most dinosaur taxa can’t say for themselves. I don’t really care if someone prefers using the term “raptor” or “dromaeosaur”, but where does someone get off dictating what common name someone uses to describe an animal. It comes off as simply complaining, given that the difference in name means absolutely nothing about the phylogeny of the animal (as opposed to referring to a basal tyrannosauroid as a tyrannosaurid, for example), and gives laypeople in general the idea that we are simply changing the rules of paleontology and trying to make people use the more clunky names in order to trip them up, like some kind of paleo-hipster.
I’m all for pedantry but a lot of you getting bothered by this need to step back from the precipice. The yawning abyss that eats logical and reasoned scientists who try to meddle with common names in biology beckons. A historical and logical reasoning for term use and preferences satisfies a desire for the lexicon to be ‘neat’ but this is trumped by common usage amongst the majority of the population rather than the smaller communities of people who actually care and need to now about the differences between a bambi, ovi or indeed veloci raptor.
From my experience ‘raptor’ now has stronger connotations to refer to medium sized carnivorous dinosaur than it does for a mixed group of birds, which as someone above pointed out wasn’t particularly useful anyway. I blame this on all the Velociraptor memes and Jurassic Park’s legacy.
Oh and I spoke to worms, starfish, sea cucumbers, bugs, silverfish, jellyfish, flying lemurs, killer whales, seahorses, muskoxen, rabbitfish, kangaroo rats, ladybirds and Irish elks and they don’t see why you are trifling over such a minor group of animals.
At my age, I’m more bothered by the use of the affix “morph”, which means “shape” or “shaped like”, as a stand-alone verb meaning “transform”.
The use of ‘raptor’ in place of ‘dromaeosaur’ does not come to us through some honoured tradition of wise and appropriate usage, nor from the community of people who actually talk regularly about these animals; it comes to us via a novel written by an author who spent a lot of time and ink telling world that Science Is Bad. Since then, the use of ‘raptor’ for dromaeosaur has been most widely promoted by a scientist who maintains that we should dumb-down the names used for fossil animals whenever possible. Are you happy with this? If so, consider the argument here… http://blog.hmns.org/2012/06/on-happy-puppies-bugs-and-honorary-dinos-a-statement-by-dr-robert-t-bakker/ … in which it is apparently proposed that we should use terms like ‘dino-bugs’ for trilobites.
Dromaeosaurs have a perfectly good, perfectly vernacular name that is not difficult to say, and not unfamiliar to anyone who’s ever opened a book on dinosaurs. It is ‘dromaeosaurs’.
Darren
@Darren Naish
“Since then, the use of ‘raptor’ for dromaeosaur has been most widely promoted by a scientist who maintains that we should dumb-down the names used for fossil animals whenever possible. Are you happy with this? If so, consider the argument here… http://blog.hmns.org/2012/06/on-happy-puppies-bugs-and-honorary-dinos-a-statement-by-dr-robert-t-bakker/ … in which it is apparently proposed that we should use terms like ‘dino-bugs’ for trilobites.”
W/all due respect, I have to disagree w/you about 2 things in particular.
1stly, it isn’t really fair to single out Bakker for maintaining “that we should dumb-down the names used for fossil animals whenever possible”, given that other equally-good pros do more-or-less the same thing (E.g. Holtz in his dino encyclopedia: http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/#chaps ).
2ndly, Bakker didn’t really propose “that we should use terms like ‘dino-bugs’ for trilobites” so much as explain why he & his colleagues do so.
My point is that there’s nothing wrong w/pros using nicknames for fossil animals so long as they’re easy-to-remember & used in association w/the real names, which Bakker does (E.g. “Our superb skeleton of an Early Permian lake amphibian is labeled as an Early Permian archegosaurid. But it also goes by the nickname bestowed by the collection-management crew when the crate was opened — “Happy Puppy.””).