I agree with the other users that I wouldn't mind so much if the exhibits were actually accurate. I know that dino science changes constantly and it's hard for places to keep things accurate, but even newer stuff still likes to stick to the Jurassic Park style. Shoot, sometimes I look through recently published dinosaur guides and there are tons of species where the description says "this dinosaur had feathers" but then the illustration has no feathers!
In the US, it's really common for zoos to get temporary dinosaur animatronic exhibits, but I don't know if many places have permanent displays.
It's funny that this thread got revived. It made me remember the one time I did see dinosaur exhibits in a zoo and they had an animatronic tyrannosaur kids could take turns controlling. I got in trouble from this cranky old employee as well as my dad for apparently being too rough with the buttons and joystick. Whoops!
I feel that they should either be accurate and include some specimens or just be left to the museums. Most of these exhibits seem rushed and basic...
Yes the models could be accurate ie. feathers on coelurosauria theropods (the most 'birdy' like ones) but the reality is that the zoos buy/hire them as a cheap addition to the zoo. Easy to market to families, usually no extra charge and sometimes a vague nod to their connection to the living residents. From what I understand most of the models are generic copies of the original designs. Some museums put effort into creating unique realistic designs, but this is a huge investment that a zoo is very unlikely to do.
Speaking of connections to residents of the zoo, wouldn’t it be neat if they were exhibited at the end of the exhibit? Nothing too huge just grab em from the zoo’s current collection.
This is a cool idea. I really like it when zoos use their collections to teach about other scientific concepts, like evolution. You don't have to examine a bird for too long to see the connection to theropod dinosaurs! In addition to the animals themselves, they could show some bird skeletons next to dino skeletons so people can more easily see the similarities.
Probably the worst dinosaur exhibits in a zoo... Reptilienzoo Happ by Batto posted 4 Mar 2018 at 6:47 AM Reptilienzoo Happ by Batto posted 4 Mar 2018 at 6:47 AM Reptilienzoo Happ by Batto posted 4 Mar 2018 at 6:39 AM
Actually Welt der Gifte (sorry for the spelling) would be the perfect place to have a small dinosaur exhibit as there is one known venomous dinosaur!
@The Speeding Carnotaurus: no need to apologize - your spelling is fine. You mean Sinornithosaurus sp.? Whether it was really venomous is still a matter of debate among paleontologists, as far as I know. I contemplated about getting a skull replica of it for the exhibition, but instead went for a more recent animal.
You mean Sinornithosaurus sp.? Whether it was really venomous is still a matter of debate among paleontologists, as far as I know. I contemplated about getting a skull replica of it for the exhibition, but instead went for a more recent animal.[/QUOTE] As a dinonerd, I can safely say it was not venomous, as its dentition is not like snakes as previously hypothesised.
Amersfoort has "DinoPark", a forested area with about 70 dinosaurs models. The models are quite good and some therapods even have protofeathers.
And as somewhat of a "venom nerd", I can safely say that there is quite a diversity in the dentition of venomous snakes, or rather, in regard to the structure and location of their venomous fangs, to make such a general statement . If I recall correctly, said teeth of Sinornithosaurus sp. was originally compared by Gong et al. to opisthoglyphous snakes and helodermid lizards. The birdlike raptor Sinornithosaurus was venomous However, I think that the current data is too scarce to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if no venomous or poisonous dinosaur ever existed; it will just be incredibly difficult to prove it. Kudos to Michael Crichton for actually delivering this topic to a larger audience.
Oh, really? Tell that to Albert Chen. https://www.deviantart.com/albertonykus/art/Ceratopsians-are-Not-Dinosaurs-162624543 According to the description of his satirical drawing, the exact same case could be made to consider ceratopsians non-dinosaurs, and wouldn’t that just be silly? Sorry, but this type of comment bothers me, as it shows a gross lack of understanding of cladistics.
