Top 10 Worst Paleontological Reconstructions

Such an atrocious reconstruction of Spinosaurus that wants to be a movie monster like Godzilla. That's the reason why I no longer watch Monsters Resurrected - because the makers only want to make the dinosaurs monsters rather than real animals. This results in fans wanting Spinosaurus to be a Jurassic Park III-styled monster instead of the humble fisherman with a paddle-shaped tail it really was in real life. This Spinosaurus reconstruction makes Jurassic Park III's Spinosaurus look like it came from Walking With Dinosaurs. It is definitely the worst dinosaur in pop culture ever.

Why is it called Velociraptor if it looks NOTHING like a Velociraptor in any way? It's way too big. It has pronated wrists, a shortened skull, and completely lacks feathers! That's why I don't watch Jurassic World. The makers of the Jurassic Park franchise don't even care about updating their views on non-avian dinosaurs.

Seriously? Why were the Velociraptors given Deinonychus-like skulls and Achilobator-like large sizes, unlike the real ones? They were made reptilian with scaly skin instead of feathered and had zombie-like pronated wrists instead of the bird-like supinated wrists we now know theropods, including real Velociraptors, had. They might as well have been dubbed a fictional genus of dromaeosaurs based on these inaccuracies, possibly Nublarraptors or Ingenraptors.

That reconstruction is very disappointing, as reality is often more fascinating and awesome than how movies portray it. Did you know that the dromaeosaurs were planned to be mostly feathered based on the concept art for the first Jurassic Park film of 1993, but they chose not to based on their bias?

The dromaeosaurs are also incorrectly shown with ape-like or dolphin-like intelligence, which is absurd since the real ones had brains no bigger than a turkey's or an opossum's, although they may have been slightly smarter due to being fully carnivorous. It sadly inspired many people to make inaccurate lizard-like dromaeosaurs we still see today on toy store shelves, in movies, and TV shows (including cartoons). It still negatively inspires people due to Jurassic Park sequels (I'm looking at you, Jurassic World) and depicts them as monsters instead of real animals. I really wish that many more people would change their views of what real dromaeosaurs (and don't forget troodonts and oviraptorids) were like.

Ahh! It burns my eyes! That ain't no Quetzalcoatlus! That's an Ornithocheirus on vacation who took its crest off its beak.

The Quetzalcoatlus design in BBC's original Walking with Dinosaurs documentary is poorly executed. It's just a slight remodel of the Ornithocheirus, which is far from the real Quetzalcoatlus (IT EVEN HAS FLIPPIN' TEETH, WHICH THE REAL QUETZALCOATLUS COMPLETELY LACKED!). It is one of the worst-designed pterosaurs in pop culture. The design of Quetzalcoatlus was greatly improved in the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs movie (even if the movie itself is considered bad by many people).

Many of the pterosaurs depicted by David Peters, an amateur paleontologist, are inaccurately portrayed as bipedal and too lizard-like. Peters considers pterosaurs to be either literal lizards or close relatives of lizards, which isn't accurate. Real pterosaurs were actually relatives of dinosaurs, such as birds, not lizards.

Megalosaurus was a large non-avian theropod dinosaur and the first-ever non-avian dinosaur discovered by humanity. It was originally thought to be a giant lizard, hence the name Megalosaurus, which means big lizard. We now know this is far from the truth, yet this reconstruction still stands in Crystal Palace, London, showing how far we have come in paleontology.

When mammoth fossils were discovered by modern people, they thought the animal looked far more pig-like than it really was. Despite being an elephant in real life, Sir Hans Sloan made this horrendous reconstruction of the mammoth.

Iguanodon was the second non-avian dinosaur discovered by humanity. Believe it or not, like Megalosaurus, it was thought to literally be a giant lizard, with its thumb spike mistaken for a horn like those of rhinoceroses and rhino iguanas. It was incorrectly thought to be carnivorous like Megalosaurus. We now know that this is far from the truth, yet, like the Megalosaurus reconstruction I have mentioned, this reconstruction still stands in Crystal Palace.

Before the 1970s, all bipedal dinosaurs, even the famous Tyrannosaurus, were thought to walk upright like a human and drag their tails on the ground like a kangaroo. This posture was similar to Godzilla and other kaijus from movies. However, we now know that they actually held their tails off the ground and had bird-like postures instead of being humanoid.

When paleontologist Evgeny Maleev discovered the claws of Therizinosaurus, he thought they belonged to a massive aquatic turtle or turtle-like reptile. However, we now know that Therizinosaurus was actually a dinosaur. It was herbivorous and partially feathered.

Its head is too big and boxy in shape, not to mention that there's shrink-wrapping on its head and not on the rest of its body. Its claws are all too straight - they should be more curved in shape. Its legs are also inaccurate due to being too thin for such a large creature, and its feet should not resemble those of most other non-bird theropods. They should have all four toes touching the ground instead of just three.

Its tail may be too long for an advanced therizinosaurid, and its body is too horizontal and should be a little more vertical (not fully vertical, obviously, but more like the one that Prehistoric Planet got right). Although the movie thankfully gave it feathers, its model itself is just awful.

This Spinosaurus reconstruction is terrible, but I can forgive the makers of the movie since Spinosaurus wasn't well known back then when the film was made and hit theaters. Its fossils were so fragmentary that its life appearance and lifestyle were unknown at that time. It is nowhere near as bad as Monsters Resurrected's Spinosaurus, and at least the people tried to make the Spinosaurus in this movie an animal and not a 100% monster, even if it's somewhat like a monster in parts of its behavior. Unlike in Monsters Resurrected, where it is depicted as a 100% monster.

Why does Pteranodon in this movie have teeth if its scientific name literally means "toothless wing"? It is also inaccurate due to lacking fur-like filaments (pycnofibers) like all pterosaurs and having sharp wing tips. These sharp tips would mess up aerodynamics. Pterosaurs solved this problem by having rounded wingtips.

This is a really awful depiction of a recently discovered sauropod. This depiction of Dreadnoughtus is shown as a boring, swamp-dwelling, retro sauropod (like outdated sauropod reconstructions) as if it was discovered in the early 20th century, which wasn't the case in real life.

By the way, if you want to see an accurate Dreadnoughtus, look at the amazing Prehistoric Planet Dreadnoughtus reconstruction.

This Oviraptor reconstruction looks more like a monster lizard-featherless parrot hybrid than anything resembling the real Oviraptor. It is also incorrectly depicted as an egg-thief, which we now know is false, inspired by an outdated theory that Oviraptor stole eggs of Protoceratops. However, those supposed Protoceratops eggs were actually Oviraptor eggs, and the Oviraptor adults were not thieves at all but caring parents.

OMG, this is one of the worst Giganotosaurus designs I've ever seen. It looks nothing like a real Giganotosaurus and instead just looks like a generic hybrid dinosaur from fiction, such as Indominus rex. In reality, Giganotosaurus had a pronounced chin and lacked crocodilian armor or a hump on its back. I know the makers of this movie wanted to make it look different from T. rex, but the real Giganotosaurus already looked different from T. rex even without these features.

If Jurassic World Dominion gave Pyroraptor an almost fully-feathered body, then there is no excuse for leaving Atrociraptor scaly and naked. This genus of dinosaur was discovered in 2010, for heck's sake, so it should have had feathers in the movie. That's like reconstructing Yutyrannus with purely scaly skin despite being discovered in 2012 with feathers! Also, its size is overly exaggerated and its wrists sadly look like they're pronating, the same issue as with the InGen "Velociraptors." They should have used Deinonychus or Achillobator for the large size if they wanted a threatening dromaeosaur, not any dromaeosaur that's too small to pose much (if any) danger to people such as (IRL) Atrociraptor.

Although its size and design look better than the one from Disney's Dinosaur, it is still atrocious. Its arms are too developed for an abelisaur, and like all Jurassic World's theropods (aside from Dominion's so-called "Giganotosaurus" and the feathered dinosaurs), it is shown with pronated wrists. Additionally, like all of the film's large theropods, it suffers from shrink-wrapping issues and the lack of lips.

But the biggest offense to the real Carnotaurus is how it acts! It is shown attacking people and other small creatures while its island home is being destroyed by a volcanic eruption! Plus, it attacks a Sinoceratops, which is far too large and dangerous for a Carnotaurus to hunt, all while the volcano is killing off life on the island. This is incredibly dumb, since the real Carnotaurus was not a highly aggressive bloodthirsty monster. It's an animal. Are wolves bloodthirsty? What about bears? Lions? Sharks?

At least Disney's Dinosaur's depiction of Carnotaurus doesn't act all bloodthirsty. In that Disney film, it is shown only hunting the weak, young, old, injured, or sick animals. It had a good reason to be hunting other dinosaurs, since its habitat was already destroyed by an asteroid impact and fresh water is almost nonexistent throughout the movie. It is forced to hunt out of starvation. Jurassic World's depiction of Carnotaurus had no excuse to attack anything in sight.

This Therizinosaurus reconstruction is atrocious, looking like a nightmare hybrid monstrosity of an ostrich and an alligator rather than a real Therizinosaurus. It is extremely inaccurate, with pronated wrists, a fully toothed mouth without a beak tip, and no feathers. Additionally, it has crocodilian-like armor. This is the WORST Therizinosaurus in pop culture.

Carnotaurus in this movie is WAY TOO BIG, possibly as large as or larger than a real T. rex. It is also too muscular. It actually had slim legs and was the theropod equivalent of a cheetah. Additionally, it is incorrectly shown with pronated wrists, something no theropod was known to have.

We know that real Iguanodon did not have lips covering their beaks, so why did Disney give Iguanodon lips? There is no physical evidence to support the lipped Iguanodon theory. That's like giving modern birds lips.

Velociraptors in this Disney movie are inaccurately shown with pronated wrists and lacking feathers. At least they are more correctly sized, have long slender skulls of real Velociraptors (unlike the Jurassic Park "so-called Velociraptors"), and did not slash their claws into prey. I'm glad they didn't do that in the movie since real raptors were not capable of slashing into prey like cassowaries and instead hunted prey more like birds of prey, including eagles. They are nowhere near as bad as Jurassic Park raptors.

Brontosaurus and other large sauropods were long thought to be largely aquatic or even fully aquatic since people believed they were too big to live entirely on land. However, we now know that they were fully terrestrial and capable of supporting their weight on land.

This Liopleurodon is WAY too big compared to the real Liopleurodon, which was similar in size to the modern great white shark. In the series, it is depicted as being similar in size to baleen whales.

Too elephantine, too long-tailed, and has a nose horn, which the real animal lacked in real life.