Scientifically accurate compy size is substantially larger. Does this change the compy debate?

When we think of the size of Compsognathus we often see it claimed to be 1 meter (3.3 feet) long, or we think back to the smaller chicken-sized dinosaurs of the movies. Now of course Frontier games does not include some of the smaller dinosaurs currently because of issues with size.

However what if I told you this size estimate is false and appears to be based on an earlier conception of Compsognathus that is now known to be false, but apparently has become an internet truism? Well the basis for this apparently popular misconception comes from the history of Compsognathus in paleontology.

Compsognathus longipes was the original and thus type species of Compsognathus and was 89 cm or about 3 feet. Another specimen found in France then named Compsognathus correlestris was 125 cm or 49 inches or just over 4 feet. These two species were seen as separate however until it was discovered that Compsognathus correlestris was simply an adult version of Compsognathus longipes.

Meaning there is only Compsognathus longipes and it is actually 4 feet long rather than 3 feet, both sizes of which, though still small, are substantially larger than the compies as we saw them in The Lost World. The in-game Troodon is a little less than twice as big.

This being the case, given that Frontier has not at least yet included Compsognathus due to size issues, yet it turns out that Compsognathus is actually larger than most people think, does this change the debate as to whether Compsognathus should be included in the game? I'd like to see your thoughts below and hopefully attract Frontier's attention to this interesting and potentially game-changing fact.

Here is a photoshopped comparison of an in game Troodon with a Compsognathus at its actual scientifically accurate scale for people to see how this could change the debate.
troodon.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's still a lot smaller than the smallest critter currently in game... the smaller things get the harder they'll be to manage with the current animal management system. It's also not very accurate to lore canon... while I know the animals are not always 100% accurate to the movies (the Dilophosaurus clearly being bigger) I don't see them up-scaling the Compys when they've always been super tiny in the movies.
 
It's still a lot smaller than the smallest critter currently in game... the smaller things get the harder they'll be to manage with the current animal management system. It's also not very accurate to lore canon... while I know the animals are not always 100% accurate to the movies (the Dilophosaurus clearly being bigger) I don't see them up-scaling the Compys when they've always been super tiny in the movies.

True, however having them scientifically accurate would definitely beat not having them in the game at all. And yes they'd still be harder to manage regardless. Though I'm thinking some of the suggestions people have raised for small dinosaurs could be added to the game; traps, lysine contingencies, medicated food supplies, invisible fences and secondary population capacities for smaller animals. etc. etc.
 
I would agree that the size different isn't much, but also that an obscure piece of knowledge (not that I try undermine it, just that most are very casual dinosaur fans) could have anything to do with it being added to a Jurassic World game.

If anything, being a fairly well known creature in the lore, they would probably either add it to fit in as it always was, or not at all. Even though we will certainly get them, new animals aren't really needed too much anyway. More reasons to even use the amount they already have is what is needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom