 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Pararhabdodon edit
Pararhabdodon is not the same as Rhabdodon, but appears to be a derived hadrosauroid near the base of Hadrosauridae (Prieto-Marquez et al., 2006) (Koutalisaurus). I'll try to take care of it in the next few days, but if someone else wants it, they can take it.J. Spencer 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done J. Spencer 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, nice work, thanks! Dinoguy2 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Restoration review edit
The Rhabdodon restoration on this and the Rhabdodontidae page needs replacement in my opinion. It has pronated hands; has a quadrupedal posture, which is unlikely based on phylogenetic bracketing; has a shrink-wrapped back (Neutral spines.); and has bird like foot scales[1].142.176.114.76 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is bracketed by for example Tenontosaurus, which seems to always be depicted as quadrupedal, though. Not even hadrosaurs could fully pronate their hands, but they were still partially quadrupedal. As for foot scales, not sure what is wrong with that, no real evidence against. See comments here: http://dinogoss.blogspot.dk/2013/09/youre-doing-it-wrong-dino-foot-scales.html FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Foot-scales aside (Aldo, if the Siberian ornithopod really does have branched feathers, feathers of some sort being basal for dinosauria, and evolving into foot scales very early on (Before Dinosauria?) isn't completely out of the question.); on falculative quadrupedality, I'm not entirely convinced that Tenontosaurus could do it either. Based on phylogenetics, Tenontosaurus should be the most basal iguanodont (Aldo some consider Rhabdodontidae to be more-so; this would actually weaken the chances of falculativity (I'll just say FQ from now on.) in them.), and considering that the most derived non-iguanodont ornithopods we know of are along the lines of Hypsilophodon and Gasprinisaura, which show no signs of becoming FQ, why would it suddenly change? Secondly, Camtosaurs, Elasmarians, and Dryosaurs; all more derived, are all complete bipeds. There is no indication any of these where from FQ ancestors, and also no reason basal Iguanodonts should be restored this way. As far as pronated hands go; I'm fairly certain your aware that hadrosaurs had inward facing hands (Not backward or down pointed.), and supported their weight one the digits II-IV (On the forelimbs, that is.); whereas the restoration has downward pointed hands, with the fingers pointed forward: it's using the whole hand. Again, the thing also has shrink-wrapping.142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, regardless of posture, one of the hands is hopelessly twisted, so it would be inaccurate to use in any case. But as for Tenontosaurus and friends, depends on what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for a replacement, think it' worth attempting to get permission to use this: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Rhabdodon-priscus-418547702 ?142.176.114.76 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Don't bother, I'll whip one up this afternoon. I was planning on doing a quick Nanuqsaurus for that page anyway, I'll knock out both at once. On the foot scutes, there shouldn't be a problem with them as based on the specimen photos I have, the Siberian ornithischian dones have them. It is my general unsubstantiated hypothesis that the same gene/s that turned off the "feathers" in hadrosauriformes also turned off the foot scutes. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good, the head seems a tad too small on the restoration above as well. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds goo, I was actually going to ask if anyone wanted to make one (And yes, I'm the same guy, different computer.).24.224.240.181 (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good, the head seems a tad too small on the restoration above as well. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not to discourage Tomopteryx or crew in the new illustration, which will hopefully be great, but there is this image on deviantart that would be great to get the permission for, especially since it illustrated juveniles, as well as Variraptor. IJReid (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is we need to get it with a free, commercial license. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen that one before; it isn't very good. The Rhabdodon has shrink wrapping, Pronated hands, and quadrupedal posture. The Variraptor is even worse; it also features shrink-wrapping and pronated hands (?), as well as feathers that don't even go up to the first finger, no secondaries no "wings" on the back legs, "feather hugging" (Feathers following he body shape almost exactly, unlike very modern bird.), implying of pack hunting, and no feathers on the feet.142.176.114.76 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see pronation in the dromaeosaurs, but the wing feathers seem to attach incorrectly. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, not quite sure, one at lower left is pushing it.142.176.114.76 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see pronation in the dromaeosaurs, but the wing feathers seem to attach incorrectly. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen that one before; it isn't very good. The Rhabdodon has shrink wrapping, Pronated hands, and quadrupedal posture. The Variraptor is even worse; it also features shrink-wrapping and pronated hands (?), as well as feathers that don't even go up to the first finger, no secondaries no "wings" on the back legs, "feather hugging" (Feathers following he body shape almost exactly, unlike very modern bird.), implying of pack hunting, and no feathers on the feet.142.176.114.76 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is we need to get it with a free, commercial license. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Don't bother, I'll whip one up this afternoon. I was planning on doing a quick Nanuqsaurus for that page anyway, I'll knock out both at once. On the foot scutes, there shouldn't be a problem with them as based on the specimen photos I have, the Siberian ornithischian dones have them. It is my general unsubstantiated hypothesis that the same gene/s that turned off the "feathers" in hadrosauriformes also turned off the foot scutes. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for a replacement, think it' worth attempting to get permission to use this: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Rhabdodon-priscus-418547702 ?142.176.114.76 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, regardless of posture, one of the hands is hopelessly twisted, so it would be inaccurate to use in any case. But as for Tenontosaurus and friends, depends on what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Foot-scales aside (Aldo, if the Siberian ornithopod really does have branched feathers, feathers of some sort being basal for dinosauria, and evolving into foot scales very early on (Before Dinosauria?) isn't completely out of the question.); on falculative quadrupedality, I'm not entirely convinced that Tenontosaurus could do it either. Based on phylogenetics, Tenontosaurus should be the most basal iguanodont (Aldo some consider Rhabdodontidae to be more-so; this would actually weaken the chances of falculativity (I'll just say FQ from now on.) in them.), and considering that the most derived non-iguanodont ornithopods we know of are along the lines of Hypsilophodon and Gasprinisaura, which show no signs of becoming FQ, why would it suddenly change? Secondly, Camtosaurs, Elasmarians, and Dryosaurs; all more derived, are all complete bipeds. There is no indication any of these where from FQ ancestors, and also no reason basal Iguanodonts should be restored this way. As far as pronated hands go; I'm fairly certain your aware that hadrosaurs had inward facing hands (Not backward or down pointed.), and supported their weight one the digits II-IV (On the forelimbs, that is.); whereas the restoration has downward pointed hands, with the fingers pointed forward: it's using the whole hand. Again, the thing also has shrink-wrapping.142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as regards the posture of Rhabdodon, this was the conclusion in Chanthasit (2010): "Rhabdodon may have been primarily quadrupedal. It has a robust forelimb. The humerus possesses a well-developed deltopectoral crest. The ulna bears a prominent olecranon. The manus is short and robust. It is likely that the forelimb supported the body weight and was adapted for standing or walking as a quadruped". Ulna and radius were elongated. An individual with a length of six meters would have had an arm length of 1.1 meters.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)