Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"flying dinosaurs" in Model_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_aircraft#Flying_models_for_sport_(Aeromodeling) says:

There are also models of birds, bats and flying dinosaurs ...

Presumably "flying dinosaurs" should be changed to "pterosaurs" here, but since I don't know anything about model aircraft that's just a guess.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume it does refer to pterosaurs. There are some well-known examples of pterosaur ornithopters. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that birds are flying dinosaurs anyways... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we explain this...[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That was engineered for a theme park, haha... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Korean ip vandal

The korean IP who makes unexplained changes to theropod dinosaur taxoboxes is back again, this time at 2001:2D8:E990:E074:9F2C:BF39:5A5D:CB15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This has been ongoing since at least December, with 2001:2D8:EB67:1E40:7C6E:34D7:931B:3FA9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Is this worthy of getting a range block? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

New Ip at 2001:2D8:E140:7FBE:BB8:7EAC:620C:21B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), worth noting that this is almost certainly the same Ip editor that was mentioned on the talk page at "IP editor making unexplained changes" above back in March, this definitely needs an indefinite range block. Does anyone know how to request an Ip range block? Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just requested permanent pending pages protection on the most affected pages. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For blocking, you can post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, they've been rangeblocked for 1 month. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Titanosaur Phylogeny

So... the taxobox of Rapetosaurus currently lists it as a saltasaurine saltasaur, and the sauropod template lists it under Saltasauridae. However, the latest iteration of the Mannion dataset [2] recovered it as either a nonsaltasaurid eutitanosaurian or a basal lithostrotian, that of the Gorsack & O'Connor matrix [3] recovered it as a rinconsaur, that of the González Riga matrix [4] found it to be a basal saltasaurid, that of the Carballido matrix [5] a basal lithostrotian, and the Bandiera matrix [6] an aeolosaur (some of these classifications are based on me applying phylogenetic definitions to the cladograms, others are basically what the paper states). Since no recent analyses have recovered it as a saltasaurine, and only one found it to even be a saltasaurid, I think that the template and taxobox probably should be altered to reflect this. However, due to the extremely plastic nature of titanosaur phylogeny, I started wondering exactly how we should deal with this issue, so I decided to post this here, as this pertains to way more than just Rapetosaurus (Savannasaurus, Diamantinasaurus, Daxiatitan, Xianshanosaurus, and Aeolosaurus all immediately come to mind). Any ideas? Also, what a shame that Rapetosaurus has such an unstable phylogenetic position, seeing that it's perhaps the most complete titanosaur that we have. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Initially I came across this issue so I decided to expand Titanosauria to encompass as much phylogenetic discussion since essentially every analysis has different results. The three contenders for most representative are Mannion based, Carballido based and Gorscak based, but the problem is each of the three are still variable (between Sallam ea and the previous run, aeolosaurs and saltasaurs rearrange their contents). As well, Gorscak analyses are bayesian, whereas all others are parsimony, so the differences between results are also due to an entirely different method of running the analysis and the total lack of stability (Brusatte and Carr 2017 have both bayesian and parsimony give similar results in Tyrannosauroidea because the clade is stable). Besides Gorscak, Mannion is the most representative of titanosaur taxa, and the most recent runs including most antarctosaurs for the first time is potentially one of the better analyses to base Wikipedia off. It's preferrable to Carballido because of the greater focus on titanosaurs, but still has flaws of being intended for stem-somphospondylans so it lacks the inclusivity of Gorscak. Going off all three, the general trends are Andesaurus is basal, Lognkosaurs, Aeolosaurs and Saltasaurs form clades, but Lognkosaurs can either be 1) most basal of the three or 2) nested within Saltasaurs. Aeolosaurs can be 1) a single clade most basal 2) a single clade most derived or 3) rinconsaurs with lognkosaurs and other taxa with saltasaurs. Saltasaurs are probably divisible into Liranosaurinae, Saltasaurinae and Opisthocoelicaudiinae, except for Gorscak's analyses where Opisthocoelicaudiinae includes lirainosaurines and lognkosaurs as well. But none of the big three analyses actually include the lirainosaur taxa as a clade, that result is from a subanalysis not strictly based on any of them. Also another analysis or three are coming out soon using more european taxa, so this issue is not going to settle down. And yes all of the above paragraph ignores the Gonzalez-Riga based analyses that include about 30 taxa and 90 characters.

The best thing to do is either to do nothing and wait for more actual results, or go with a consensus of every study and have most things as Lithostrotia indet. We can't pick and choose what studies to follow unless they are specifically about the taxon, and even then (Uberabatitan) the results from a single study can very greatly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of titanosaur taxonomy, I took some photos years ago at an exhibit about Argentinian dinosaurs, and there were some unlabelled casts of what appear to be titanosaur bones. Anyone know what they are, and whether we could use them? Here goes, a vertebra[7], another vertebra[8], and a femur[9]. Perhaps IJReid and Slate Weasel have ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

My money would be on Futalognkosaurus, the two vertebrae resemble the material, and while the femur of the taxon is unfigured I know it exists and would make sense simply based on the other two bones being that taxon. But I would be wary of the femur identification, although I'm fairly confident on both the vertebrae being that taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, a quick Google search do turn up bones that look like these, the description here seems to show them from other angles?[10] FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a traveling exhibit, and here's a photo from Italy on Commons that seems to show the exact same signs next to Futalognkosaurus vertebrae hehe:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Siamosaurus at peer review

Finally got back to working on spinosaur articles after my year-long hiatus from the Wiki. Siamosaurus just passed its GAN so I've put it up for peer review (here) before taking it to FAC. Feedback is welcome and very much appreciated! Ichthyovenator's FAC looks like it'll be passing soon, and Ostafrikasaurus should hopefully by ready for GAN by the end of the week and if it passes, FAC sometime later this month. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, if I get around to it before FAC, I'll support it directly at FAC afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Megaraptora confirmed to have survived until the end of the Cretaceous

statement in spanish, specimen is though to be about 10 metres long, among the largest megaraptorans. Pretty sure that it is from the Chorrillo Formation. Nice to get proper confirmation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this different from the 8-9 m "Megaraptoridae gen. et sp. indet. 1" reported in the Nullotitan/Isasicursor paper? As far as I can tell they are the same taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think so, but given the distinct press release it likely represents a different, more complete individual Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic stability

In recent years there seems to be a rush to alter taxonomies based on the latest papers, this happened most recently with the re-ordering of basal tetanurans after Asfaltovenator was published and the creation of Stokesosauridae article after the grouping was found in a single paper. My main concern is that rushing to alter taxonomic higherarchies and create new clade articles based on single papers is premature, as taxonomies significantly vary from one paper to the text, and only clades that are consistently recovered in multiple papers using different datasets should be included, as research papers are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY, and Wikipedia should attempt to present a concensus view of dinosaur taxonomy. This obviously doesn't cover newly named clades that are stable across multiple datasets that were simply previously unnamed, like Dracohors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems many of such edits are done by drive-by editors or IPs who don't seem to follow and participate in talk page discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Draco ignoramus sophomoricus:, @JurassicClassic767:, this discussion is relevant to your editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I do recall putting new/newer cladograms in several taxa that don't have them or have an outdated one, and yeah, like you said, we sholdn't rush their taxonomy classification, but should we at least mention it in the articles or something? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention them and their results, but that we should be careful to not jump on the bandwagon of a single research paper that may in future turn out to be an outlier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mostly right about that, and I'll also try to participate in talk page discussions like FunkMonk said, so I'd know more about what's the most recent things happening to a taxon. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not particularly familiar with the social etiquette of the site. I suppose that you are referring to my edits in the carnosauria article in which case whatever edits I made I did in accordance to preexisting article content and under the assumption of what was previously written reflected site consensus. Regarding the rest of my edits, namely expanding the content of infobox lists regarding taxa in geological stages' articles, all the info I "added" were exclusively from wikipedia articles that directly referred to a taxon's geological age and I attempted being extra careful to be follow the exact format of every box' INDIVIDUALLY to the point of not adding easily accessible info from within the site in order to not be disruptive. In the few cases I decided to do something slightly more drastic, like I did in the Maastrichtian vertebrate fauna list article I informed the talk page and the seemingly most devoted editors of the article that I would proceed to changes and WAITED for their consent before I did. Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment wasn't about your other edits, which are fine, there's no need to justify them here. I just think that not rushing to modify long-standing taxonomic concensuses based on the results of a single research paper is prudent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to taxonomy templates

Jaimelesmandarines has been changing taxonomy templates, including dinosaurs. See Special:Contributions/Jaimelesmandarines. Some of the resulting templates had errors which is why my attention was drawn to them. I reverted those in error, with the message "please obtain consensus for this change at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs". Ideally all this editor's recent edits need to be checked. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure because they're both french and the same modus operandi that they are the same user as Prehistoricplanes, another french user also blocked for making unexplained changes to taxonomy templates, I think this should be taken to the administrators noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Done Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, you can also open a case at WP:SPI, especially if it's a WP:DUCK (i.e. if it quacks like a duck...). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No need, the user has already been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted all their edits per WP:DENY. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Meta comment: I'm really surprised that the palaeo project has so many long-running sockpuppets. You'd think that these topics are not particularly controversial, much less so than — say, evolution or vaccines. Maybe it's the nature of the field as a gateway science that attracts a strong "amateur culture", and with it people who are highly opinionated over splitting hairs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think ultimately the number of persistent vandals is ultimately quite small in comparison to say I/P related stuff or anything to do with the Balkans (both of which are under sanctions), and the relatively high number could easily just be statistical noise from the whims of a few individuals. Ultimately, the sciences on Wikipedia tend to be better covered than history as there are fewer editors with an interest to distort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

New spinosaurine paper out

Heads up that yet another paper on spinosaurines has just been released by Smyth, Ibrahim and Martill, with important taxonomic implications for various taxa. First and foremost, they've synonymized Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis, Spinosaurus maroccanus, and Oxalaia quilombensis into Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, upon thorough examination of all the material and autapomorphies, which definitely warrants some updating to the necessary pages. It's probably not enough grounds for any merges yet though; I'd wait in case a paper arguing for the contrary comes out, but let me hear your guys thoughts on this.

The tooth taxa Siamosaurus suteethorni and Ostafrikasaurus crassiserratus are also regarded by Smyth and co as indeterminate spinosaurids and dubious/undiagnostic to the genus or species level. Though again, Buffetaut's apparently working on a redescription for the former at the moment, and given that he also described Ostafrikasaurus, it's reasonable to assume he'll also be reanalyzing that taxon in light of this new paper if he hasn't started already. But at the very least, this paper warrants a mention in the affected articles. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is highly unlikely the synonymisation will be widely accepted, considering most of them have been suggested before and are still hotly debated (much of this seems to be motivated by proving the suggested Spinosaurus neotype is the same species as aegyptiacus). We basically have two camps when it comes to spinosaur taxonomy, which will probably battle it out for years to come. But yeah, mentioning the studies is of course important. As for the dubious taxa, that shouldn't make much of a difference for us, as we always keep articles about dubious genera. As for Oxalaia in particular, so little of it is known that it would probably make more sense to just consider it dubious, we don't know how much it differed from Spinosaurus in the body and the rest of the skull right now, which is a pretty big issue. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems the claim that the proposed Spinosaurus neotype is a chimaera is resolved (but note this is not the same claim as to whether the 2014 skeletal reconstruction is chimaeric, as it includes specimens other than the neotype that may not belong to the same taxon). But might be good to list some of the open taxonomic questions regarding Spinosaurus that are currently unresolved: Are Spinosaurus and Sigilmassasaurus the same taxon? Is the supposed Spinosaurus neotype the same species as the holotype? Is Oxalaia the same taxon as Spinosaurus? Is Spinosaurus aegyptiacus the same species as Spinosaurus maroccanus? Is Spinosaurus aegyptiacus just a species with a lot of individual variation, which is necessary for these synonymies to be valid? I don't think any of this can be resolved until more specimens are found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's something we should've probably expected. It's easy to forget just how fragmentary spinosaurids are as a whole and thus there's a lot of potential for taxonomic debates and uncertainties, like Irritator/Angaturama, Cristatusaurus/Suchomimus, Spinosaurus/Sigilmassasaurus and/or Oxalaia, etc. - Either way, I'll try to update the articles today, but might not be able to as I've got my hands rather full with studying/work and other tasks for the project. So anyone else feel free to do it if so inclined. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget Baryonyx/Suchomimus! Or Baryonyx/Suchosaurus for that matter... But yeah, the take home message would be there is no "final word" single papers on these things, they are only ever settled when other researchers agree and a consensus is reached, which takes years. So I don't even think we're in a hurry to add the info, the next rebuttal is probably being written as we speak haha... FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This ties into the taxonomic stability discussion on this talk page, as the paper is a WP:PRIMARY source, we should wait for other workers to see what the consensus view is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion: Deinodon cristatus

There is an ongoing redirect discussion that project members may be interested in: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#Deinodon cristatus (Marsh)

Seems pretty open-and-shut to me — either Aublysodon or Tyrannosaurus would be sensible, although I personally lean towards the former. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Tyrannosauropus"

Eotrachodon has twice created an article for "Tyrannosauropus", which Paleofile says is a mis-spelling of Tyrannosauripus so should be a redirect. The change to an article is, as far as I can see, based on a mis-reading of sources that say that tracks in Australia previously identified as "Tyrannosauropus" are more likely to be Amblydactylus. They do not say that there is a different ichnogenus called "Tyrannosauropus" which is an ornithopod dinosaur, as was claimed in this version.

Could someone else please check this? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

From perusing the papers for a bit, it appears that "Tyrannosauropus" is indeed a distinctly named ichnogenus and not just a misspelling of Tyrannosauripus (as seemingly claimed by Paleofile), but at the same time, it was certainly not named for the Australian tracks at Lark Quarry or any other Australian footprints. "Tyrannosauropus" was named first by Haubold (1971) for a collection of tracks from the Campanian of Utah that have since been recognised as belonging to hadrosaurs, and the later paper naming Tyrannosauripus for a separate, convincingly tyrannosaurid track (Hunt & Lockley, 1994) deems "Tyrannosaurus" a nomen dubium:

"We therefore conclude that Tyrannosauropus must be considered a nomen dubium that was inadequately described, that is undiagnostic, with a damaged holotype that has evidently been lost."

The confusion with the Australian tracks comes from Thulborn's and Wade's description of the tracks in 1984 and 1990 (pre-dating the naming of Tyrannosauripus) as "similar to Tyrannosauropus", referring to the tracks in Utah, but they did not explicitly assign these tracks to "Tyrannosauropus" and at best they have been referred to as "cf. Tyrannosauropus" (e.g. Thulbon & Wade, 1984; Romilio & Salisbury, 2011).

So the short of it is that "Tyrannosauropus" is not just a misspelling and was a distinctly coined, but dubious, ichnotaxon which the Lark Quarry footprints were described as similar to, but it was not named for these tracks and is no longer applicable to them, so their referral to Amblydactylus is not especially relevant to the status of "Tyrannosauropus", although they are similar in that they both appear to be ornithopod tracks mistaken for those of a large theropod. In my opinion, an article on "Tyrannosauropus" could exist separately from Tyrannosauripus, but it would have to be written in the same context as other nomina dubia articles, and certainly not with the incorrect attribution and focus towards the Lark Quarry footprints as in Eotrachodon's version of the article, instead focusing on the history of the tracks described from Utah. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this analysis! Dinosaurs are far from my area of expertise or interest; I only got involved because the taxobox Eutrachodon had set up caused the article to appear in the taxobox error-tracking categories.

Please look at my additions at Tyrannosauripus and Amblydactylus, which need revision given what you found. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Made some quick edits to both those pages to sort the clarification, might come back to them later to give them a bit of a cleanup and polishing. I'll also work on making a start on a proper page for Tyrannosauropus to sort the redirect problem. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Never got around to writing it up, but I had the idea a while back of just making a list article for the collection of dubious large ornithopod ichnotaxa (aka all but like three of them), similar to the one for informally named dinosaurs. Some like Amblydactylus certainly have enough material for articles, most couldn't eek out more than a few sentences of stub. So it makes sense to just combine them into one if you ask me. "(Dubious) large ornithopod ichnotaxa" sounds a bit of a nebulous grouping but it's there are enough studies dedicated to the subject that it seems defensible as a legitimate topic to base a page on. There's a sandbox of it on my userpage but there is little there but a skeleton. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's image review process and the dinosaur palaeoart community

Heads up that a relevant discussion to WikiProject Dinosaurs and its image review process is up here[12]. Further comments and opinions are welcome. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

New diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur material from the Middle Jurassic of European Russia

Paper is here open access. Only a couple of heavily worn vertebrae unfortunately, suggested to be a Dicraeosaurid in the paper. If true an exciting addition to what we know from Lingwulong. How robust do we think their conclusions that the vertebrae indeed represent a diplodocoid are? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified dinosaur fossils in Japan Dino Expos

There are many free photos on Flickr of the various Dino Expos in Japan which have become popular in recent years, but often the photos are unlabelled, or even show unnamed taxa. I've uploaded many such images and identified them, sometimes years later as they were named, but here are a bunch from 2017 I can't figure out what are, so maybe folks here can help. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/39551911544/in/album-72157714091543872/ Sauropod skull?

This is the holotype skull of a Mamenchisaurus species, perhaps M. jingyangensis if my memory serves. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks more like M. youngi to me, M. jingyangensis doesn't have such a large antorbital fenestra and is missing some of the bones that the skull preserves, it seems. The quarry map in the former's description also seems to feature a disarticulated premaxillary region. I can't rule out M. hochuanensis, though it does seem less likely. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked with the M. youngi osteology and I can confirm it is not that species. I've seen this exact skull before I just can't find where, so I'll check with the papers now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I suspected, this is not a Mamenchisaurus. It is Omeisaurus junghsiensis: [13] The fossils look identical but the bit at the front has been prepped off in this photo. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Paleofile it may actually be Omeisaurus maoianus: [14] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

From the O. maoianus paper, it is the left side of the holotype skull. The right side is still complete the left always lacked the anterior region. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the mandible of O. maoianus in the paper could be identical to the one in the O. junghsiensis photo, it's quite elongated in both. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, so I already uploaded a photo of it before without remembering? I guess we go with O. maoianus then? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess so, judging by the elongated mandible in both the paper and photo, we can probably say it's the same. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/40262934711/in/album-72157714091543872/Troodont skeleton?

I reverse-searched the image and identified it as Sinornithoides: [15] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice, but what does reverse-search mean? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

At least on the Chrome browser, you can right click on an image and search for similar images on Google. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, cool, easier than drag dropping as I used to... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/26390380648/in/album-72157714091543872/ Tyrannosaur vertebrae with... Something?

Another photo shows that these are vertebrae from Wyrex with preserved skin impressions; the background is a foot of Wyrex: [16] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/26390910498/in/album-72157714091543872/ Fossils of... Something?

Judging by the looks of the fossils further back, they kinda looks like incomplete neck verterbrae of some kind of sauropod, though I'm not so sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The "fossils of something" seem have an ornithopod-like pointy sigmoidal ilium. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely an iguanodont ilium, presumably the same taxon for the sacrum above and caudals and chevrons behind. The "femur" looks too big to be the same taxon but the rest of the material doesn't. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The bone labelled "中足骨" is a metatarsal. Wondering if this combines material from individuals of multiple ages... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a sign reflected in the top right corner. I don't know if it's relevant, but I flipped it and deciphered the text. The Japanese name reads ...rinto..., the source country is Thailand, and it's the "most complete" something from Southeast Asia. If the sign matches, since it's probably an iguanodont then the only reasonable option is Sirindhorna. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sirindhorna is cranial remains only. Back to square one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The only other described taxa it could be if it originates from Thailand are Siamodon and Ratchasimasaurus. Siamodon can be excluded due to the same reasons as Sirindhorna. I can't find a lot of info on Ratchasimasaurus, but it seems like it's also known exclusively from cranial elements? This may be undescribed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's only a dentary. Definitely not it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk, that website you dug up is really useful... apparently it really is Sirindhorna??? [17] Are there undescribed fossils we don't know about? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see there was another page! So that means there's a lot of undescribed material of Sirindhorna lying around. It's probably fine to upload it and show it in the article, since it was publicly displayed and identified as such. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a sign that seems to show those elements on a Sirindhorna skeletal:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/40218938392/in/album-72157714091543872/ Same as above.

This may be a Japanese taxon, since the surrounding taxa are also Japanese (Fukuiraptor at left and Fukuisaurus at right). The bones are a radius, femur, and humerus. Sauropod? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To nobody's surprise, this might be Fukuititan. The breakage on the femur looks exactly the same: [19] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in this ID. Here's a different mount of the femur, the striations look the same: [20] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iguanodontian_from_Laos.jpg Iguanodont from Laos, has it been named in the meantime?

I don't think so. Buffetaut appears to have first identified the fossils as iguanodontian in 1991, but the paper is in a Schweizerbart journal and I cannot access it: [21]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/kmkmks/38452709660/in/album-72157714091543872/ Mounted small theropod with pronated hands.

The theropod in the photo looks an early type, similar to Coelophysis? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears as part of an exhibit on herbivorous theropods, so that may not be it: [22] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The other photos of the exhibition vary between many sauropods and ornithopods, and also many theropods varying between ornithomimosaurs and even an Avimimus: [23], but if you check the previous photos at the left, it seems like there are many carnivores as well [24][25], so I think it's not only a herbivorous theropod exhibit. The dinosaur in the photo is probably some kind of small carnivore. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

By "exhibit" I mean the area that is shown in that particular photo, I know the rest of the venue is not focused on this theme. I conclude that this exhibit focuses on herbivorous theropods based on this photo: [26] The sign "肉食から植物食..." means "carnivore to herbivore..." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So it's some kind of herbivorous theropod then? It has to be one that's swift judging by those hindlimbs, the tail seems to be very long as well, so better note that too if we were to find out more about this animal. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My intuition was that it's a noasaurid. The skull doesn't really work, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also too long fingers, no? I have the feeling I've seen the mount before... And cool you read Japanese, didn't know! I found the archived website of that expo, not sure if it has any useful info: https://web.archive.org/web/20170910085331/http://giga2017.com/highlight.html FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese is close enough to Chinese that it's not too much of a stretch... Not much pertaining to this specimen on that page, but the exhibition seems to have had Beibeilong and Fukuivenator fossils. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I also thought it was a strange looking noasaurid at first, but since you stated the "herbivorous theropod exhibit", I then got a bit confused. Though we can probably say it's a carnivorous or omnivorous theropod by looking at the teeth, right? Same as with FunkMonk, I think I've also seen this mount before in a random picture in the web. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that the skull looked like Shuvuuia and because of that my reaction was that Haplocheirus because of the hands and pelvis, the latter of which I feel is the most distinct part of the body. But this is just my impression. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought of alvarezsaurs too, the skull is just very different from Haplocheirus:[27] Could be something undescribed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like our ideas are very similar, at first glance, we stated that it could either be noasaurids or alvarezsaurs (both small carnivorous dinos) 'cause of the appearance of its front and mid-sections, but what I've really wondered was its tail, which is oddly long. The skull could be from an undescribed genus as you said, but I'll investigate more on the topic. I would also suggest the first option is taking a look at the noasaurid and alvarezsaur genera, since those are the most similar to it. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I found these papers of undescribed noasaurids found in this year [28][29], no, I'm not talking about Huinculsaurus, these ones were discovered in Australia, they may not be related to the Japanese museum fossils, but they could still be useful as references, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Took me a long time, but I managed to find another photo[30] of the mount with a caption that Google translates as just "A type of Compsognathus, late Jurassic". Whether this means it is some kind of unnamed compsognathid or supposed to be Compsognathus itself, I don't know... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In the exhibition "の一種" usually refers to e.g. Compsognathus sp. A bit surprising, honestly, I think the skull threw me off... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It certainly doens't look like other Compsognathus reconstructions, maybe it's an attempt at C. corallestris? On the other hand, they also seem to have had "Gallimimus" mongoliensis[31] at the exhibit, so there were at least a few unnamed taxa... FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's the same sculpt at this[32], so maybe it's just an alternate Compsognathus longipes reconstruction by this company? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The tail does look similar to Compsognathus, but I'm not quite sure about the skull of the animal, it looks a bit to elongated? But if we really were to go with Compsognathus, then I'd note it as a bit inaccurate. And if it's suppose to be another kind of compsognathid, I think I'd go with Huaxiagnathus (the longer skull), but then again the tail isn't nearly as long... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cool, guys, that was fast! I'll upload and strike out the identified ones soon. Perhaps also take a second round with other unidentified dinosaurs on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's also this "Oviraptor sp."[33] with a really ugly reconstructed skull I've seen on Commons before[34] too, but it seems some of the postcranium may be real? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Greg Funston would probably know. Just don't know if there's a good way to get in touch with him... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually sent him an email once to confirm the id of this skeleton[35] as Nemegtomaia, as I had seen part of it on his website, and he concurred, so that could be a possibility. Though it's probably best if such ids have been published somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on Funston's diagnoses, if I had to make a guess I would say that it is Rinchenia mongoliensis based on the ventral "hook" of the ilial preacetabular process. I really can't be sure though, this skeleton is very wonky. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To my surprise... Greg Funston does in fact have a Twitter account! [36] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nodosaurid subfamilies

I was reading up on the various proposed subfamilies of Nodosauridae, and I noticed that none of them have seen particularly widespread use in modern times. This includes Struthiosaurinae, which was proposed but has since seen little use and been doubted on multiple occasions, and Nodosaurinae which pops up once in a blue moon but again has mostly fallen out of use. At the very least the lists of taxa present on these two articles do not at all reflect natural groups according to modern nodosaur phylogenetic sensibilities. I propose that the articles for both Nodosaurinae and Struthiosaurinae be retired and all genera be put into the Nodosauridae taxobox without any subheaders therein. Asking first since Struthiosaurinae is a GA (albeit one based almost exclusively on one source). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with merging Nodosaurinae, less sure about Struthiosaurinae. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a bit premature? I'd assume some of these names would be kept but with a different configuration once there is better resolution? FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Struthiosaurinae was erected based on pure anatomy without any phylogenetic analysis to support it. Since then one study pointed out the claimed synapomorphies were basically all baseless, and the Borelopelta paper found the supposed group non-monophyletic and commented as such (and this wasn't the first time it's been non-monophyletic). While a group approximating Struthiosaurinae has been recovered a couple times in phylogenetic analyses since it was coined, none of these used or even mentioned the name. Additionally, these found the group to contain some additional, North American taxa, like Pawpawsaurus and Stegopelta. Which creates an issue, since to list the original contents here on Wikipedia is to use a grouping that has never been found together in a phylogenetic analysis, but to include the other taxa would be to apply the name Struthiosaurinae to a group which it has never been used for, i.e. original research. Is it possible it will receive more widespread use in the future? Possibly, but as is now it does seem at all to me that it is currently used in any capacity in nodosaur phylogenetics. Its only scant uses since its erection are off-mentions in papers not on the subject of phylogeny. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point, and considering Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we would prefer a more accurate statement, even if it means surrendering a GA, like what happened to Othnielosaurus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I must also point out it probably doesn't deserve its GA status: it is overwhelmingly based on a single paper, the 2013 Europelta description, other than the four paragraph section based on a single 2000 paper. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I have no opposition to Struthiosaurinae being redirected, I think it was a quickpass for GA and probably doesn't deserve its status. But some other supfamilies like Panoplosaurinae or Edmontoniinae etc probably deserve discussion as well whether in their own article format or within Nodosauridae. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No other subfamilies see any sort of modern use at all. A section in the Nodosaurinae article could be used to discuss the history of nodosaurid subfamilies. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

So a merge would be in order then? Seeing the Struthiosaurinae article now, all genera but Struthiosaurus is accompanied by an interrogation mark, even Europelta, which contradicts the definition of the subfamily: "the most inclusive clade containing Europelta". This, along with the single-based paper would most likely just sink it to Nodosauridae, so I support the merge of both subfamilies. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Avimimus sp. from Alberta?

According to the Paleobiology Database (and Fossilworks), Avimimus sp. fossils have been found in Dinosaur Park Formation. How relevant is this information? HFoxii (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In the article Dinosaur Park Formation said that in formation was discovered possible indeterminate avimimid remains. I think we need a source to confirm that is not Avimimus sp. HFoxii (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no difference. Avimimidae is monotypic (at the genus level). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, in modern research avimimids are not considered a valid taxon, since they include only Avimimus. Anyway, if Avimimus fossils were actually found in the Dinosaur Park Formation, we should mention it in the article about this dinosaur. HFoxii (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Neither of these group names is used frequently by paleontologists as they include only a single species". This is an odd statement, that was first introduced to the article by Dinoguy2 in August 2006 but has never been cited. I think clarification of that statement needs to be made, given the cladogram later in the article contradicts the Elmisaurinae placement.--Kevmin § 21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Controversial cladogram?

The cladogram in Dinosauriformes and Dracohors contradicts the ones (or examples like cladograms) in other articles here, such as Dinosaur, Evolution of dinosaurs, Dinosaur classification and Theropoda. I'm in no way knowledgeable to change it, but does it need to be mentioned the cladogram given is controversial and/or not agreed by all palaeontologists, and the debate is ongoing? 194.28.127.52 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The one in Dinosauriformes is problematic because it seems to be WP:original synthesis of two different sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sauropod Encyclopedia

I've seen Dinosaur Facts and Figures: The Sauropods and Other Sauropodomorphs cited in many different articles by many different users, but according to the publisher's website, it won't come out until halfway through September! How exactly are these citations possible? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the authors of the book is yewtharaptor, though you'd have to check the diffs to see if it is actually him who is adding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not author, collaborator (With the Rubén Molina Branch, sizes and Footprints)...and i only add 1 cite to the book, on Ohmdenosaurus. Also, if you look on Google Books, you can see there is a retail version where you can read some of the pages (That change every weekend). Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, is the book already out in some territories? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already seen pages of it, I believe preview pages are out that cover some of the more significant taxa (Maraapuni for example). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked and Paleo17 usually adds them. Browsing through his contributions, I also noticed he's added an awful lot of size estimates from the Theropods book as well. I think he has some deep connections with the series, but I can't be too certain. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who adds size estimations from the Theropod book, and i don't know why is that a problem since most Dino pages are full of estimations from Paul's book. As for the sauropods book i just saw some pages from the preview on the internet and i thought i could add them, that's all. I'm soory if i caused any problems. Paleo17 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. We're just concerned because, as stated above, the book isn't out yet, and Wikipedia doesn't really like getting information from unpublished sources. But yeah, maybe citing popular books a lot may not exactly be the best idea (see below). Atlantis536 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a consensus on how we treat popular paleo books as sources in general.

• see also the older discussion on the same topic.
• In principle, such sources, including the "Facts and Figures" series mentioned above, can be regarded a reliable source.
• However, this does not mean we can use them without restriction. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Accordingly, we can (or even have to) decide when to use such popular books as sources, and when not. Especially, original interpretations/speculation proposed in such sources are dangerous, and I will point out why.
• Popular books are aimed at the general public, especially children. Novel speculation, whether plausible or implausible, is often presented to meet the expectations of this readership, who is especially interested in who was the largest, tallest, fastest, most dangerous. An example from one of the facts books mentioned in the older thread linked above: "Speed estimates have suggested 28 km per hour, making this [Silesaurus] the fastest dinosauriform known from the fossil record". Any scientific foundation is lacking here. I argue that such statements are objectively unreliable and do not meet the requirements of WP:RS by any means.
• Popular books, including those of well-known authorities, tend to lack scientific rigour (compared to papers), and tend to propose speculation that never would have made it through a peer-review.
• Even worse, we present such original research of popular books together with serious claims made in the scientific literature, and the reader barely notices the difference. We just cannot mix information from children's books with that from peer-reviewed papers.
• Furthermore, popular books like the "Facts" series are unlikely to be cited in scientific literature, they are simply irrelevant (though there are popular books that are cited, such as The Dinosaur Heresies). Which means that those novel claims will never be commented on, supported, or disproved, in contrast to claims published in the scientific literature, which cannot be ignored. For this reason alone we cannot include them in my opinion.
• If those claims made in popular books are irrelevant for the scientific community, they are significantly less relevant for us. They are not relevant because they do not contribute to science.

I therefore propose the following:

• Uncontroversial information (e.g., on the history of discovery of a taxon) provided by a popular source is acceptable.
• Any novel interpretation/speculation of a popular book is only relevant for inclusion if the book has been cited, and at least some of its novel claims discussed, in the scientific literature (i.e., we only include what is considered relevant by the scientific community). Not sure if we can make an exception with size estimates; if at all, I think we should only do this exceptionally when recent estimates published in the scientific literature do not exist.
• Whenever original research from a popular book is presented, including size estimates, we need to make that very clear directly in the text (e.g., "In 2020, paleontologist X stated in a popular book that"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jens here, and this is maybe worth linking to the reliable sources noticeboard. Paul's books are taken as an authority here yet they were not subject to the rigours of peer review. While I respect Paul's work during the dinosaur renaissance, the fact that he didn't actually examine the specimens of Iguanodon that he was describing as new species and genera (per David Norman), which turned out to be junior synonyms makes me question how reliable those estimates are actually going to be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul's popular books are cited in the scientific literature though, and the rough size estimates he has published therein have been recognised, and are sometimes even used for research. This is why I think we cannot exclude the size estimates from those particular books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they are widely used and therefore shouldn't be discounted entirely. However they should always be directly attributed to Paul, which I don't think is necessary for estimates published in papers examining the material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, as I have proposed above, we should always declare that they are from a popular book, and not simply put them in a list together with estimates from peer-reviewed literature. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• In my experience, there're 3 kinds of books: the ones that are basically a long series of journal articles (like [37] or [38]), the ones that are encyclopedia-style quick summaries of academic thought (like [39]), and the ones that are 25% encyclopedia and 75% biography. Encyclopedia style generally does no original work and will cite someone else. For the Sauropod Encyclopedia, I would assume it's an encyclopedia and any height estimate will come from some pre-existing journal articles (the danger being the author reported the highest estimate they could find regardless of how well accepted it is), so I'd also recommend trying to find the original source if we're questioning its validity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The first type you mention is called an edited volume; those are generally peer-reviewed and there is no difference to a journal article. I agree with review-style summaries of published research, if these are written by an authority; in these cases popular books are certainly reliable sources (this kind of source is rare in dinosaur research though). Above I was referring to original research made in popular books, i.e. claims/interpretation/speculation that have not been published anywhere else, and here I see the big problem. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a blog with extra steps and probably shouldn't be included here (despite coming from "the experts") if better material exists elsewhere. That'd be like putting "Paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant postulated in The New York Times that the sickle-shaped claw of Velociraptor was potentially non-functional and used for display" or "Dr. Alan Grant speculated that the famous sickle-shaped claw of Velociraptor was actually just a normal-shaped claw warped by fossilization.<ref>https://alangrant.com/velociraptors-arent-real</ref>" If we reported the speculation of popular books, then we'd have to add All Yesterdays interpretation of Brachiosaurus having an inflatable throat sack or Protoceratops climbing trees   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, this generated quite an interesting discussion! One issue I have about an estimate in particular is that of Asiatosaurus. Is producing a 31-meter sauropod really a good idea? Tooth scaling's already pretty contentious in theropods, and considering how smaller (proportionately) sauropod teeth are, would that not make such problems even worse? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this one up. It is, of course, not possible to do a size estimate for a sauropod based on a tooth. This is close to inventing size estimates out of nothing, entirely unreliable, and including these "facts" in our articles won't help anybody. Seems we need to ban these "facts" books as sources for size estimates entirely, or to be clear: we need to ban them in order to comply with WP:RS in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)