Talk:Austroraptor

An AUSTRIAN dinosaur??
The dinosaur's name should be Australoraptor ("southern predator") rather than Austroraptor which virtually means "Austrian predator". These two unimpressive characters "..al.." make a huge difference for English speaking people are also likely to confuse two countries which actually have little in common. One of man's nearest (and long ago extinct) relatives was also named Australopithecus ("southern ape") rather than Austropithecus.--Slow Phil (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, if you read the etymology section in the Austria article, you'll see the name of the country itself suffers from a similar Latin mistake ;) Anyway, wouldn't "Australoraptor" just have confused people by making them think it came from Australia? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe one could conclude this dinosaur had lived in Australia if it's name were Australoraptor. But the same "problem" arises with Australopithecus, a near man's relative living not in Australia but in Africa. Back to dinosaurs: After all, Australia, like Africa and South America but unlike Austria, had belonged to Gondwana before this supercontinent broke apart long before Austroraptor's emergence.--Slow Phil (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words... there's no problem. If it's not a problem for people assuming Australopithecus is from Australia, there's similarly no problem with people assuming Austroraptor is from Austria. The Latin roots are the same and both formation seem to be valid. Both Australia and Austria have the same derivation--Austria, just by mistake. Both countries are variant spellings of the same name. I'd hate to see the reaction if somebody named Georgiaraptor or Columbiaraptor something... who'd know where it was from, people may actually have to look it up! ;) Seriosuly thoug,h if I were looking for a dromaeosaur from Austria, my first assumption would be "Austriaraptor" anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if people would stop using the lame-ass "placename-common suffix" scheme and actually start using some creativity when erecting genera there wouldn't be any confusion, would there? If the place-suffix is the best they can come up with, they should solicit suggestions or have a "name the dino" contest or something! >:O Abyssal (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point, Slow Phil. As for Australopithecus, the whole Gondwana argument is irrelevant, since the great southern supercontinent the dinosaurs called home had long split by the time this bipedal manlike ape evolved.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Austroraptor is a troodontid
Austroraptor is misclassified

It is said to be unenlagiine, which is semi-understandable if you only think to look at the snout. Yes, unenlagiines have long thin snouts, but there are is another kind of of thin snouted dinosaur family around...

The troodontids

Troodontids have a tendency to have short arms

"Particularly notable about the taxon were its relatively short forearms, much shorter in proportion compared to those of other members of its family. The relative length of its arms has caused Austroraptor to be compared to another, more famous short-armed dinosaur..."

long snouts

"A. cabazai's 80 centimeter-long skull was low and elongated, much more so than that of other dromaeosaurs..."

and lots of non-serrated teeth

"Austroraptor had conical, non-serrated teeth..."

hmm... That's not obvious at all. Come on paleontologists, think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.206.155 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should publish it, then. Remember no original research; Wikipedia is supposed to only include what's already available. J. Spencer (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more to classification than general things like short arms or thin snouts. The major differences between the families are in areas a laymen would not think as important (but are actually more important) like tooth type, hip structure, etc. At best it could be considered a "troodont mimic". Troodont like at first glance but not in the details. By the way, conical, non-serrated teeth are more spinosaur-like than troodnt-like. Troodonts have leaf-shaped teeth with large, broad serrations similar to herbivorous dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Austroraptor is a troodontid, that would make it the largest member of the family by several meters compared to the others. Most troodontids didn't get much longer than 6 or 7 feet, so if Austroraptor is a troodont, then explain what could possibly have driven it to evolving such dramatic size compared to its relatives. Meanwhile, there are two or three other large dromaeosaurs known besides Austroraptor, so its size would seem less out-of-place in this group. Also, where did you get the information that troodonts had "conical, non serrated teeth". I highly doubt teeth like that would have given the group the nickname of "wounding tooth". Perhaps you have them confused with spinosaurs or megalosaurs, many of which did have such teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cousin not included?
A recent discovery about a year back, being the Ypupiara, is apparently a cousin to the Austroraptor, and this is cited on the page for the Ypupiara, but does not seem to have been added to the Austroraptor's page. I'm not an expert on how to cleanly insert this info into the page, else I'd do so myself, so I'll just bring it up so someone else might be able to do so. I can understand if this needs to wait until there's more substantial information on the Ypupiara too, just wanted it posted for when we do feel there's enough so it can be added at that time. 2601:680:C600:F7E0:5187:66D3:4D62:F412 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)