Talk:Beipiaosaurus

Family Tree and Description
Once more information on Falcarius utahensis and Nothronychus is available, we may be able to add more family tree information. We might also be able to be more accurate in comparing the specimans, as it sounds like Falcarius may be slightly larger and Nothronychus larger still. Comments welcome. WBardwin 10:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel it's best to call Beipiaosaurus a member of Therizinosauroidea only, until some credible analysis shows it's within Therizinosauridae. Also the theory that therizinosaurs might have been prosauropods has by now been fully discredited. It simply has no defenders any more.

--MWAK 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Beipiao Reptile?
Just wondering if someone had a better translation of Beipiaosaurus than "Beipiao reptile". Fairly silly to translate it as that, since it's like translating Tyrannosaurus as "Tyranno reptile".

My own guess is that has something to do with it's spine, but without any further info I can't really do much. Hopefully someone else knows.
 * Beipiao is the name of the place it was found. I'll link this to make it more clear. also "saurus" is lizard, "herpeton" is reptile.Dinoguy2 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree I don't understand why, all of a sudden "saurus" means reptile. I know that lizard isn't accurate, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't mean what it means. (I don't have an account... yet a least)


 * Well, it isn't "all of a sudden". It depends on the meaning of "meaning". If you mean the etymology of a word then it is very true that saurus is a Latinised Greek sauros/saura that meant "salamander" or "lizard". But when those scientists started naming al those extinct reptiles ~saurus, they didn't mean it to mean "lizard" but "member of the Sauria" or a saurian — which word, sadly fallen out of common use, is often imprecisely translated as "reptile". So depending on what meaning of meaning you mean both "lizard" and "saurian" are correct translations. The former is more transparent — and by its very transparency misleading — the latter is more historically and scientifically relevant.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Beipiaosaurus means "Beipiao lizard", not "Beipiao dragon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.67.61 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New type of feather, "for display"(?)
"Writing in PNAS journal ... Xing Xu, a palaeontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. [writes that] The structures found on the fossils appear to be early feathers, based on their simple form.

[This feather] type was previously unknown to science: it is a single, unbranched filament which is much longer than those seen before on theropod dinosaurs.

The researchers named these Elongated Broad Filamentous Feathers (EBFFs), because of their unique shape."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7825364.stm

-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the paper is still in pre-print but I'll try to get something in today since it's hit the new already. Look like porcupine/psittacosaur quills to me! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture
Personally I don't think that the picture at the top right of the article (in that box with all the information) is very good quality. I think that there are much better pictures... but I don't know how to change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (I don't have an account... yet a least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have examples of better pictures which are accurate and free to use? Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent picture, IMPO.--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On this issue, am I the only one who is completely baffled by Gregory Paul's restoration of this animal's plumage in his Field Guide? Looks like it has been feather-plucking. Our restoration makes it look like a healthy animal. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Beipiaosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308213846/http://www.dinosauria.com:80/jdp/archie/therizin.html to http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/therizin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Beak or no Beak?
The article states that Beipiaosaurus had a toothless beak, however, it's not cited and the literature I have read doesn't specifically mention whether it does or not. Some skeletal reconstructions like the Jamie Headden one in the article show it with a beak and others by GSPs show small teeth going to the tip of the snout. I can't find Hi-Res images to help answer the question. Have I missed something or does anyone know of any literature that mentions if there is evidence of a beak or not? Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was assumed all therizinosaurs had beaks? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not clear if Falcarius has a beak, it's basal therizinosaur, doesn't preserve a premaxilla but the dentry has teeth all the way to the tip.
 * On twitter I've been told about two papers; one mentions that a toothless premaxilla is a synapomorphy for Jianchangosaurus + therizinosauroids (which includes Beipiasaurus) but it also states that the Beipiaosaurus premaxilla has never been described (Pu et.al. 2013), which I suspect is the reason for the confusion. Another paper (Lautenschlager 2017), the author has looked at the specimen in person but is only focusing on the lower jaw and restores it without teeth near the tip. The paper briefly mentions the advantages a beak might provide but doesn't specifically look for evidence of one. I suspect it is the safe assumption that it had some sort of beak but none of those sources specifically back up the claim. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)