Talk:Daspletosaurus

Drawing
Hay ive drawn a picture of daspletosaurus, you can see it on my personal page. I think its reasonably accurate its based of skeletal drawings. Is it possible i could add it to the artical? It may not be that usefull however. :) Steveoc 86 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The drawing is very good, just a few issues: one, can you remove the humans and text from the image? The humans are anachronistic and text, at least your signature, are not permitted for wiki images. Second, the description says "use with permission" but your have it tagged as Public Domain, which means anybody can use it for any reason without having to ask you. If you can clear these things up, I think it would be fine to include it. Dinoguy2 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I've uploaded a newer version. Can i keep the text 'Daspletosaurus..'? On the spinosaurus page the spino drawing has a real signature am I allowed to have one?(small in the corner)If not I remove all the text. The humans were just for scale but the article already has an image that shows that. thanks Steveoc 86 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ive acidently created a new picture file how do i remove the old one (i thought i had replaced it)?
 * To replace a pic, you need to upload the new one with the exact same name. I think the only way to delete one is to nominate it for deletion like you would an article. Keeping the labe text is ok, as long as it's small and not too distracting, and I think 'drwan' sigs are usually ok if they're not obtrusive, but I'm not sure.Dinoguy2 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The image use policy says that if there’s text, then upload a text free version as 'It will help Wikipedians translate your image into other languages.'    A signature is universal so that shouldn’t be a problem. I have shrunk and faided the tex on the 'english' version, were in the artical do you sugest it goes. thanksSteveoc 86 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Next FAC..
Gosh I know where the next FAC is comin' from....cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where? Spawn Man 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dur...here. Or if you reckon somewhere else I'm sure this mob'll race ya.cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But seriously - mainly momentum really cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion:
I've gone through the article & proof read it all - there weren't very many mistakes at all, but still a few things to work on. Overall, the article is very repetitive in regard to Daspletosaurus' relationship with other tyrannosaurids - it mentions its relations to T rex & Gorgosaurus in the opening, then again in comparison in Description, then again many times in Discovery & Naming, and then again in Paleobiology (where even a section is devoted to Gorgi) & then again in Paleoecology & Classification. By the end of the article I'm unaware whether I'm reading an article on Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus or an article devoted to the relationship between the two. This either needs to be edited out, stated in a couple of places or moved to the section in Paleobiology on the relationship between the two.

Next is the short paragraph side of things. Both the Description, Discovery & naming & Paleobiology sections have short paragraphs, as well as the opening. These need to be expanded. I experimented merging a couple of them, but it looked kind of silly. The opening sentence to the Paleobiology section looks out of place - a flimsy one sentence line - and needs to be deleted or expanded upon. Other than that, the article looks well on its way to being featured with the usual editing & polishing requirements. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are too many mentions of other tyrannosaurids at all (this may not be a surprise since I wrote most of it). There's a mention of its relationship to Tyrannosaurus and its coexistence with Gorgosaurus in the lead. Because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Tyrannosaurus and Gorgosaurus are mentioned one time in the description section, in comparison, to help people tell otherwise very similar tyrannosaurs apart. Gosh, how terrible. It's mentioned again in "Classification and systematics" because if you're talking about an animal's evolutionary relationships, it might be a good idea to mention the animals that is actually related to. Gorgosaurus is mentioned one time in the entire Discovery section, in the (relevant) context that the holotype was thought to be a species of Gorgosaurus. Tyrannosaurus is mentioned in the Two Medicine section because Horner believes that species to be a link between Daspletosaurus and T. rex... that was how it was originally announced to the world back in 1992 (1991 if you count an abstract for SVP). Important? Yeah, pretty. The "Competition with Gorgi" section... well this is a hugely important part of the interest in Daspletosaurus, how it coexisted with another very similar tyrannosaur, something that is not seen anywhere else in the (published) fossil record. A half-dozen papers have been written about this, so maybe the subject deserves its own subheading. And then there's the faunal list at the bottom, of all the types of animals Daspletosaurus interacted with... Gorgi should be left out just because it's been mentioned a few times?


 * I agree with you that the one-sentence Paleobiology lead is too short, but I wasn't sure what else to write there. Maybe someone can expand it. I think the length of the other paragraphs in the article are appropriate for their content, others may disagree. Sheep81 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying get rid of the Gorgi altogether, but the article is very much concentrated on the relationship between the two. Considering there is actually a section devoted to this relationship, there shouldn't be half as much on it outside that section, yet there is. It's basically overpowering & it's not really what you think Sheep, but what FAC voters think. I wasn't objecting to the mention in the lead as it is meant to be overviewing (I have written a couple of FA's ya know...), but this relationship is mentioned in every single section, whether briefly or not. As I said, most of this could quite easily be compressed into the section on the relationship. But *sigh*, you & I don't have a good track record of agreeing on things. Spawn Man 07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just have no idea how you would go about removing Gorgosaurus from the systematics or paleoecology sections. It wouldn't make any sense. Sheep81 08:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... I guess it's not in the systematics section anyway. Ha. Tyrannosaurus is though. Sheep81 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eleven mentions of Gorgosaurus in the article text, six in the "Gorgi" section and one in the lead which you have no problem with. The other four: compare a skull feature with Gorgi and Rex; note that the holotype was once considered a specimen of Gorgi; note that facial biting is also seen in Gorgi and Rex for context; and list Gorgi among the many animals that lived alongside Daspletosaurus. I don't understand how that is excessive. Please explain how this is "overpowering" and how you would like that to be trimmed without losing information.


 * Ten mentions of Tyrannosaurus in the article text, five in the Classification section and one in the lead which (I guess?) you have no problem with. The other four: compare a skull feature with Gorgi and Rex; identify the 2Med species as the one considered transitional between Dasp and Rex; use Rex as support for a hypothesis of Dasp ecology; note that facial biting is also seen in Gorgi and Rex for context. I don't understand how that is excessive either. Please also explain how this is "overpowering" and how you would like that to be trimmed without losing information. Sheep81 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel your overprotectiveness of this article is clouding your judgement Sheepy. Stop defending defending defending, & try and relax! A couple of those mentions could easily be left off. heck, why not create a whole new article on the matter like species of Pssita & then link to the main article? Unless it's not that important in which case you could easily lose a few mentions? I'm not saying it's excessive, but the way it's spread throughout the whole article rather than in one or two condensed places is over powering. I'm not saying deleted everything on it, but rather place it in a single section or two. You probably get what I mean, but just want to argue because you've written most of the article...? Anyway, let it go if you want, but I'll bring it up at FAC when this article gets there - just thought you'd rather sort it out here rather than there. Cheers, Spawn Man 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually I have no idea what you mean. You claim that mentions of the coexistence of Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus are pervasive throughout the article. I have just finished showing you that their coexistence is not even mentioned outside of the Gorgi section and the lead, aside from one tiny little sentence at the bottom. The other 3 references to Gorgi are on completely unrelated topics. I laid this out explicitly just up there and your response is more of the same vague hand-waving. In fact, I guarantee you that if you didn't bring it up at FAC, nobody else would even notice this alleged pervasiveness. Am I protective of the article? Sure, it's hard not to be, but in no way am I overprotective in the sense that you mean. Many people have edited the article since I rewrote it, in fact I went out and solicited 3 or 4 different editors to come proofread it. The only reason I seem exasperated with you here is because you keep asserting something about the article that isn't even true. Sure, I could delete all (three!) of the mentions of Gorgi unrelated to its coexistence with Dasp, but why? It's good information that would be lost. Sheep81 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think the article is good in terms of the discussion of the other two predators. Co-existence with gorgi is covered in the lead, one other discussion and a one liner in the 2med. This is fine. Tyrannosaurus is a easy ref point for most people (especially kids) and is mentioned sufficiently. I don't think overly. I feel it is justified having a discussion on the competition with gorgi as this is really unusual to find two large predators partly co-existing and makes a fascinating read. I'm wondering how it'd look if it was just in Paleobiology directly. I'm not seeing anything too repetitive.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean remove the "Competition with Gorgosaurus" subheading and just let that be the first thing under Paleobiology? That would allow the deletion of that one-sentence intro. Sheep81 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not really fussed either way but solves a short section problem. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not reall that hard to comprehend what I'm saying Sheepy - The text on the relationship between Gorgi & Daspi is too overpowering & consumes a large portion of the text therefore giving an unbalanced feeling to the entire article. Not to hard was it now? Now, I also suggested a few ways to fix this - Delete a few of the mentions. Compress them into one or two sections, ie, the relationship between the pair section. Or, expand the other text around these mentions to eliminate the overpowering feeling. Again, not that hard. I'm sure you can easily acomplish one of those tasks; I'd probably choose the last one as it still benifits the article without deleting your precious Gorgi mentions. Sound good? Now if you'll stop going on about how my opinion is wrong, I'm sure I'll be able to support in any future FAC this article might have if you fix the problem. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Through. You obviously aren't even reading what I write, just repeating the same thing over and over again. You say the text on the relationship is too overpowering, I point out that there are four whole sentences including the word Gorgosaurus outside of the relevant section and the lead, none of which lead to any discussion beyond those sentences. What do you say? The text on the relationship is too overpowering and consumes a large portion of the text. I point out that there IS NO TEXT ON THE RELATIONSHIP outside of the relevant section and the lead. What do you say in response? The text on the relationship between... and so on. So yeah, I'm over it. Sheep81 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sheep, and in fact think there could be more on Das's relationship with other animals in its environment. That's what the paleobio/paleoeco section is for. Do you think there's too much discussion of gallery forests on Amphicoelias? The context in which an animal lived is often just as important as the animal itself, especially for prehistoric animals, where it is a rarity that we have so much published data and theories about the environmental context. Plenty of dinosaur articles have lines like "it lived along side such and such dinosaurs", which is a basically useless statement, because nobody ever studies how they interact. Here people have. It's interesting and relevent. Also, Spawn, I advise you to watch how you conduct yourself. Your tone is incredibly condescending and the implication that you won't support people's FACs unless they go along with your suggestions is pretty deplorable. This is not dirty politics, this is a frigging encyclopedia.Dinoguy2 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gawsh Sheepy! No need to get all uptight about it. ;) I'm always condescending, but in a good way. I wasn't implying I wouldn't support any future FAC; no idea where you'd get that idea from. My opinion is my opinion - you certainly don't have to agree with it & you hardly do anyway. There's no need to gang p on me about it & say I'm being unreasonable. I think you calling me a dirty politician deplorable, but as I said, we all have our own opinions. Just so I can clarify, this text isn't in the Description section: "The orbit (eye socket) was a tall oval, somewhere in between the circular shape seen in Gorgosaurus and the 'keyhole' shape of Tyrannosaurus" - I mean do we really have to compare to Gorgi here? Do we really know the shape & size of Gorgi's teeth?? Most would answer no, so it's really not adding anything & if we don't know, what's the point of comparing to it? Other than that, I'm fine with the rest, but you said there was no other Gorgi references outside of the above mentioned ones. I didn't know you were getting all worked up about it Sheep, I thought we were having a civilised discussion. Saying something isn't hard to comprehend isn't being condescending - If you don't want my help, then fine, I won't give it. Just because you're the big paleontologist guy doesn't mean everyone else's opinions are wrong. This is your article remember, obviously I'm not wanted here. Spawn Man 07:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem... you're gonna wanna re-read the signature up there... Sheep81 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem ahem... I'm not an idiot - I was replying to both of you... Spawn Man 07:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Well if you'll read what you wrote, you'll notice you didn't specify anyone else but me, so it's not hard to see how I might have thought you were dumping it all on me. I'm also not sure how else to read "I'm sure I'll be able to support in any future FAC this article might have if you fix the problem" other than how Dinoguy did. And I'm flabbergasted that when you said "The text on the relationship between Gorgi & Daspi is too overpowering & consumes a large portion of the text..." you were really only referring to one sentence in the entire article, since apparently you are fine with the rest. So maybe you just need to work on writing what you actually mean. That's all I'm gonna say. (shrug) Sheep81


 * You could read "I'm sure I'll be able to support in any future FAC this article might have if you fix the problem" as "melborp eht xif uoy fi evah thgim elcitra siht erutuf yna ni troppus ot elba eb ll'I erus m'I", but that's only if you read it backwards. You could also read it as, "I might not agree that the article be featured just yet due to this concern of mine"; I never knew not commenting on a FAC or opposing one was considered "dirty politics". Yes, I find that one sentence too overpowering for my pallete. At an aesthetic value, yes it did make the Gorgi info too overpowering. I don't really see your problem with deleting it etc. I mean, you only complained now about my pickiness, not the actual oppose itself. Shall I delete it if you have no problem with it? Cheers, Spawn Man 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC). P.S. "So maybe you just need to work on writing what you actually mean" - How condescending! (shrug)...

Taxobox question
Should we remove the "2 or 3 unnamed species" from the taxobox? Sheep81 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, this is discussed pretty throuoghly in the text. Aside from Quetzalcoatlus I can't think of any taxoboxes that list unnamed species, and that one is kind of a special case, since Qsp is far better known than Qn (why it hasn't been named after all these years is pretty baffling!). Dinoguy2 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure; sounds a bit clunky as written. I'd leave out unless someone comes up with an alternative.cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention that it didn't sound very encyclopedic, but forgot. I think it should be removed... Spawn Man 07:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Survey says, remove! Sheep81 08:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Final bits
The article is looking good - I did muse on mentioning co-habitants Centrosaurus and Hypacrosaurus in the lead's final para...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like how? Sheep81 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a quick edit, but I want to concentrate on a separate project and am not doing any in-depth review for the time being (which, incidentally, is why i haven,t dared approach Bird yet).Circeus 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like:

"While Daspletosaurus fossils are rarer than other tyrannosaurids, the available specimens allow some analysis of the biology of these animals, including social behavior, diet and life history. In some areas Daspletosaurus coexisted with another tyrannosaurid, Gorgosaurus, though there is some evidence of niche differentiation between the two. Other large animals (and potential prey) it shared its landscape with include the horned dinosaur Centrosaurus and the ornithopod Hypacrosaurus."

I did it with Steggy and Diplodocus just to give an added 'feel' of what other dinos were around for the kiddies..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Anyone have a problem with widening the taxobox a bit as the image looks a bit tiny as is?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How's that now? I removed the picture width from the taxobox, now it just uses the default width. Sheep81 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep - all good. I must say I am impressed at how comprehensively you can get from Go (stub) to Whoa (all info, double check, copyedit and a lick of boot polish) without a large amount from the rest of us. Congrats - ready to roll into FAC then? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, that is a good or a bad thing depending who you ask. I think it's ready but the peer review has only been open for like 24 hours, so... Sheep81 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. See what happens.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This artical has gotten really good, i cant find any unreferenced staitment. The only small and fairly unimportant thing i can think of is a popular culture section. the only program i know it was featured in was an episode of Dinosaur Planet.Steveoc 86 09:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

taxobox image
Hi - The old drawing of Dasp. was replaced with a photo of a skull. Personally, I think the drawing was more appropriate for the taxobox, and the skull would be better in the article. Anyone else agree? de Bivort 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the drawing too, but the switch was per this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Flickr FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I wouldn't have agreed with that consensus, thinking a skull alone is less illustrative than the drawing of a body, particularly when the rest of the animal is known and the skeletal image has a distracting background. de Bivort 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I guess it isn't such a big deal, I wouldn't mind if you switched it back. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too big of a deal either. I'm inclined to leave it as your version but just express my preference here. de Bivort 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, this probably fits here. Anyway, there are some issues that are problematic with the current taxobox image we have right now that could be easily fixed with an image of a different mount. While yes, the image is of a mount composed of the original holotype specimen, and this photo is in an almost-perfect lateral view, there are numerous problems. In the mount itself, one big problem is that the arms are pronated, especially noticeable in the left arm. Another problem is that this mount is a composite of multiple specimens, so proportions may very well be inaccurate. One smaller problem(that's been ignored in other taxoboxes) is that the coracoids are too far apart, which is quite noticeable at this angle. Another problem with the way the photo's been taken is that there's a lot of stuff around it, and it can even be a bit distracting, in the case of that chasmosaur mount to the left. I'm proposing any one of the three images below of a more accurate mount, still of D. torosus, but with non-pronated hands, correctly placed coracoids, a furcula, and gastralia. While these photos all have a bit of foreshortening, I think that the pros of the new mount outweighs the cons of the new mount and the pros of the current mount. Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The new image is very good. But it seems the plaster parts of the skull are a bit too extensive. The postorbital bridges to the lacrimal over the eye, which does not seem to be natural in tyrannosaurs. But this error is so subtle that I don't think it matters. One solution could be to use this image of the same skeleton I just found on Flickr, where the feature isn't so obvious. It is also sharper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the second photo might be best (though it is busy, it shows more details than the first one, and the last one is blurry). Do we know what specimen it is based on? In any case, we should probably include the photo of the holotype at least somewhere in the article. I have some doubts over the copyright status of the photo under Discovery and naming, so maybe it could go there instead. As for the issue with coracoids, the problem is also that these have only recently been taken into consideration with museum mounts, it seems, so we simply don't have many photos of skeletons where these are placed correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Field Museum picture from the classification section is probably the most clear and focused photo we have.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 03:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That one depicts an unnamed species, though, we are not sure whether it will even stay in the genus... FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess. I'm just kind of grasping for any alternative, I personally find the new one absolutely butt ugly, but I can't really make an argument against it...  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This image is the clearest we have, but the specimen is very recently excavated and has not been described. Not that it really matters, but it would help solidify its identification. Maybe in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that's even more ugly. I hate the ones without backgrounds. Anyways, you removed the images of the cliffs since the section was cluttered, but now it looks awkward since all the images in the section are on one side. I feel we need something to put back on the right side.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 04:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No big deal to me, feel free to put it back in. This article could really need some expansion, would help make the images fit better too... I fear there will be little to do if the article is FARCed, saving it would take quite some work... FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that after Brachiosaurus is done maybe we could spend time updating older dino FCs as a focus instead of a single collaboration subject.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think at least we could try to make a list of the most "endangered" articles to begin with (FA as well as GA), those that are outdated, incomprehensive, and inadequately sourced. Then we could kind of bypass the formal procedures, so that we can do it at our own speed... FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy
If Daspletosaurus torosus is an adult Aublysodon mirandus then Daspletosaurus is invalid in favor for Aublysodon because:

Or is their some other wacky rule in the ICZN that I should know about? Taylor Reints (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aublysodon mirandus, 1868
 * Daspletosaurus torosus, 1970
 * "Who synonymized Daspletosaurus with A. mirandus? A. mirandus is from the Judith river formation, where no definite Daspletosaurus remains are found. So it may not be the same species, and whether it's the same genus is subjective. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most recently, in 2006, a near complete skeleton of a 5-6 meter long tyrannosaurid was collected by private collectors in the Judith River Formation of eastern Montana. Due to the lack of serrations on its premaxillary teeth, and the similarity of the low, long skull to the "Jordan theropod," this specimen has been referred to Aublysodon. The similarity of this specimen to the 'Jordan theropod' and immature tyrannosaurines from Asia strongly indicates that this specimen is in fact a juvenile of Daspletosaurus or a related taxon."

This was taken from the Wikipedia article, Aublysodon. If this is true then Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon. But you're right about the Judith River Formation and Daspletosaurus's distribution. Although, Albertosaurus, an albertosaurine that has long been confused with Daspletosaurus due to their convergent similarities, is known from the formation so maybe it could be a juvenile A. libratus. 99.56.36.169 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the paragraph you quoted because it had no source. I'm not doubting it's true, but if it was collected by a private company, it will need to be studied by scientists and published on to determine if it is really Daspletosaurus and, if so, which species (there are currently one or two new species of Daspletosaurus awaiting names). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient discussion, I know, but I'll just let in my two cents on this.

"Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon."

Daspletosaurus would retain priority over "Aublysodon" since not only is "Aublysodon" a nomen dubium, but Daspletosaurus would be considered a nomen protectum since it's been used far more then "Aublysodon" and thus, as of 1999, has priority over all junior or senior synonyms. Thus, "Aublysodon" is the senior synonym of Daspletosaurus, but is invalid. Daspletosaurus remains untouched (aside from possible new species), but "Aublysodon" would become a synonym of Daspletosaurus if the remains are found to be that of Daspletosaurus. "Aublysodon" could either be a juvenile Daspletosaurus or an indeterminate tyrannosaur. Raptormimus 5:08 PM, 29 April 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting a lot of stuff there, but I'm sure Dionoguy can make a more eloquent explanation as to why. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the rule for spelling variants with that for nomina oblita. Dapletosaurus is not a spelling variant of Aublysodon. Aublysodon is not a nomen oblitum as it has been used in the literature as a valid name on occasions later than 1899.--MWAK (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Pathology
Any chance that we can find more details for the Pathology section? Or merge it elsewhere? Chris857 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Undescribed taxa
It seems all the images we have here depict the two undescribed taxa (and will therefore be moved once they are named). Does even a single image on Commons show Daspletosaurus proper? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fossil_Daspletosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, these images should be removed for now from the article, except from the "Unnamed species" section, don't they? Rnnsh (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not until they are described, because there is still a chance they'll end up as new species within this genus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe this image is of a skeletal model based on the skull of the holotype and the hindlimb of AMNH 5438. So it mixes Daspletosaurus torosus and Daspletosaurus sp.: Daspletosaurus torosus, Ottawa.jpg
 * I guess that would be alright, when the time comes... FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition (if these are placed in new genera), much of this article will have to be rewritten, and much of it removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that it mentioned something about this in . It stated that the Dinosaur Park specimen was distinct from Daspletosaurus and that the Two Medicine specimen might or might not be Daspletosaurus. Iainstein (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the part: "Daspletosaurus torosus and unnamed taxa from the Dinosaur Park and Two Medicine formations that were once referred to Daspletosaurus sp. are recovered as a paraphyletic assemblage rather than a monophyletic group. Further analysis of these specimens and better stratigraphic data is needed to further resolve these three OTUs, we suspect that the Dinosaur Park Formation taxon may represent D. torosus, but regard the Two Medicine Formation taxon as distinct from D. torosus." So the situation may not be "that" bad after all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on this paper, it seems a split is very near. So let's hope they only name a new species, not genus, so this article won't be too battered, which would affect its FA status... It will be a bit of a mess sorting out what part of the text refers to which taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why, it's always a joy to add a new article :o)! But their parsimony analysis has Daspletosaurus as monophyletic, so they'll feel no urge to name a new genus.--MWAK (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, in that case, the article splitting is all yours! FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I shall not shirk the responsibility :^).--MWAK (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've been doing some research on Daspletosaurus which has included the Wikipedia information on it. I'm getting the impression some of the Daspletosaurus images on Wikipedia are misleading, so I thought I'd ask about this here in case this is the case or if I'm misunderstanding things. My understanding is the Dinosaur Park Formation species might represent a currently unnamed species, based on what I've read including on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page. The skull of the DPF species looks noticeably different to the skull of Daspletosaurus torosus in these two comparison images: I've noticed a number of Wikipedia images appear to show the DPF species, but are labelled as showing D. torosus. On the Daspeletosaurus Wikipedia page, I think this applies to the following images: this size comparison, and this feeding individual. Additionally, on the Tyrannosauridae Wikipedia page, the first image on the page labels the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 as D. torosus: If I'm understanding correctly, the top of the skull in the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 isn't known. The lacrimal horns seen on FMNH PR308 look like the more forward pointing horns of Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, and unlike the more upward pointing horns of the juvenile DPF specimen RTMP 94.143.1 (as seen in the first comparison I posted) and of adults of Daspletosaurus torosus and the currently unnamed Two Medicine Formation "Daspletosaurus sp.". That makes me wonder if the lacrimal horns of FMNH PR308 are actually just made out of plaster and look like those of Albertosaurus/Gorgosaurus because as mentioned on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page: "It was mounted for display in Chicago and labeled as Albertosaurus libratus for many years, but after several skull features were later found to be modeled in plaster, including most of the teeth, the specimen (FMNH PR308) was reassigned to Daspletosaurus." Are lacrimal horns known from adults of the DPF species? So, what I think might be misleading on Wikipedia is: 1. Some images of the DPF species are labelled as showing D. torosus. 2. The lacrimal horns of the DPF species, as seen in photos of FMNH PR308 and the size comparison and feeding individual images I linked to, might be unlikely or inaccurate due to what I mentioned. If this is the case, it isn't said under any of the images, and Daspletosaurus is represented prominently in this form on Wikipedia e.g.: the first image on the Tyrannosauridae page, the first image on the Daspletosaurus page, the second image on the Daspletosaurus page which is a size comparison. 94.10.250.226 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You have a point: with the holotype the lacrimal horn is not pointing forwards. The captions might be changed into a more general "Daspletosaurus". However, it is better to wait for the new description before drawing any conclusions.--MWAK (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As MWAK says, we'll have to wait to see what happens to those supposed taxa before we can really do anything about it... But since that Canadian Museum mount seems to include the holotype of D. torosus, it might be more safe to keep that in the taxobox? Even though we don't know whether the DPF specimens will simply be named a different species of Daspletosaurus, though this seems to be a rare procedure among large theropods... Usually they are placed in new genera. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would certainly welcome a new genus :o). Putting the holotype in the taxobox was an excellent move.--MWAK (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the Carr 1999 paper, and it seems like the lacrimal horns are actually preserved in the Field Museum specimen. And unless they were wrongly positioned during reconstruction, they do face forwards... So in any case, it seems our size comparison image is wrong in that it seems to show the Field Museum specimen as D. torosus... But I can see an earlier revision of that image shows a different skull, so maybe we should just revert back to it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I don't think that 10 year old version is any better. IIRC it's based on essentially a re-scaled Hartman T. rex so the proportions and skull shape would be quite off. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just until there's a version that looks like torosus, hint hint! FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have some free time today, I'll knock out an updated scale chart. I was reading around the web and stumbled upon a Daspletosaurus specimen nicknamed Pete III, it's rumured to be nearly 11m long. I don't know if it is published or will be anytime soon. I'll create a chart for a 9m Daspletosaurus for the time being. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice, I also saw you just updated your restoration, good to see that weird border at the left finally come off! Also seems to be the only drawing here that actually shows D. torosus, the other two show forwards facing horns, which only seem to be present in the Dinosaur Park taxon... FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Woah. I didn't even know that boarder existed! Yet somehow I corrected it...Weird. If there is any other weirdness in my pics please tell me lol. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a first draft. It hasn't been cropped yet. Should I add D.horneri to the diagram? According to the paper it's supposed to be similar in size. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, maybe the upper empty space could be cropped? If we only know they're basically the same size, I don't think having both would be necessary, but perhaps others think differently... If there are estimates for all three species, it could maybe be good to have all... FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm currently doing is comparing MOR 1130 D.horneri skull as seen in Carr's paper to D.torosus, it's almost exactly the same size. It will be interesting to find out what species this Pete III specimen belongs. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I answered a while after I read your earlier comment, so didn't remember you already said it was yet to be cropped... What formation is Pete3 from? FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking into that, the RMDRC blog is saying Judith River. The Theropod Database is currently listing it as Upper Two Medicine Formation, the same formation as the D.horneri type, MOR 590.
 * On looking closer it would seem that the MOR 1130 skull is a little smaller then D.torosus. From what I can see, MOR 1130 is the largest specimen in the D.horneri paper. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an update to the scale diagram, This version shows D.horneri. I've simply scaled the D.torosus outline to match the skull size of MOR 1130 since there isn't currently any skeletal reconstructions of D.horneri. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, but I'm not really a scale-diagram expert... FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded the new scale diagram. I havn't included D.horneri just yet. The skull of MOR 1130 seems to be a little smaller then D.torosus but the limb material seems to be about the same size, I need more time to compare other measurements so I can decide how best to scale it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan! FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems like the Two Medicine taxon is now D. horneri: The article could need a big overhaul, a lot of newer publications are only mentioned in passing or not at all... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But they didn't name a new genus. :o( --MWAK (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Scientific Reports is an online journal, and as far as I can see the article naming the new species doesn't have any evidence of being registered in ZooBank within the article itself, I'm not sure D. horneri was validly named, so it might still be Daspletosaurus sp.--Macrochelys (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps the authors aren't aware they should? FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Daspletosaurus. 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/20071025221456/http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-227.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-227.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704183838/http://app.pan.pl/acta51/app51-435.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta51/app51-435.pdf

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) 07:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daspletosaurus. 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/20080227134632/http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf to http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

new paper:
Wilsoni denied: Anagenesis and the tyrant pedigree: a response to “Re-analysis of a dataset refutes claims of anagenesis within Tyrannosaurus-line tyrannosaurines (Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae)” - Elías A. Warshaw, Daniela Barrera Guevara, Denver W. Fowler. Involved parties know where to look. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:64B9:9416:8D7D:2F4B (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)