Talk:Gorgosaurus

110 kilograms= 50 pounds ?
at Paleobiology at Life History there is a small error and probably it was meant to be said that gorgosaurus grew 50 kilograms (110 pounds) a year. Felix Petrar (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good catch that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaw structure ?
I saw something on the history channel mentioning the gorgosaurus' somewhat unique jaw structure (widens as it opens), and significant biting power. Was just curious if that was true since it isn't mentioned in the article
 * Are you sure it was on the History Channel? I hadn't heard anything about this. J. Spencer 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous poster here, yeah it was actually on last night. hmm, i can't find anything on it.  shrug
 * What was the name of the program? Looking at yesterday's schedule, the closest I can get to dinosaurs is "Quest for Dragons." J. Spencer 17:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA review
What a fascinating, well-written and well-referenced article!

I've got one initial comment before I look at the article in detail though; the first external link (to the Smithsonian) appears to be broken.

--Malleus Fatuarum 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Link replaced. I look forward to further observations, Malleus. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this article can't make GA, I don't know what can. I'm no great dinosaur expert, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance, but I do have just a couple of questions:


 * The article says that Gorgosaurus co-existed with Daspletosaurus, compared with which it is described as being "lightly built", even though they both seem to come in at about the same weight and size. So what does lightly built mean?


 * What does "a more circular orbit" mean? Are we talking about the eye socket, or the first Gorgosaurus in space? :)


 * "Dale Russell hypothesized ..." Perhaps better to give the reader some idea of who Dale Russell is, for instance, "Palaeontologist Dale Russell hypothesized ...".


 * "Dale Russell hypothesized that the more lightly built and more common Gorgosaurus may have preyed on the abundant hadrosaurs of the time, while the more robust and less common Daspletosaurus may have specialized on the less prevalent but better-defended ceratopsids, which may have been more difficult to hunt." The ceratopsids may surely have been easier to hunt, just more difficult for a Gorgosaurus to get the better of? Even I think that's kind of a picky point though ;-)


 * I made a couple of copyedits that I hope haven't changed the sense of what the article is saying. If you think that they have, then feel free to revert them.

I'm not even going to wait for you to address the points I've raised - although obviously I hope that you will - because I think that they're minor. This seems to me to be an excellent article and well deserves to be listed as a GA. GA passed!

--Malleus Fatuarum 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Malleus; I'm glad to get a review from someone who is "no great dinosaur expert"; we've already got experts. What we needed was someone unfamiliar with the material to make sure the article was clear to the casual reader. Cas Liber wrote most of this article back in July, and I thought it was good enough to reach GA status; I'm glad you agree. I will work on fixing the problems you pointed out.


 * 1) I'll try to work out the weight thing.
 * 2) A link to orbit might help! ;)
 * 3) Thanks for the suggestion about Dale Russell's title. Good point.
 * 4) Maybe I can reword this...
 * 5) The copyedits look great; I was observing as you were making them.

If you have further suggestions on reflection, Malleus, please do not hesitate to make them. Your ideas and comments can only improve this article. Thanks again for your time. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus or Albertosaurus?

 * I remember someone saying that the statue in New Mexico on the right image was supposed to be depict an Albertosaurus specimen found there, which later turned out to be a Gorgosaurus, or what? Could the image be included in the article then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's labeled as Albertasaurus by the Museum. Whether or not this is incorrect would depend on which specimen(s) the sculptor based it on. The sculptor is David Arthur Thomas. Maybe somebody could email him? If it is a specimen now assigned to Gorgosaurus, maybe somebody at the museum should be notified, though I doubt changing the label would be a high priority... Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it had been "officially" resolved, no big deal then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Gorgosaurus/Albertosaurus controversey ought to be explored more. For a decade or more Gorgosaurus was not recognised as a separate genus by most of the palaeontological community.Gazzster (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On this note, the image on the right turned out to be Gorgosaurus as well. I'm thinking it may show the animal off better than the current, angled taxobox image? FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one is much easier to see. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Smooth skin
"In 2001, paleontologist Phil Currie reported skin impressions from the holotype specimen of G. libratus. The skin of Gorgosaurus was smooth, lacking the scales found in many other dinosaurs". I have a children's dinosaur book from 1980, The Mysterious World of Dinosaurs, that contains a picture of Gorgosaurus with smooth, glossy black skin. Was this just a lucky guess on the part of the illustrator, or had skin impressions been found earlier than is stated here? Wardog (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be either. The smooth skin impressions were actually found on the holotype--Currie just was the first to really point them out formally in 2001, but the specimen was discovered much earlier. Note that other gorgo specimens show scales on other parts of the body, so it must have had areas of scales and areas of naked skin (which might have supported feathers in life). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * if so, where are the anchor-points for these feathers on the 'smooth' skin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.99 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

75 million years?
This date is subjective: dating this dinosaur depends on your worldview. Also, saying it lived in the late Cretaceous period depends on the geologic time scale, which depends on the geologic column, which appears nowhere in the earth. It is very disappointing to see this biased content. Wikipedia editors are supposed to maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.169.155 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A wise person once summed up Wikipedia philosophy as: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing."
 * Wikipedia operates by using reliable sources and not our personal opinions. You will need a reliable source attesting to your claims before they can be added to the article. Also, Neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions.


 * The proper articles dealing with geologic dating are:
 * Geochronology
 * Relative dating
 * Absolute dating
 * Geologic time scale (the so called "Geologic column")


 * Please read the following Wikipedia guidelines before moving forward.


 * WP:UNDUE - Undue weight
 * WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories
 * WP:RELIABLE - Reliable Sources
 * WP:NOR - No original research
 * WP:NPOV - No Point of View (neutrality)
 * --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I must also remind you that talk pages are not forums for discussion the topic, but for discussion of how to impove the article alone. See WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gorgosaurus. 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/20080130171049/http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/dinosphere/profiles/gorgo.html to http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/dinosphere/profiles/gorgo.html
 * 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) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Feathers or not
It seems to me, the picture's feathered rendering contradicts the text :

"In 2001, paleontologist Phil Currie reported skin impressions from the holotype specimen of G. libratus. He originally reported the skin as being essentially smooth and lacking the scales found in other dinosaurs, similar to the secondarily featherless skin found in large modern birds.[8] Scales of some sort were present in this specimen, but they are reportedly widely dispersed from each other and very small. Other patches of isolated Gorgosaurus skin shows denser, and larger though still relatively fine scales (smaller than hadrosaurid scales and approximately as fine as a Gila monster's).[9] Neither of these specimens was associated with any particular bone or specific body area.[9] In the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs Kenneth Carpenter pointed out that traces of skin impressions from the tail of Gorgosaurus showed similar small rounded or hexagonal scales.[10]"

216.221.57.72 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Feathers and scales are not mutually exclusive. They can be present at different parts of the body of the same animal, as is shown in the restorations here. Some dinosaur fossils are also known that show such a combination, feathers alongside scales. Some formations are not good at preserving both, though, so absence of either isn't proof of anything. That said, the first restoratio here may be slightly too fluffy. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

polar region? weight compared to Daspleto?
Haven't they established that these creatures ranged far north of the border of the inland sea? The literature points to Daspletosaurus being a heavier animal than Gorgo, with a much stronger skull ... the article should be adjusted.104.169.37.99 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of Nanuqsaurus, which was assumed to be Gorgosaurus early on. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)