Talk:Herrerasaurus

Jurassic Park?
When was Herrerasaurus in Jurassic Park? J. Spencer 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not on the list in the article for either the book or the film. I'll remove the cat. Dinoguy2 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the website Park Pedia it shows an image with a map of the entire park, and Herrerasaurus is seen along with Baryonyx and Segisaurus, neither of which was given a proper appearance either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The web site is not the book, it's a separate entity that has no relation to the book other than being based around the same fictional story. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a computer screen in the original Jurassic Park you can see the different paddocks with the skull of each creature on it. You can see a Herrerasaurus skull. Might I also add, even if it's not canon, Jurassic Park: The Game features the Herrerasaurus heavily, and it's still based on the story of Jurassic Park. TheJawaManiac (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Size
The artical says 'It is estimated that Herrerasaurus could reach up to 15 feet (5 meters) in length. Some fossils indicate that Herrerasaurus could grow up to 3 meters in length and 1 meter in height.' .... it makes it sound as though 3m is larger or more spectacular than 5m ............which it isn't .... :)  ......... Also 15 feet isn't 5m its more like 4.6m. which size is it. ive hered 3m, 4.6m, 5m?Steveoc 86 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously this article needs a lot of work. Feel free to improve it. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester  01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a 1993 National geogrpahic with a skeletal drwaing by GSP and it says 15 feet. I read some were that in GSP Preditory Dinosaurs of the World that he said 3.9m (12.7 feet) Steveoc 86 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Greg Paul also said that Deinonychus and Velociraptor were synonymous.70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Head img
"Image:Herrerasaurus 2.jpg" has been bothering me as I look at it. I may be wrong, but most common reconstructions I've seen have had a more blunt snout- see the taxobox image, for example. Does anyone know how recent this reconstruction is? David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't really resemble any skulls or skeletals I've seen... Dinoguy2 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm commenting it out for now. Good thing about this article is I'll be looking into more reconstructions, but from what I've seen so far it's old, erroneous, or both. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone put this head image back. Should it be removed? ArthurWeasley 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus is collab for July 2007
Nominated 10th May, 2007;

Support:

Comments: cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cas Liber | talk |  contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) J. Spencer 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ArthurWeasley 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) M&amp;NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Firsfron of Ronchester  00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) David Fuchs( talk /  frog blast the vent core!  ) 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A triassic dinosaur - would be terrific to get one of the early ones - great to show hypotheses over where it lies cladistically etc.
 * This one is pretty straightforward, except for the "is it a theropod/sauropodomorph/saurischian/dinosaur/basal nondinosaur" thing. J. Spencer 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We need more Triassic dinosaurs as GA or FAs: right now, they are quite under-represented. Firsfron of Ronchester  00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto to Firsfron's comments. So far we've done some good work on it, and in terms of Triassic Herrerasaurus is one of the more known. David Fuchs( talk /  frog blast the vent core!  ) 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added redlinks to the to-do; as far as I'm concerned, the box is pretty accurate as to what's left. J. Spencer 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the pop culture section include anything that the article would be worse off for not having? I was half-inclined to get rid of it (at least the video-game stuff). The wording is awkward at any rate; it hasn't done much in pop culture because it has only been really well-known since Sereno's work, not because it's from the Triassic. J. Spencer 04:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it must go, it must go. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be fussed if it went - fairly non-notable pop cult refs anyway...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here it is in case anyone want to look it over again:
 * Herrerasaurus is not as well known to paleontologists and the general public as other dinosaurs. However one fossilized specimen of Herrerasaurus, originally found in the Patagonia region of Argentina, is displayed at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. This is in part due to the age of the fossils: Herrerasaurus lived in the Triassic, before most other dinosaurs existed. Fossils of Herrerasaurus were not described until 1963, and until recently, this genus remained relatively unknown to the general public. As a result, its appearances in popular culture have been limited. However, Herrerasaurus does appear in several recent video games. Among these are the Zoo Tycoon and Jurassic Park game franchises. J. Spencer 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Classification: The only parts of this article that I think are not straightforward and clear are those dealing with classification, particularly the third paragraph under History. One concern is that Langer (2004) and Benton and Langer (2006) actually find the basal saurischian position to be most parsimonious, which is shared with the recent Dromomeron paper (which oddly omits Eoraptor). J. Spencer 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrap-up
Going forward, there are still five redlinks, a couple of places for citations, and the usual need for copyediting. The needed citations and redlinks would keep it from a GA, but I think that with the cites and two or three of the redlinks filled in, it could pass. J. Spencer 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * cladogram anyone....good idea or straying into OR? Or just a graphic representation of existing hypotheses...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
This article easily meets the GA criteria. It is very readable. The coverage of the topic is very good. I particularly enjoyed the NPOV discussion of the history of the classification debate, which is what makes this such an interesting animal. The research for the paleobiology and paleoecology sections was also impressive. The images are good, but you might want to select a larger size than the standard thumb size for the image accompaning the classification section. It is a nice image but you can hardly make it out. I am hard pressed to come up with many other suggestions to improve the article, but I would suggest getting rid of the red links. The are distracting If you don't plan to create the article yourself in the next few weeks just de-link the names. You can always add a link back if someone someday creates the appropriate article. Rusty Cashman 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Rusty. I've just blue-ified one of the links, and will try to blue up the rest tomorrow. I will also enlarge the image a little. If you have further suggestions for article improvement, please do not hesitate to speak up. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester  04:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Head size
Not sure what is meant by "up to at least". If this was a single specimen, shouldn't a single measurement be known for the head size? Perhaps the intent is that the heads of these guys varied, with a range of (what least estimated size? up to 56 cm in the large specimen, and possibly more in as-yet-undiscovered specimens. Let me know what info is known about the range of sizes. If this is the only head specimen, then that would need to be stated accordingly (plus whatever ranges might be estimated, if any.) Or perhaps, "measured up to as much as 56 cm, the measurement of one large..." Existing wording is unclear. Thanks.
 * "Its head measured up to at least 56 centimeters (1.8 ft) long, in a large specimen... "
 * DinoData has a translation of the original paper on Frenguellisaurus, which explicitly states the skull was 56 cm. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But it also names the specimen, not as a Herrerasaurus, but as:

Systematics

Frenguellisaurus gen. nov.

Etymology

In honor of Dr. Joaquín Frenguelli, who realized an important paleontological and geological work in the Triassic Ischigualasto-Villa Unión Valley.

Typespecies

Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis.


 * This specimen is compared to a number of other species, including Herrerasaurus. On my reading, the head measurement does not belong to the article's subject at all and should be deleted. Please review the source document and see if you reach the same conclusion. Other editors, also please do so. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 06:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Frenguellisaurus is a junior synonym: it has been considered the same genus as Herrerasaurus since the 1990s. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you a source for that statement? Should the article mention such synonyms? I'm not a saurophile (sic), so not familiar with the technical standards for such articles. However, if another lay reader, like this one, were to check the source, they might feel the same confusion. Just food for thought. Unimaginative Username 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement is already in the article, with sources: "Reig named a second dinosaur from these rocks in the same publication as Herrerasaurus;[1] this dinosaur, Ischisaurus cattoi, is now considered a junior synonym and a juvenile of Herrerasaurus.[8] Two other partial skeletons, with skull material, were named Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis by Fernando Novas in 1986,[21] but this species too is now thought to be a synonym.[8]" Firsfron of Ronchester  01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. My failure to notice that was partly due to to the habit of proofreading for grammar, punctuation, etc. without really "reading" the article, just as a stenographer can take dictation faster if writing or typing without trying to understand what's being said. Also due to copy-editing a paragraph or a few sentences at a time, revising, do a few more, etc. Sorry to have taken up your extra time. In atonement, I've revised the entire paragraph on physical characteristics for what I perceive as both clarity and smooth readability. Take a look, see how you like it now, and let me know. Unimaginative Username 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize; I completely understand, having copyedited articles before. There's a difference between reading for content and reading for clarity. Looking for typos and poor grammar is not the same thing as reading for comprehension. The copyedits you made to the description look great, and I am delighted to see how this article is turning out. You've been just great. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw, shucks. Unimaginative Username 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fenestra/e number

 * "The rear of the lower jaw also had fenestra." I changed to "fenestrae", assuming that the jaw had at least one pair. If there really was only a single opening, it should go back to the singular "fenestra". Advise.
 * A fenestra on each side. Fenestrae, as you edited the article to read, is definitely correct. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

San Juan

 * "first noticed its fossils in outcrops near San Juan". The lead makes it clear that this happened in Argentina, but San Juan appears to be both a city and a province in Argentina. Which it is should be specified. "San Juan, Argentina" or "San Juan Province, Argentina". Linking is optional. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's near the city, in the province. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unimaginative Username 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Synapomorphies

 * "However, only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies are actually supported by the study of Herrerasaurus, and new additional ones were discovered.[3]" The meaning of the last phrase is not clear to me. Aside from the fact that "new additional" is redundant, which can be fixed easily, the main thrust of the sentence is an "only": "... only one X and seven Y", so the phrase "and new ones discovered" (showing additional) does not mesh with the "only" part (perhaps should be "but new ones were discoverd"). Also, does "ones" refer to "new fossils found" or to "new synapomorphies found"? I don't know the facts. If you can specify these, I'll re-write the sentence appropriately. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The source appears not to be available online. Most likely is to delete the last phrase, but it would be better if someone could read the source and provide the correct info. No further action from this editor otherwise. Unimaginative Username 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my denseness, but I'm still not getting it. Current revision: ''The monophyly of dinosaurs was explicitly proposed in the 1970s by Bakker,[37][38] and nine cranial and about fifty postcranial synapomorphies (common anatomical traits derived from the common ancestor) have been listed. However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]''

From a base of zero knowledge, here's what I get: 
 * 1) Bakker says they're mono.
 * 2) Bakker (at least, I think it's Bakker; passive voice makes it uncertain) lists 9+50 synaps.
 * 3) Sereno looks closely and can verify only 1+7 of Bakker's list of synaps.
 * 4) ? Now I'm lost. while additional synapomorphies were discovered. Additional synaps have been discovered, but not verified? Kindly spell out in very simple terms what's going on with the synaps since Sereno's study, and then we'll worry about forming it into brilliant prose. Also, whether the original proposed 9+50 were exclusively Bakker's, or others contributed to the list after Bakker proposed the mono hypothesis. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still needs to be addressed for clarity. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Herbivores vs. carnivores

 * "Herbivores were much more abundant than carnivores .... They were much more abundant than early ornithischian dinosaurs like Pisanosaurus." But the article on Ornithischia says that they too were herbivores. So, we have "herbivores were more abundant than herbivores" (in effect). Should it be that this particular dinosaur (the subject of the article) was more abundant than this particular herbivore (Pisanosaurus)? Again, advise the facts, and I'll revise. Thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the writer was trying to state that herbivorous non-dinosaurs were more abundant than ornithischians (which were also herbivorous). Firsfron of Ronchester  02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have little knowledge of this topic. Following aetosaur/archosaur/dinosaur got a little bit circular for this user. Perhaps the distinction was specifically to the beaked, or bird-like, ornithischians? (Non-beaked > beaked) As above, best practice would be for an involved editor to check the source and edit accordingly. If I can be of any help in revising according to whatever is found there, let me know. Unimaginative Username 05:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * UI, it is really great having someone unfamiliar with the material going over this article. After all, the article is supposed to be written for people who are unfamiliar with the material, so if something is unclear, it should be made clear. I'm really glad you are pointing out everything which needs clarifying.
 * The ornithischians are "bird-hipped" dinosaurs, but, aside from the presence of beaks in many of them, they aren't particularly birdlike otherwise: the saurischian ("lizard-hipped") dinosaurs are the ones which gave rise to the birds. I'm not exactly sure what this sentence was supposed to mean. I think I will ask the original author of that area for clarification.
 * Once again, I appreciate your patience and all your work on this article. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first paragraph was my POV of copy-editing in a nutshell. Well said! :) Agree with asking the original author. Let me know if I can be of help with the appropriate revision when the facts are in. Unimaginative Username 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added some clarifications to the two litigious sentences. Let me know if they make sense now. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's much clearer now. Except... and therefore more likely prey to Herrerasaurus than the early dinosaurs.. I'm guessing that what was meant was "and therefore more likely to fall prey to Herrerasaurus than the early dinosaurs", since H. was a meat-eater. Or "more likely prey for H." Probably not "pray to Herrerasaurus (not to eat them)". Are either of these correct statements? Unimaginative Username 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prey for Herrerasaurus. Definitely not "Pray to Herrerasaurus. All praise the mighty Herrerasaurus; praise him with great praise. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, with an additional disambiguating "were" added, in accord with Murphy's Law of Copy-Editing: "If any phrase can possibly be interpreted incorrectly, it will be". "more likely prey for H. than the early dinosaurs would be", as opposed to misreading "more likely prey for H. than they would be for the early dinosarus". (Yes, I know that H. was one of the early dinosaurs, but the policy is "Lead the reader by the nose to the correct meaning, and take no prisoners!") p. s. If I were food and say a 4- (or maybe 6-) meter dinosaur coming, I would pray (while running). Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hands on drawing
Are the hands on the drawing under the classifiction section too pronated? If so, It'll be fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus is collab for feb 08
Nominated December 7, 2007;

Support:

Comments:
 * 1) Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Firsfron of Ronchester  16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Dropzink (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to get a Triassic dino to FA quality and most of the hard work's been done so far. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what do we want to do with the article now that we've got it again? We've had two outside editors give it a shine. The redlinks are gone and everything has been referenced. What do we think needs to be done? J. Spencer (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not much is being done to this article in spite of its nomination. Is it top notch already? Funkynusayri (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, and a Good Article, but it's missing something I can't put my finger on. It's certainly not far off. J. Spencer (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Funny how sometimes articels 'gell' really nicely and other times tehy just don't...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paleoecology
I'm working on revising the article for grammar, style, clarity, et cetera, but I'm unsure about what to do with the Paleoecology section. I'll start with the first paragraph and hopefully other interested folks (I know they exist) can help.


 * Current first paragraph:
 * Although Herrerasaurus shared the body shape of the large carnivorous dinosaurs, it lived about 230 million years ago, a time when dinosaurs were small and insignificant. It was the time of non-dinosaurian reptiles, not dinosaurs, and a major turning point in the Earth's ecology. The vertebrate fauna of the Ischigualasto Formation and the slightly later Los Colorados Formation consisted mainly of a variety of crurotarsal archosaurs and synapsids. For instance, in the Ischigualasto Formation, dinosaurs constituted only about 6% of the total number of fossils. By the end of the Triassic Period, dinosaurs were becoming the dominant large land animals, and the other archosaurs and synapsids declined in variety and number.


 * My picking apart of it:
 * Although Herrerasaurus shared the body shape of the large carnivorous dinosaurs, it lived about 230 million years ago, when dinosaurs were (generally? was H a dinosaur?) (quantify how small) and the [large animal ecological roles were played by non-dinosaurian reptiles (I just made this up, but something has to change to indicate what "time of the non-dinosaurian reptiles" means)]. The vertebrate fauna of the Ischigualasto Formation and the slightly later Los Colorados Formation consisted mainly of a variety of crurotarsal archosaurs and synapsids. In the Ischigualasto Formation, dinosaurs constituted only about 6% of the total number of fossils.


 * (This seems more in line with the "major turning point" sentence that I removed, but seems to be on a different topic entirely than the rest of the paragraph.) By the end of the Triassic Period, dinosaurs were becoming the dominant large land animals, and the other archosaurs and synapsids declined in variety and number.

Awickert (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Herrerasaurus may have been a dinosaur, as more recent papers indicate, but any new paper could invalidate that. Whatever it was, it was close to the ancestry of dinosaurs. It lived during a time when dinosaurs were uncommon (only 6%), but just a few million years later, dinosaurs were the dominant land animals. Herrerasaurus and other early links, then, play a very important part in this turning point... if Herrerasaurus was actually on the line to Dinosauria.


 * We probably can't very well quantify the size of dinosaurs from this time, since nearly all fossils collected from this time are so fragmentary (Herrerasaurus is one of the best, hence the FAC work; I wouldn't bother with trying to get the silly single-bone genera up to FA), and no one can decide even on what Herrerasaurus was. I'd love to give you a number, but it would be based on partial scraps and a "dinosaur" that may not have been one, but which probably was.


 * Does this help? Probably not... :/ Firsfron of Ronchester  02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That definitely helps for my knowledge. I made paranthetical comments about things that I was unsure about factually, but the main thing I was trying to get across was a more logical writing order. So what do you think about that in my suggested version? Awickert (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it seems fine, as long as the "large animal ecological roles were played by non-dinosaurian reptiles " is worded carefully. It is correct, though. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; if you can police the factual accuracy, then I will start to propose more final revisions; it's just kind of confusiong to me as-is. Awickert (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this article achieved FA, I'm still very open to suggestions for further improvement. I appreciate the time you've spent working to clarify things, Awickert. You should be aware, however, that I will be going on a Wikibreak after tomorrow, and won't be back (much or at all) until the 10th, due to a vacation. J Spencer might be able to help, though (I know this talk page is on his watchlist). Firsfron of Ronchester  01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll check things. J. Spencer (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Congrats on the FA. I will also be around and not around variably over the next couple weeks, and since you're not in FAC-time-crunch anymore, I might take a bit longer. Congratulations again, Awickert (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Theropod?
The article states that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. Isn't this inaccurate? Isn't it a sauropod ancestor, the sole member of a third suborder of saurischians or a dinosaur too primitive to be classed as a saurischian or an ornithischian? I swear that one of those is correct...70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those classifications have been supported in the past, but all recent studies I know of have found it to be a true theropod. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Ezcurra (2010) study that you added indicates that Herrerasaurus isn't a theropod. However, this article is very careful to state many times that Herrerasaurus may not be a theropod. From the lede: "Herrerasaurus has been classified as either an early theropod or an early saurischian". From the "Classification" section: "Where it and its close relatives lie on the early dinosaur evolutionary tree is unclear. They are possibly basal theropods or basal saurischians but may in fact predate the saurischian-ornithischian split." I'd say this article does not state that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. The only part of the article that does is the automated taxobox thingy. Firsfron of Ronchester  15:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, forgot about Ezcurra. Still, I'd say that at least a tentative consensus exists in the lit right not that Herrersaurus is a theropod. Even the addition of taxa like Tawa in Nesbitt 2011 (probably the most through analysis ever of basal taxa in each archosaurian lineage) don't shake it from it's standard position, though it does seem to render Herrersauridae paraphyletic. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been keeping up on Herrerasaurid phylogeny since this article's FAC, but I just did a quick check at the Paleobiology Database, and Nesbitt et al (2009) indicate that Herrerasaurids are theropods. Alcober and Martínez (2010) seem to have made no opinion(?) while still describing Sanjuansaurus as a herrerasaurid. Holtz (2010) states that they are the most primitive theropods. And of course most of (not all, but most) the 2004-2008 studies state the same. Ezcurra seems to be a minority opinion. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For practical purposes, I would suggest putting a question mark next to Theropoda in the taxobox.70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

24.50.151.151 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

24.50.151.151 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurikosaurus

P Ward Out Of Thin Air page 169, 170 proposes Herrersaurus as the proginator of both lines --saurischians and ornithischian--that split at the end of the Triassic. This is interesting as he links low O2 to bipedalism overcoming Carrier's Constraint.

Mooted sighting of living Herrerasaurus
See details in section 3 of webpage http://creation.com/more-dino-sightings-png

Andrew Lamb, CMI 150.101.189.78 (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "A distinctive footprint of the ‘Doren’, which is described as being about 25cm long, is often seen in the sand by the sea. When walking, the ‘Doren’ uses four legs. However, when running the creature is reported as using rear legs only and as being able to outrun a human. It seems from the descriptions that the ‘Doren’ might be best identified as a Herrerasaurus."
 * Nope, that certainly doesn't sound anything at all like this strictly bipedal, six metre long animal. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

its on a website that supports creationism as a science rather than a matter of faith, so its likely a fake and second it does not sound like a Herrerasaurus at all, either the people that made this don't understand that dinosaurs could not pronate their hands or they somehow confused Herrerasaurus with Ornithosuchus, it might be a misidentification of a Varanid or a Crocodilian--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

?Ladinian? Herrerasaurus
Our lead paragraph boldly declares:

All known fossils of this carnivorous dinosaur have been discovered in rocks of late Ladinian age (middle Triassic according to the ICS, dated to 231.4 million years ago) in northwestern Argentina.

However, our Carnian Wikipedia Article tells us that this faunal stage lasted from about ~235 till ~228 million years ago.

If the Carnian article is accurate, then Herrerasaurus is Carnian in terms of age. I will make the change unless there are any objections. As always, I welcome your advice and allow for the possibility that I may have overlooked or oversimplified something.

Humbly, Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Novas
This link goes to the wrong place. Does it mean Fernando Novas? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Age
There seems to be some confusion about the age. The article states that this animal is dated to 231.4 Ma ago, and also that it's from the Ladinian. Accordning to the ICS, 231.4 Ma ago is within the Carnian. What's the correct age/faunal stage? MMartyniuk (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably all that happened was that the radiometric date predates the revision of Triassic stage dates (i.e. we had the 231.4 Ma date from a few years back, when 231.4 Ma was in the Ladinian, and it was just never updated when the stage boundaries were tweaked). J. Spencer (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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/20100310173552/http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/121009.html to http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/121009.html

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) 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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/20150924021606/http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/palaeo/biogeologie/Images/Joyce_Publications/32__Gauthier_et_al.__Poposaurus__2011.pdf to http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/palaeo/biogeologie/Images/Joyce_Publications/32__Gauthier_et_al.__Poposaurus__2011.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) 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image
In the taxobox image, would it be better to just have the image we have right now, or is it better to have an image of this mount and the model nearby?BleachedRice (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, we can't use the model because it is a sculpture in the US, which does not have freedom of panorama for art. As for the other image you added previously, the hands are pronated, rotated in an inaccurate way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded two photos of the FMNH Herrerasaurus to Commons, and I propose that one or the other can replace the current taxobox image. Our current taxobox image has too much of a focus on the skull, blurring out the rest of the body. I propose either of these two images(Option A and Option B) to take its spot, as both have a much better focus on the postcrania and the skull, instead of just the skull exclusively. We should try to show the entire body as good as we can. Would be nice to hear second opinions on this. Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would vote in support of option B.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like B as well. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Option B, it has a better crop/composition; the first one also has a flash of light visible through the ribcage, which is a bit distracting. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  22:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Was a bit late to the game here, but yeah, certainly has better contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The current image added by is problematic because it shows at least one pronated hand, so we should probably use the older one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that the image caption says "mounted skeleton", and while it does refer to the larger one, there is also the Asilisaurus (I think) skeleton near it, and that skeleton is also a "mounted skeleton". Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder which other good contenders we have? Out best other photos are of that same mount, and the best other one shows a weird perspective (it was the previous taxobox image): FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this one? I don't know much about the animal's anatomy, so I can't really say if the skeleton's accurate.  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The right hand is also pronated ("bunny hand"), so is inaccurate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, but the image you showed above is already in the article though.


 * I've also found this one while searching for images (it's the Field Museum mount but without showing the hands). Though I think a full skeletal mount is still preferred.  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's just very small and tightly cropped. We can just move that image which is already used in the article, if we agree on it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob on moving it. So the image above would be the replacement in the history section then? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, I don't even know why that other picture is under history. A better image there would be of the original fossils or a map, or a skeletal showing known elements. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved it to taxobox. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pop culture section?
Should we have a pop culture section?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We should only have such sections for very notable appearances in very impactful media. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur?
Was Herrerasaurus a dinosaur to be sure? I'm not sure about it. Esagurton (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)