Talk:Irritator

Tall Vertebrae
I've seen a lot of illustrations of Irritator with a sail-like structure on its back, like Spinosaurus. Is this real, speculation, or a mistake? Benosaurus 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irritator was a spinosaurid, so it was likely had a sail-like structure. If it is Angaturama, it had tall neural spines. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But just because it's a spinosaurid, doesn't mean it had a sail. Baryonyx didn't have a sail. And aren't Angaturama and Irritator considered to be the same? Benosaurus 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sample Baryonyx though seems to be a juvenile of a Suchomimus' close relative or even of a Suchomimus species. It could be that neural spines developed in size with age. And after all since both Suchomimus (mostly related to Baryonyx) and Spinosaurus had a spine sail, the fact most propably strengthens the view of Baryonyx having lost that trait secondarily to the lineage split from Spinosaurus and Irritator.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Angaturama?
Shouldn't these articles be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would haveto say that they do look like the same dinosaur, and scientists are debating on if they are the same dinosaur.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that they should remain separate unless and until the two are accepted as synonymous. XinaNicole (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture
The Italian page on Irritator has | this picture on the page. It shows Irrittator with its head crest for one thing. Should we includ it? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the crest is wrong and the eye is way too big. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Synonymy of Angaturama and Irritator
In the section discovery, it is said that "If Angaturama and Irritator are actually regarded as a member of the same genus, Irritator challengeri would be the valid scientific name under the priority rules". Indeed, Charig and Milner (1997: p 57) wrote: "It seems very likely that Irritator too is a spinosaurid, and even possible that it is a senior synonym (by one month!) of Angaturama." Likewise, Sues et al. (2002: p. 537) said: "Thus we follow Charig and Milner (1997) in considering Angaturama limai a subjective junior synonym of Irritator challengeri, which has priority by one month". Nevertheless, Angaturama and Irritator were both published in February 1996. Unfortunately, I could not find any information on the publication day for each publication. In Research Gate, it is even said that the publication on Angaturama appeared in January 1996 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282542666_First_Early_Cretaceous_theropod_dinosaur_from_Brazil_with_comments_on_Spinosauridae). Does anyone have additional information on that matter? Could Angaturama actually be the synonym senior of Irritator, and not the other way round? Cheers,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irritator. 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/20110706162356/http://www.ufrj.br/detalha_noticia.php?codnoticia=7486 to http://www.ufrj.br/detalha_noticia.php?codnoticia=7486
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219195023/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.htm

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) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What?
"The holotype fossil consists only of the front part of the head, which is kept today under the number USP GP/2T-5 in the University of São Paulo. "

^ Under "Description", this is an odd way to kick off describing Irritator, considering the sentence refers to Angaturama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.114.161 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire section seems to be about it, actually...  Luso titan  01:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * On another what-note, I wonder why all of Megalosauroidea needs to be shown in the cladogram here? Spinosauridae is all that's relevant to the article. Instead, it could be updated to show more actual spinosaurids. FunkMonk (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to do that but unfortunately I have no experience with cladogram templates. The whole process seems tedious to me and I'm not sure how to do it without messing up the format... ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  07:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it down to just Spinosauridae+Megalosauridae for the moment. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems like you just can't seem to catch a break these days,, another new spinosaur paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66261-w?fbclid=IwAR1lvJUzd_1pCfM0ChxGeOHKD51TX6zNy5apvvMhaLmikKmUzsptp3FTsSg FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would also seem to confirm that the skull was in Germany during the Brazil Museum fire. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was in the midst of updating the page when I saw this, haha. Can't complain though! Nice to see so much good research being done on a very poorly-known clade. Already uploaded the free images by the way. More to add to an already image-packed article! ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  11:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions on "pre-GAN" work
I've done quite a bit of expansion at this point. The article has attained a size I hadn't expected and it looks like it's getting close to a GA nomination. However, given the amount of text that I've written (being a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor) I think this is a good point to ask for advice on some issues that I'm having trouble with. I've summarised these below after giving the article a look-over.

History of discovery

 * Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Synonymy with Angaturama

 * Pretty happy with this section as it is, but let me know if there's any other paleontologists that have opinionated on the synonymy issue, or if there's something else relating to it that should be adressed.
 * Best one can do is always just to look through Google scholar and Jstor for references that mention the taxon in question. And then just try to get all of it through WP:RX or scihub. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have some sources I can send you, I sent an email about it. This book also seems to have some info: It seems to cover that skeleton too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recieved that email, will reply to it shortly! Thanks for that book as well, will certainly be useful. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, tell me if the links work, then I will send the last pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Description

 * I'd love to add something on postcranial anatomy here based on the skeletal material found in the Romualdo (especially MN 4819-V). But I'm having second thoughts on whether or not that constitutes as irrelevant or unecessary detail, since although these specimens were implemented into the Museu Nacional skeleton, they haven't really been "formally assigned" to Angaturama as much as implied to belong to it (See ). No paper from Machado, Kellner, Campos, etc. refers it to a genus and Aureliano and colleagues in 2018 considered all but the Irritator and Angaturama holotypes as Spinosaurinae indet. I admit this makes the most sense since the skeletons aren't associated with skulls, so we can't be sure whether or not they actually belong to either named genus or a completely new one. What are your guys thoughts on this? Personally I find it odd that an article on a dinosaur with images of its reconstructed skeleton has no information on body plan.
 * Has no source even suggested it might belong to Irritator? Even if it has not been assigned formally, if a source states they could belong, I think it should be covered. Also, if that's part of it shown next to the mount in the Brazil Museum, they must have at least considered it a possibility? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here Darren Naish says "a near-complete pelvis, a partial hand and various vertebrae (some of these specimens are on display at the Museu Nacional) - are implied to belong to Angaturama. Some of these elements are clearly incorporated into the mounted skeleton shown above.", which should probably be fine to add, or at least shows there might be more info to find. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That bit from the Naish blog post is in the first para of the Description section. The only places I've seen the skeleton be mentioned to belong to Irritator/Angaturama are the aforementioned blog post and the various portuguese news reports from when the exhibit was opened, where Kellner states that 60% of Angaturama's skeleton is now known, and that is what allowed the creation of the mount. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, then it should be fine to state in this article that the connection has at least been informally implied... FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, should I remove dates from the length estimates? As suggested by Hendrickx for Baryonyx? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably, I just did so in the Baryonyx article (slowly chipping away based on his suggestions). FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Anatomy of the holotype

 * Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Anatomy of the Angaturama holotype

 * Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Classification

 * This is admittedly my least-favourite section to write in dinosaur articles, and right now it seems rather unwieldly and/or too detailed in some places (maybe that's just me). I'd appreciate some advice on how I can trim it down somewhat and if there's any other papers I should implement information from, perhaps there's a different way of handling those two cladograms as well.
 * If you want to save space, you could place the cladograms side by side, as in Elasmosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Done. I know nothing about formatting cladogram templates so it was mainly a copy-paste job. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Paleobiology

 * Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Paleoecology

 * After the whole Paleoenvironment discussion on Baryonyx due to the WikiJournal peer review I'm having second thoughts on whether the third para on semiaquatic habits should go here or in Paleobiology, is there any consensus on that or should we wait for a more general discussion on the WikiProject talk page?
 * I'd say it's function/behaviour, so would belong udner biology. Keeping such info under palaeoecology, as in Oxalaia, would mainly be if there is too little infor for a separate paleobiology section. But who knows, maybe there is even enough behavioural info in Oxalaia for a separate section? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, placed under a new subsection under Paleobiology. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Taphonomy

 * Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

I mostly noted major issues that'd be better to fix before a GA review. There's probably some that I didn't notice. In that case, I'd appreciate it if they were pointed out! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  06:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a few thoughts on image layout, but will have a look at the rest soon. As for images, it would seem more logical that the image that shows the two skull fragments combined would go under synonymy, instead of being ion a section that covers the two separately. Also, it would probably make more sense to show the map first in the history section. Finally, the maniraptoran reconstruction seems it would make more sense under classification, where that hypothesis is actually discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On a general note, there is a lot of duplinking, which can be detected with this script: FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * During FAC, you will most likely also be asked what the various restorations were based on, so best to link skeletals or list sources in all the file descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed duplinks and added references to images. Played around with the image layout, incorporating most of your suggestions. I left the historical reconstruction in the history section since that's usually where such images are placed, and also because the restoration doesn't portray it as a maniraptoran, but rather as a spinosaurid. Most dinosaur books and encyclopedias illustrated Irritator like that after it had been reassigned to the Spinosauridae by Kellner, while still using the outdated skull diagram as a reference. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A few things I noticed (I will save the full review for FAC), you have one title called "Anatomy of the holotype" followed by "Anatomy of the "Angaturama" holotype". There are a few issues with this, first, you should state which taxon is covered in the first title for consistency. Second, genera don't have holotypes, only species do, so the full binomials might have to be spelled out. Third, Angaturama should probably not be in quotation marks anywhere in the article, since it is unknown whether it is a synonym or not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All done. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The "holotype of genus" issue also appears in other parts of the text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to species name in all mentions of both holotypes. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The text mentions and shows a false gharial, but aren't spinosaurs mostly compared to "actual" gharials? The abstract for the cited text doesn't mention the false gharial, so I wonder if the text and image here should be swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True, very little comparison has been made to false gharials, that text and image was there from before. Changed now. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the image of the mount eating a pterosaur be moved to the feeding section now the relevant info has been moved there? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I imagine no sources cover this, but it seems funny that the Angaturama skeletal mount clearly seems to include the Irritator skull too. This would seem to indicate that Kellner acknowledges the two are synonyms, yet still use the name Angaturama for it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well. But, as you said, there is no source that mentions it. Most people in Brazil seem to know this dinosaur by the name Angaturama, most likely because of the mount. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "remains the complete preserved skull known for a spinosaurid." Most complete? Also, the article body doesn't seem to state it. In what way is it the most complete, when the two holotypes are combined? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added it to the main article text under History of discovery. It's the most complete spinosaur skull by itself, even without the Angaturama snout. I thought it was a surprising fact at first, but then I remembered that we actually know very little of the braincase in Baryonyx, Suchomimus, and Spinosaurus, And even the completeness of Spinosaurus's snout has been questioned, with the Sigilmassasaurus debate going on and all. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe the caption to the taxobox image should clarify that the postranium is hypothetical/based on remains that cannot be confidently attributed to the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Went with the second option. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Changes look good, you can maybe get more opinions if you "advertise" at the dino project talk page, but you could also just GA nominate it now I think. One last image nitpick, I think maybe the image of the skeleton under diet could be swapped with the head restoration under paleoecology? Could look good juxtaposed with the gharial photo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think I'll leave the images where they are. The closeup of the neck and skull, in my opinion, fits better with the adjacent discussion on the mechanical biology of the head. While the head restoration was created with the ecology section in mind, which is why the animal is depicted near a shoreline. I'll hold off on GA nominating it for now; there's still a few things I'm gonna do before that, such as adding more researcher's opinions on the synonymy discussion, cleaning up the Classification section, and adding a brief subsection describing the postcrania. The rest of the article looks good to go for GAN, though! I was surprised at the amount of research there is pertaining to this taxon. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  21:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps a copy edit would also come in handy before FAC at least, they're getting a lot stricter on the prose there. As for sources, we were extremely lucky that revaluations of both Irritator and Thalassodromeus were published right before the Brazil museum fire (Thalasso was redesribed just a few months before!). Without that, it would probably have been impossible to ever write such definitive accounts here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the brief postcrania subsection, and a diagram of MN 4819-V's arm to go with it. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  22:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now's as good a time as ever to nominate for GA. This is the most work I've done on any article, so a pair of fresh eyes is certainly needed. See you during the FA review, ! When the time comes. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck, it certainly looks promising! FunkMonk (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that you will probably be called out during FAC for using blog sources, so it will maybe be good to state this outright in the FAC blurb, pointing out that the bloggers are respected in their fields, as I for example did in the Nemegtomaia nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll keep that in mind! There were also some minor suggestions in that review that I implemented in this article as well, which are always nice to find. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Angaturama separate Article
It says here that Angaturama is distinct from Irritator, with a clade formed by MSNM V4047, and Irritator, and then a larger clade with Oxalaia, and then an even larger clade with Angaturama, and shows that Angaturama is much more basal than Irritator. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2021.2000974?journalCode=ghbi20 Savage Almond (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is one out of several contradictory studies. If a consensus emerges, we could do it, but that's not the case yet. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The prematurely published Irritator osteology paper also keeps them separate. What do we think should be done about this, ? FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now it's out, and seems it's more ambiguous: "Given the uncertainty in the tooth count, tooth positions given in the following always refer to preserved positions. Although our tooth position interpretation would invalidate the main argument used by Sales and Schultz (2017) to exclude Angaturama from being the same specimen as the holotype of Irritator, these authors provide further tentative reasons, such as relative proportional differences and slight differences in the preservational mode (Sales and Schultz, 2017). Based on our observations, we cannot provide any further information that could resolve this question." FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)