Talk:Oviraptoridae

Undescribed ovi photo
Just to clarify this: The skull, at least, is clearly a cast of an undescribed specimen known as "Ronaldo", which looks similar to Citipati but has a higher, pointed crest (see my oviraptorinae profiles image). Don't know about the rest of the skeleton, could very well be a composite or based on some other species, or "Ronaldo" if the postcranial skeleton of that is known. The nest is pretty clearly not from the same specimen, as the eggs are far too big for the animal sitting on them. I bet the eggs at least are Citipati. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the photo shows the skeleton of an Oviraptor! There are two kinds of Oviraptor: "O. philoceratops" (which is very well depicted on your profile image) and "O. mongoliensis". In this case it is an "O. mongoliensis", which differs from "O. philoceratops" by having a different shape of the crest (it is bigger and the bones are formed differently). Of course it's also a matter of individualism. For some time the experts even thought that "O. mongoliensis" was in fact another species and therefore named it "Rinchenia mongoliensis" (which has a similar crest shape as Oviraptor). Of course Richenia is and remains a species of its own, but it was also found out that every Oviraptor/Oviraptorid has individual traits, so that now it is partially believed that Rinchenia is in fact an Oviraptor. I've been to the museum and I've seen the exhibit. The description also says that it is an Oviraptor. If you take a close look at the foreground of the photo you can even recognize the description of the skeleton. It says: "Oviraptor Gelege aus der Mongolei" (which is German for "Oviraptor clutch from Mongolia"). So obviously the eggs also belong to this dinosaur. In short: there are three different Oviraptorids that look fairly similar: O. mongoliensis, O. philoceratops, Rinchenia mongoliensis (and additionally "Citipati", as you pointed out correctly). In this case it is an Oviraptor (mongoliensis). Dutzi (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this information? I haven't seen Rinchenia sunk back into Oviraptor since before 2001. At the present time, the only specimen, let alone species, referred to Oviraptor is the very poorly preserved type.
 * " O. mongoliensis, O. philoceratops, Rinchenia mongoliensis" I think you're confused here--Oviraptor mongoliensis IS Rinchenia mongoliensis. Rinchenia is the new name they gave it when they realized it belonged in a different genus. The only oviraptorid eggs known from good nests like that are Citipati. In fact I bet that's a cast of one of the "big mamma" specimens. The museum label is flat-out wrong, as happens a lot, or just plain outdated (as early as 7 years ago, literally every medium to large crested species was being called Oviraptor. Citipati was called Oviraptor for over a decade before anyone bothered to actually study oviraptord relationships. And it's certainly not Rinchenia, which has a much more rounded crest. Again, see my profile comparison drawing for oviraptorinae included on this page. They're all to scale and as close to actual skull/crest shape as you can get. I think you'll find there's a lot of oviraptorid diversity you're overlooking ;)
 * Anyway, compare all the oviraptorid skulls pictured with the one in the photo. It's obviously the undescribed ovi. For all we know, it might be Oviraptor (since Oviraptor's skull is so crushed up it's impossible to know what it's crest looked like based on the type). But it's presently undescribed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's leave it at that! But I think it should be mentioned in the article that individual oviraptorid specimens often differed from each other by having individually shaped crests (two Oviraptor or Rinchenia specimens did not look alike). Of course I know that O. mongoliensis was named Rinchenia mongoliensis when they found out it was a different genus. But as I already said, it is now partially believed that Rinchenia and O. mongoliensis are two different genera. Naturally that doesn't mean that it is true. I just wanted to point out that recent studies have left the issue unclear.
 * And believe me, my information sources are not as outdated as you might think ;) Furthermore, I think your oviraptorinae drawings are very good. They accurately present all the different crest shapes of all existing oviraptorids. Dutzi (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "two Oviraptor or Rinchenia specimens did not look alike" I don't think that's true, though. There might have been slight variation, but the shape of the crest is important in determining what species or genus you're dealing with. Also, I don't think more than one individual O. or R. specimens have even been found (have they?), so it's impossible to know if two looked alike or not. As for whether they're different genera, that's somewhat arbitrary and may depend on whether you're a lumper or splitter, provided O. and R. are closer to each other than to other ovis. You say recent studies left the issue unclear: which studies? If you provide a cite, this can be discussed in the articles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility that this is a Rinchenia. There are some similarities in the crest structure and shape (though like you pointed out, this specimen isn't as round). Maybe it's a new species in the same genus. Or it may perhaps be an example of a sexual dimorph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.141.115 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be, but we won't know anything until it's published. All the indications I've read are that it's a new genus, and I'm guessing that's based on more than crest shape. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Subfamilies
Our article says "and this traditional division into crestless and crested forms artificial", and links to the Anzu description, which mentions no such thing. The families are not defined by the crests anyway, but by forelimb proportions and number of sacral vertebrae. So where has it been suggested these subfamilies are invalid, and are they even widely rejected? I can find a reference to Oviraptorinae being paraphyletic, but not Ingeniinae. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oviraptoridae. 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/20081217154732/http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/philip_currie/uploads/pdfs/1998/1998Caudipteryx.pdf to http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/philip_currie/uploads/pdfs/1998/1998Caudipteryx.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) 23:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

May I put the following in the article?
"There does appear to be a ghost lineage when it comes to Oviraptorids since their fossil record is lacking with a huge expanse of time between their last common ancestor with the caenegnathids during the early Cretaceous and their first appearance in the fossil record during the Late Cretaceous." Bubblesorg (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on whether you have a reliable source to back that up. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, I do. For some reason I am having trouble putting them in a talk page.--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)