Talk:When Dinosaurs Roamed America

Quoll?
I never saw a quoll anywhere in the series, and it certainly wasn't the small mammal in the Triassic section, that one was much smaller and clearly intended to be a Morganucodon or Megazostrodon. Quolls didn't exist yet in the time of the dinosaurs anyway. Jerkov 11:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What small animal? Traversodon? I did see a quoll, though it wasn't significant. Dora Nichov 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, when the Coelophysis is at the waterside, before the Rutiodon attacks, you briefly see a tiny mammal scurry past in the foreground. That is Megazostrodon or Morganucodon. Look here at the beginning of the first video ('Coelophysis thrives'). Jerkov 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, wasn't that an Icarosaurus? The quoll is seen nearby when the Coelophysis is running away from the Traversodon. A brownish-reddish white-spotted animal. Sorry I can't hand out any evidence. You'll have to watch the DVD or whatever yourself. Dora Nichov 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also an Icarosaurus in that clip, but the Megazostrodon/Morganucodon appears much earlier in the clip, at approximately 0:16. That's definitely not an Icarosaurus. As for the quoll, does it have a noteable role on-screen? If not, it probably appeared by accident and could be mentioned as a goof. Jerkov 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I know Icarosaurus was being hunted by Coelophysis toward the end of that clip, and that there was this sccurying animal just before the Rutiodon attacks. But I thought both were Icarosaurus. I even thought I saw it's gliding extensions. As for the quoll, now that you mention it, could be accidentally filmed into the programme. Now the only problem is: what was that small animal. I've always thought it was another appearence of Icarosaurus... Dora Nichov 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like Icarosaurus to me; I also don't see any red gliding extensions. I suppose these could be retracted, but the tail looks a lot thinner, and the creature moves like a mammal and not a reptile. Its body is raised off the ground, there is no typically reptilian side-to-side movement and the legs appear to be more or less straight under the body. Overall it looks like a shrew or mouse, which is exactly what primitive mammals like Megazostrodon and Morganucodon resembled. Another reason why it couldn't be an Icarosaurus is the fact that it appears in the open, while a gliding creature like itself would rarely come down to the ground (let alone outside of the forest) because it can't glide away from there. I suppose it's also weird for a mammal to expose itself like that, but less weird in my opinion, and again the series is not that accurate. Jerkov 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused too, since that clip wasn't very clear and I don't have the DVD... Dora Nichov 10:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to assume it's one of these two primitive mammals, based what I said earlier. It's still strange they only used it in one brief shot; perhaps its other scenes were deleted. I'll change several of the things discussed now. Jerkov 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed locust to grasshopper because 'locust' is only used for the swarming phase of the Acrididae family. Jerkov 11:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did see a quoll, but I kinda doubt it was accident because the Coelophysis actaully looks at it the quoll for a few seconds. Capablapab 18:32, April 20 2007 (UTC)

There is a quoll in the program. While the Coelophysis was wandering through the forest, a quoll emerged into a burrow and the Coelophysis ate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Segments and time
If the official site says the Triassic-Jurassic boundary is 220 million years ago it's just plain wrong, this boundary was about 200 million years ago. I wouldn't use When Dinosaurs Roamed America itself and its website as sources on these things, it's just a TV show and not that accurate. Also, I don't know why the hell the Triassic and Early Jurassic segments are lumped together on the official website, because they are clearly two distinct segments in the TV program. If you watch the program and just count them you'll see that there are five. So I'm changing it back. As for 90 million years being Late Cretaceous, I suppose you could also call it Middle Cretaceous for convenience, but it's probably somewhere on the border of 'Middle' and 'Late'.

I think it's best to discuss any further changes regarding this issue here on the talk page before going into a revert war.

And one more thing- Pterodactus. It's better to say "'unidentified pterosaur, probably Pterodactylus" than "Pterodactylus (unidentified)" because you can't be 100 % sure that it was a Pterodactylus. Jerkov 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the Triassic and Jurassic were lumped in one section either, perhaps because the Early Jurassic was too short... Dora Nichov 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Dora Nichov's Trip Back to 2 months ago
User DoraNichov, who was banned for 2 months, returned recently and reverted a well-edited page to an older form of the article from 2 years ago. He already tried to do exactly the same thing under an anonymous IP, while banned, and I reverted the edit.

Wikipedia, by its own official definition, is an encyclopedia. The article, before I edited it, was full of errors, speculation, and poor writing. Moreover, the list user DoraNichov likes is now incorporated into the text. The resulting article is far shorter but contains all of the original information of the original.

I've reverted DoraNichov's edits. The article, as stands, is brief, accurate, and complete. Moreover, I wish to point out that, barring a couple typos, this article stood for two months, the longest it has ever stood without major editing. That is a good sign that readers were very happy with what they found.

DoraNichov... Your personal preference can be noted here. However, the article should adhere to the principles of a well-written Wikipedia article, and it's completely ridiculous to reintroduce issues that are already thoroughly addressed.

Denn333 08:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fine. You win this time. Dora Nichov 10:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WDRA vs. WWD
I do not know if I am stating the obvious, or if it just me, or something, but WDRA seems to have paralleled WWD very, very closely, and I believe that I have evidence to prove it.


 * WDRA's Late Triassic segment is centred around a Coelophysis dinosaur and its' interaction with other Triassic reptiles, including a mammal-like reptile. WWD's New Blood episode is also centered around Coelophysis pack and their interaction with other Trassic reptiles, including a mammal-like reptile (Thrinaxodon in the encyclopedia).
 * WDRA's Late Jurassic segment deals with sauropods Camarasaurus and Apatosaurus, theropods Allosaurs and Ceratosaurus and ornithopods Dryosaurus and Stegosaurus. Out of these dinosaurs, WWD's episode Time of the Titans had Allosaurus, small unidentified forest ornithopods that could've been Dryosaurus, and Stegosaurus; plus the whole Ceratosaurus/Dryosaurus interaction seems to have been modeled on the Othnielia/polar allosaurid interaction in the WWD episode Sprites of the Icy Forest.
 * In WWD, the Allosaurus is called "the lion of the Jurassic". In WDRA the Apatosaurus is called "the elephant of the Jurassic".
 * WDRA's Early Cretaceous segment is centred around a pack of unidentified raptors. WWD's "Under a Giant's Wing" program featured a pack of Utahraptors. WDRA has unidentified coelurosaurs that are supposed to evolve into birds. WWD has Iberomesornis, primitive toothed birds.
 * WDRA's Late Cretaceous segment takes place shortly before the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and is focused around a Tyrannosaur family, Triceratops, Quetzalcoatlus and Anatotitan. The same dinosaurs appear inthe WWD's program Death of a Dynasty that also takes place just before the extinction.
 * WDRA has Tyrannosaurus hunt Triceratops (unsuccessfully) and Anatotitan (successfully). In WWD, the Tyrannosaurus also successfully hunts down Anatotitan and another Tyrannosaurus successfully kills a Triceratops.
 * Both WDRA and WWD conclude themselves by briefly talking about the post-dinosaur world and introduce primitive mammals of the Late Cretacious period: WDRA has Purgatorius (played live by opossum) and WWD has Didelphodon.

So, what do you think? Has WDRA taken most of its scenario from WWD, or am I just seeing things? I'd really like to know.

A few corrections there:


 * Stegosaurus was not an ornithopod.
 * The hypsilophodont in ep. 5 of WWD was NOT Othneilia, which lived far earlier than the genus shown in that episode, which is Leaellynasaura.

As for your question, some of those are probably entirely coincidental (like the coelurosaur-Iberomesornis connection), while others may indeed be based somewhat on WWD. Dora Nichov (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a lack of creativity on the part of both shows. Look in a dinosaur book from the 1920s, and I bet they have a Triassic chapter focusing on Coelophysis, a Jurassic chapter focusing on sauropods and Allosaurus, a Cretaceous segment focusing on North american fauna RIGHT at the time of the KT (so they can have whiz-bang meteor effects!), etc. Every kid's dinosaur book I've ever owned has a short segment at the end talking about the post-dinosaur world. These are simply the dinosaurs that we know the most about and are most familiar to the general public, in cliche scenarios everyone is familiar with. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also consider that the newer programme focuses only on North America, so it is of course limited what they could show. Not covering those animals would be a major oversight, and would also limit their options, so it seems pretty sensible they chose them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Liar Alert!
Some guy added a false scene to the Triassic segment. There is never a scene where a herd of Desmatosuchus are attacked by a Coelophysis pack. And believe me, I know. I've seen the whole movie in parts on YouTube and there was only one Desmatosuchus in the episode. And it was simply annoyed by a single Coelophysis and drives it off. Besides, the scene really sounds more like a scene in episode 6 of Animal Armageddon where a Desmatosuchus is successfully hunted by a pack of Staurikosaurus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.139.179 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism in the episode synopsis has been reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. Ozraptor4 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What species is the raptor?
Can anybody figure out what the raptor in the 4th episode is? Unless I missed something they never specified it...looks a bit like Dromaeosaurus though. Crimsonraptor (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't named--it isn't any of the known named 'raptors, it's a new genus but hadn't been described yet. AFAIK that raptor still hasn't been given a name. 75.202.66.60 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Raptors are completely hypothetical. Jim Kirkland explained in the program - they found fragments of what they though was a dromaeosaur at the Zuni site but it turned out to be a basal coelurosaur. No undoubtable dromaeosaurid remains are known from the Moreno Hill Formation although they almost certainly did exist (Raptors being found in earlier and later sediments in North America)Ozraptor4 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, even if they haven't found any yet they were definitely there. Although someday they'll find one there. We'll just have to wait until they do. Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason to assume it is any known dromaeosaur species. Scientists believe there were more than 1,200 different dinosaur species, so there are still many dinosaurs to be discovered, which leaves plenty of room to make up species to populate Mesozoic restorations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.209 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just figured that they would base them off an existing species to be as accurate as possible.Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Much of the material in the article is unsourced. I am am leaving this to help everyone find sources.

Chris the Paleontologist (talk &#124; contribs) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by that, the series does seem notable in terms of significant news coverage. It's a shame that these are all pay-per-view now. Chris the Paleontologist (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)