User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 4

Rhamphorhynchus
Glad to see you're still on Wikipedia!

Correct me if I'm wrong (I think I was wrong last time I corrected you, lol), but I believe the illustration by John Conway displays the proper head angle, based on the study done by McQuilkin and Ridgely, and I believe the illustration by ДиБгд can be termed as outdated, as it seems to display the head at a downward angle (I may be looking too closely). I noticed the Conway image is the one you removed from the article to save space. Keep up the good work! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You bring up an interesting point that hadn't crossed my mind. We're capable of looking down while flying, why can't they?  Okay...maybe we can't fly, but...
 * I can't wait to read this article when you're done with it. I'm sure it will be great.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stubs
Same reason that there are dinosaur stubs instead of leaving them lumped with reptiles. :P Seriously though, there were almost 350 dinosaur stubs and that's way too many. Such a large category should be split into something more manageable for prospective de-stubber. Besides, someone before me had already created a Theropod stub category, why not create stub categories for the other major groups of dinosaurs? Abyssal (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DML Approval
How long should this process take? My email was verified Saturday but I got a message saying I needed to be approved manually and haven't anything from the list since. How long does it take, anyway? Abyssal (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Real Quick
How does the Q-Z section look here? Abyssal (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sauropodomorpha Cat
Why? That was a pretty minor change that obviously needed doing. I don't know what there would be to discuss about that one. Grouping the sauropodomorphs under a sauropodomorph category seemed like, y'know, common sense. Sorry if you preferred it the other way, you can revert if you want. Abyssal (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus
Hello, I'm zh:User:Hoseumou from zh.wikipedia. I know you are a dinosaur expert, and I have some question about the length and weight of Argentinosaurus, see Talk:Argentinosaurus. Besides, if this article have debates, may i ask you for searching more papers to improve this article, thanks. User talk:hoseumou 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinocalliopteryx
Hi Dinoguy. I've seen you are very interested in feathered dinosaurs. Now I'm working in Spanish Wikipedia on one of them, Sinocalliopteryx. But the article needs more quality because it lacks images, so I ask you to create one of your cool size comparison diagrams of this dinosaur, preferably some compsognathids to scale, the ones that the paper describes: "It is more than twice as long as Compsognathus, Juravenator and Sinosauropteryx, and much larger than Huaxiagnathus that is estimated 1.6 m long." Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Greetings. --Dropzink (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus skull issue
Hi AW! Quick issue I found when making my scale charts (like a year ago, oops) with your Spinosaurus illustration. The skull doesn't seem to quite match up with the skeletal reconstructions based on the dal Sasso skull, as it's a bit too robust, especially in the top jaw. Check out the links posted in the current spino discussion at image review for details. Is this an easy fix? If you don't have time I could attempt a quick photoshop job but I figured I'd give you the heads up first. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to fix it, go ahead. Otherwise I'll do that... ArthurWeasley (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

feathered Deinonychus
Hey there. I see that you've been fighting the good fight about feathered Deinonychus. I'm trying to help out today, I think we're starting convince some people. You've been arguing this point for years, though, haven't you?Jbrougham (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus size
Hi, Dinoguy2;

Would you be interested in preparing a scale diagram for Edmontosaurus similar to what you did for Lambeosaurus, perhaps with a super-ginormous hypothetical 13 m individual and a less extravagant E. annectens (USNM 2414, which is 8.00 m long, or YPM 2182, which is 8.92 m long)? Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Next week is fine, there's no hurry attached. J. Spencer (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ampelosaurus feet
What's wrong with the feet in the image? Just curious. Abyssal (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hesperonychus for DYK?
You ought to put Hesperonychus up for WP:DYK. The hook writes itself: "...that to date Hesperonychus is the smallest nonavian carnivorous dinosaur known from North America, [size estimate]?" or words to that effect. J. Spencer (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, may I request a chart, again?
Well, if you have the time and are willing to do so, could you make a chart similar to the one you made of the Carcharodon genus, but contrasting Carcharodon megalodon, apart of with the adult human and the largest recorded Carcharodon carcharias, with the largest recorded Isurus oxyrinchus, Galeocerdo cuvier, Rhincodon typus and Cetorhinus maximus? My appologices if I am abusive or I make you feel exploited, it is not my intention.

Thanks, and take care!

Eriorguez (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Isistius brasiliensis owns them all! And it also do nuclear submarines! Size does not matter!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tianyulong
The article mentioned that there are three patches where the quills were preserved, which seems to indicate that this is an artifact of preservation. Especially the one below the neck is a little disconcerting, it might have been displaced with the skin before fossilization or the animal might have been covered with a more extensive cover of hair-like structures. The artist who depicted the animal for the Nature press release seems to came up with similar conclusions (quills all the way back to the tip of the tail). Anyway, this is easy to correct in the image if needed (always easier to delete than to add ;)). Should I do this? ArthurWeasley (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK! Will do later today or tomorrow ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus again
Hello, I search for help about Argentinosaurus again. It seems that there are three papers about Argentinosaurus in 90s, such as:
 * Appenzeller, T. 1994. Argentine dinos vie for heavyweight titles. Science 266, 1805.
 * Paul, G.S. 1994. Is Garden Park home to the world’s largest known land animal? Garden Park Paleontology Society 4, 5.
 * Paul, G.S. 1997. Dinosaur models: the good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs. In Wolberg, D.L., Stump, E. and Rosenberg, G.D. (eds), DinoFest International Proceedings, pp

But i can't find these papers in internet. Can you search these papers, and find out the length and weight of Argentinosaurus in these papers?

I'll be very thankful if you can help me, thanks. hoseumou 08:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for your answer. By the way, I add some reference to Argentinosaurus from DinoData. :) hoseumou 08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatomically incorrect dinosaur images
Hi, I was thinking that there should maybe be a category on Commons for anatomically incorrect dinosaur images, so we can tag them with it on sight, and then be free of them/know where we have them all in one place if we want to correct them, for example. What do you think? (Contacting you here instead of on Commons, since you might look here more often) FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, started the cat with guidelines from the dino project here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anatomically_incorrect_dinosaur_restorations

First image I've put in it is this:, and I've explained why in the edit summary, "Tagged as anatomically inaccurate, due to lack of feathers and pronated hands". FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just realised I could had just copied what you had already added to the description... I made another category too to differentiate between modern images that are just inaccurate due to, let's say "ignorance", and historical images that are inaccurate due to progress in research, this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_dinosaur_restorations FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table for Rhamphorhynchus species
I was thinking that a sortable table may be apropriate for the species sections in the Rhamphorhynchus and Pterodactylus articles. Something to the tune of:

Think such a thing would be beneficial? Abyssal (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Good work. I am a bit confused about the year notation. What do the parentheses and such mean? Abyssal (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Few questions
Is it true that only theropod dinosaurs ate meat?

If we were to break down prehistoric reptiles from the Mezasoic era, could we say that giant reptiles could be more or less broken down into a few categories. Dinosaurs were giant reptiles that lived on the land. Pterasaurs were giant reptiles that could fly in the air. And Plesiosaurs were giant reptiles that lived in water. Would this be a fair break down of giant reptiles from the time? ScienceApe (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Birds evolved from meat eating Theropods. But of course many birds are capable of eating fruit, seeds, nectar, and plants. Is there any evidence of any Theropod dinosaurs that had similar diets? ScienceApe (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Therizinosaurs were herbivores. The role of plant matter in ornithomimid diets, if any, has long been debated. Abyssal (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on SA's talk page, don't forget oviraptorosaurs, troodontids, scansors, and alvarezsaurs, all of which were not strict carnivores, or contained non-carnivorous members. Caudipteryx and Jinfengopteryx preserve evidence of seed-eating in stomach contents, and the others were probably insectivorous. Some people have been suggesting that an omnivorous diet is probably primitive for maniraptoriformes, and that hypercarnvivorous forms (probably just the larger dromaeosaurs) are reversals. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Final question (well for the moment at least), what is the largest animal that we believe had feathers? Was it the Gigantoraptor? ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ack nevermind! I already asked the question! Uhh I guess that's all for now XD ScienceApe (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, but Sauropods are true reptiles though right? Cold blooded right? No more related to birds than alligators are, I would assume? Theropods are the dinosaurs that share characteristics from both reptiles and birds, with the feathers, warm bloodedness, and bone structure. Correct? ScienceApe (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm interesting, but birds didn't evolve from Sauropods or Pterosaurs right? They evolved from Theropods correct? If Sauropods were warmblooded, wouldn't it mean that they had to eat a lot more food than would be practical? ScienceApe (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot! ScienceApe (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recycling Deinonychus
Hi, I always thought this image of Deinonychus i made was kind of superfluous, so I was thinking of giving it a body and change it to some other dromaeosaurid. After all, it's pretty subjective what we label our images as, when an image could depict a completely different genus with just a few modifications (like with the Shuzousaurus/Northronychus I also made). So could you help with suggesting what it could be changed to? I thought this earlier version could maybe be used for Atrociraptor? FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could modify it heavily into anything I think (just got a new Wacom digitizer), so if it isn't an exact match, it wouldn't matter, as long as I find some references to modify it after. Pyroraptor already has an image, what about Adasaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find an image of a single Adasaurus bone anywhere, oddly, so seems like it'll have to wait... I should maybe ask on the dinoforum. By the way, I changed the wing of Saurornithoides a bit, does it look better? And also, do you know what this is? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I made the image into Dromaeosauroides? I know it's not too great to have restorations based on a single tooth, but I'll be sure to write in the description that it is hypothetical and what related genera it is based on. That genus has some "personal" value to me, since it's the first Danish dinosaur found, and well, I'm in Denmark. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright! FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding dinosaur and bird olefaction
Theropod dinosaurs had excellent olefaction correction? But birds can't smell at all right? Do you know how/why they lost this? How good was olefaction in Dromaeosaurs? ScienceApe (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Liopleurodon
Hi, Dinoguy,

I just wanted to say - although we've had our disagreements on the Liopleurodon talkpage, you always remained 100% civil, for which I have a great deal of respect. I'm quitting the liopleurodon discussion (for a number of reasons), but I thought I'd pass on this note of appreciation.

Darimoma (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 dinos on 22 April 2009
Re discussion at WikiProject Dinos Talk page 22 April 2009. You wrote "at least three new dinos today!". Those were Beishanlong grandis , Xiongguanlong baimoensis, and "the Salgado alvarezsaurid", right? And we still don't have enough on that last to create an article??? Or if we do, what is it? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Diplodocus size comparison.png

 * How should it be fixed? de Bivort 02:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your list of concerns is quite addressable but you said "among other things..." What else needs fixing? de Bivort 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Your first set of changes were mostly implemented when I saw your update. The problem is that I can't explicitly mimic a copyrighted diagram without violating its license. So I guess it's probably not worth proceeding. de Bivort 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Walk Cycles
Hi, Dinoguy. I'm not sure that you should be deleting the ornithischian images based on the walk cycle you mentioned over at the image review. See Hartmans gallery. All his ornithischians are posed in a particular way. I doubt he's posing them that way for no reason. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sauroposeidon Scale Diagram
Hi Dinoguy, Over the weekend I was experimenting with Illustrator and decided to make a scale diagram. I noticed that your sauroposeidon had a really large body. Whilst the body isn't known in sauroposeidon, Matt Wedal has used the centrum diamiters (which are about 15% bigger and brachio) to scale up Brachiosaurus' body.see Here Do you mind if I Upload this version I created? It's based porpotionally on Wedal's skeletal, but modified to look a little more like Pauls and Hartmans recent brachosaurs with straighter backs and a slight up turn at the base of the tail. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Limusaurus
Hey Dinoguy2, thanks for the critiques. I've amended the image on dA but the one here has been temporarily protected from changes so it'll have to wait. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Paleofauna tables
Maybe you prefer this version? Species given their own rows, per your request. The rowspan feature keeps intrageneric species grouped per my preference. The rowspanned Notes cell alleviates the need to comment on both genus and species in monotypic genera, and the need to make distinguishing remarks for multiple species in larger genera. Images will be outside the table to the right, ala the List of pterosaurs. Abyssal (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's an example of a partially filled in table featuring colored rows. The default color rows are regular, valid taxa. The dark grey ones are taxa with taxonomic issues (jr. synonym, nomen dubium, chimera, etc). Light peach are ichnotaxa and light blue are ootaxa. I'm think about light green for morphotaxa like pollen and spores and what-have-you. Feedback appreciated. Abyssal (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yixian
Would you like me to redo the ugly Yixian tables to be more in line with the last style I showed you? If you get this message soon, please reply, as I currently have some free time. Abyssal (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, the "state" column I've been using in the Morrison table doesn't apply here. Any ideas for a replacement? Are there a few distinct quarries that specimens come from? Maybe geographic divisions? Abyssal (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about counties or some such? Abyssal (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool. You could email it to me if you want (saint_abyssal (at) yahoo ), but fixing the formatting will consume the time I have for tonight. You could fill it in at your leizure if you wanted. Abyssal (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Birds aren't deinonychosaurs are they? Abyssal (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay! Abyssal (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using birds=aves. That is the standard use, right? Abyssal (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dislike that alot. Why and when did that happen? I turn my back for five seconds and suddenly birds aren't aves anymore. Instead of synonymizing aves and neornithes, why don't they just redefine aves? It would save the world some confusion. Or at least save me some confusion. Abyssal (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Table size is the determining factor for my splitting. What should I rename the bird heading? Abyssal (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lujiatun and the other beds are official members, right? Also, is "county" the proper word for the Chinese divisions? I'm going to finalize the table set up. Abyssal (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I'll finish restructuring the tables tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a color-key. Abyssal (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Purple
I've concluded that it may be appropriate to add another color type to the paleobiota tables, namely purple. I was using the dark grey color for both discredited taxa and legitimate taxa that weren't present in the formation despite being reported as such. However it seems like a bad idea to use the same color for accepted and rejected taxa, so I added purple to the key.

here's an example of it's use:

Saurornithoides is an accepted taxon, but the Hell Creek remains reported as Saurornithoides were actually misidentified Troodon formosus; a legitimate taxon reported as being from the formation due to an error. Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...No comments? :( Abyssal (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, that would use alot of unnecessary space. In most articles there would only be a couple of colors used, and they're so simple that putting it at the top of each article sounds like overkill to me. Abyssal (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts. I'll try to whip up something more compact and intuitive. Abyssal (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a compact version that may be practical for use in individual headings with some tweaking. Any ideas for a tweaked color scheme, since you brought up the subject? Abyssal (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately gave them all a similar relatively light background so that they would both look consistent and not make the text hard to read. I've always thought they looked pretty good. Maybe it is your monitor? If it ever becomes convenient, please look at 'em on a different screen. If you still dislike them we can look into improving them, maybe with the assistance of fresh eyes. Abyssal (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've managed to make it a little shorter. Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've added a version of the key to the Thyreophoran section at the Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation page here. Do you like it? You never got back to me on whether or not you still want me to revise the color scheme. Do you have any more suggestions? Abyssal (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This version is a bit more compact as I eliminated the colored squares due to the way they easily distort on various resolutions. Do you like it better? Abyssal (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start using this last version with its attendant color scheme if you have no objections. Abyssal (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Dinoguy, I saw that undid some of my edits in Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation. Specifically, you removed Richardoestesia from the deinonychosaurs, changed the color of the Saurornithoides entry from purple to grey, and removed its small-text formatting. I agree that including lapsus calami like Richardoestesia is a bit excessive, however, I think certain instances where major confusion has followed warrants their inclusion (eg Ultrasaus and Ric(h)ardoestesia). I'm open to discussion over the merits of in/ex-cluding lapsus calami or what-have-you, but I wanted you to know why I included that one specifically.


 * As for the purple/small text changes I'd like to know why you removed them. The purple color means that a taxon is valid but reported from the formation due to misidentification. This wasn't in the color key on the live article (but was in the compact version we had been discussing), so if it was just confusion, then I apologize for being so haphazard. If you disagree with the color's use then we should discuss it to prevent inconsistencies between articles and misunderstandings. You reverted the color to grey, but since grey is the same color we've been using for discredited taxa I'm afraid that using it for legitimate taxa attributed to the formation because of misidentification may confuse readers. I'm definitely open to discussion, though.


 * The small text meant that the identification was tentative. Again, this wasn't in the live article's key, but has been included in the demo color keys we've discussed here. If you dislike that idea, we can work something out. Also, since maintaining these articles is complex, I was considering writing up something about problems I've had and how I decided to handle them and including code useful for copying and pasting into the article (like blank tables and cells), making a template out of it, and including it in the talk pages of all the formation/paleobiota articles, in order to make editing and maintaining them easier for people who haven't trialed-and-errored through them like I've had to. Abyssal (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added one color (the last, probably) to the scheme; red. I'm using it for reclassified taxa, especially valid species originally attributed to one genus, then referred to another. Here is an example; Amtosaurus archibaldi was later split from the genus to start the new genus Bissektipelta. The species had red cells where it is listed under genera it is no longer referred to, with the accepted attribution being in normal cells. I did this because I felt hesitant to grey out accepted species like they were discredited, when they were merely moved to a new genus. Do you think this is a good idea? Abyssal (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sauropod rearing
Hi Dinoguy,

thanks for putting my stuff up on rearing sauropods. Sadly, I managed to screw up my simulation through a stupid copy and paste error (blush). The correct numbers don't change much, but apparently all(!) basal (i.e. <10 t) sauropods could rear reasonably well, and among larger forms those with long, heavy tails and short necks could rear, too. It is only the large ones with long necks that need the especially short and light forelimbs, and the very heavy tail, as in diplodocids...... I'll keep you posted once my paper on that is through review :) cheers! HMallison (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks again! I've been over that section just now and tidied up a citation. There is a paper accepted now on this, but the book won't be out until fall 2010 :eek: HMallison (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sauropod Size diagram
Hi Dinoguy, Thanks for using my mamenchisaurus picture on your blog! Anyway I noticed that File:Longest dinosaurs1.png  still has my Bruhathkayosaurus in it. If you get time over the next few days can you possibly remove it? Bruhath is poorly known and my drawing is not based on properly published sources, so it's a little misleading. Thanks. I wish I'd never created that image :/ Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, keeping Argentinosaurus is fine by me. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SZes
Sorry, I was doing a bunch and one time so I didn't really have time to tweak all of them to suit the articles. Abyssal (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus
Hey Dinoguy,

Could you possibly take a look at Herrera? It's up at FAC, and I thought you might have some valuable input as to what needs expanding, fixing, or removal. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus sub-adult discovered
Unfortunately nobody is responding in the talk page. Can this be confirmed? 69.76.52.102 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lystrosaurus
G'day dinoguy, we now have a History section on the Lystrosaurus article, so some chronology or addition of discoveries would be much appreciated. Also ecology of the strata where the fossils came from too. I know very little about Lystrosaurus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chemo evidence for every early sponges
Hi, Dinoguy2. Can you please have a look at Talk:Sponge. --Philcha (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say
I like your idea with organising the timelines on the lists of dinosaurs!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude! Anchiornis
Dude, have you seen the new Anchiornis paper out today? How about a troodontid witha four wings? I guess we know exactly what the ancestral paravaian looked like. And I guess all the large deinonychosaurs were secondarily glideless (I prefer secondarily terrestrial), which is pretty close to Paul's idea, but no cigar. http://www.nature.com/

Greg Paul Day
All of us skeptics must acknowledge that Mr. Paul has just obtained a remarkable vindication of his ideas. I personally would be happy to buy him a beer or several in celebration, though he ordered only soda (instead of my strong Canadian ale) to accompany his shrimp entree the last time I dined with him. I will be most curious to see what he writes about these new finds around the base of paraves.

It is delightful that we have all lived to see this evidence arrive, and in such amazing variety! Imagine the generations of paleontologists who had nothing but Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis to go on.

I don't mean to quibble or diminish Mr. Paul's accomplishment, but I must mention this. While Mr. Paul has been proven right (or, at least, it is now most parsimonious to assume) that big deinonychosaurs did descend from aerodynamically adapted ancestors, there are still at least three aspects of his hypothesis that I can think of that are not (yet?) validated. One is that it does not seem to be birds that come first so much as a gliding theropod. The ancestral paravian is not more likely to have been at the "Archaeopteryx grade" as Paul speculated. Instead it seems that the glider gave rise to one lineage, avialae, that overall increased in aerodynamic abilities, and another, deinonychosauria, that largely lost them. The second aspect is that there is no longer a temporal paradox to be explained by Birds Come First. We now have advanced maniraptorans earlier than Archaeopteryx. Lastly, the successive assembly of bird - like characters in the lower maniraptoran groups are just as likely as ever to be building up to aerodynamics rather than winding down from them (only the deinonychosauria are more likely to be secondarily terrestrial now).

Rajasaurus
Hi, Dinoguy;

We've got Rajasaurus at GA and the reviewer is asking if there is anything else that we think should be in it. If you get a minute, could you weigh in on it? J. Spencer (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Subject/headline
The words "dinosaur" and "bird" are interchangable, right? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Penguins
Would it be fair to say that penguins evolved from dinosaurs? ScienceApe (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, so what would be the most recent common ancestor between penguins and what people commonly refer to as dinosaurs? Also were there penguins swimming the oceans when traditional (non-bird) dinosaurs roamed the earth? ScienceApe (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm looking for is the animal that eventually evolved into both dinosaurs and birds. Would that be Archosaurs? ScienceApe (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I phrased that badly. I'm having trouble phrasing what I want to say... What is the animal or group that evolved into Archaeopteryx. Did Archaeopteryx evolve from an animal that we traditionally refer to as a dinosaur? ScienceApe (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Publications
I just noticed that you mentioned having to search for papers on dinos, including Plateosaurus. I have quite a bunch of PDFs - if you want I can get you about 4 GB of them ;) Email me (google is your friend). Heinrich Mallison from Berlin HMallison (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Megalodon revisited
Hello! Good to see your amazing progress and contributions in wikipedia.

I would like to again draw your attention towards the size of Megalodon. I have done quiet a bit more research on this animal to further refine the information provided in the main article, to maintain its GA status and I hope to get all the issues resolved. I have reviewed the works of Gottfried et al, and in their size comparison chart for the Megalodon and Great White Shark, the team proposed that the largest Megalodon was 20 m long. Some fossil discoveries by Vito Bertucci add credibility to this suggestion.

The source for this information is:

''Great white sharks: the biology of Carcharodon carcharias, ch. Size and Skeletal Anatomy of the Giant "Megatooth" Shark Carcharodon Megalodon, pp. 55-66

So I would suggest you to make following modifications in the shark scale chart for Megalodon:


 * ->Revise the size of the Megalodon to 20 m in your size comparison chart. Also try to fill a gap in the Megalodon, visible near the dorsal fin of the great white shark and further smoothen jagged edges.
 * ->It would be nice if you can include Whale Shark for comparison in the chart as well and keep it at 42 feet.

If you have any queries than notify me on my talk page. Thank you.

LeGenD (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dinoguy! I am waiting for your response in this regard. Please notify me in my talk page for any updates or clarifications.


 * LeGenD (talk) 09:10, 09 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not hard to ascertain this. Vito Bertucci during his expeditions, managed to discover one of the largest Megalodon fossils the world has ever seen. One of his finds are now under possession of Dr. Gordon Hubell. That tooth has been shown in the videos mentioned in the main article (See "External Links" for details). This specimen has a maximum height of 7.37 inch and root width of 5.5 inch (also confirmed through personal communication with Mark Renz). Now if you use this tooth in the last two popular size yielding methods, we get a size of 17.7 m (through Gottfried et al regression) and 19.1 m (through Dr. Clifford Jeremiah's method). So this tooth represents a shark somewhere between 18 - 19 m in length. Than of-course, there are reports of even larger C. megalodon teeth, which would obviously represent larger individuals. Again (See "External Links" for details) in the main article. Gottfried et al, also theorized the maximum size of Megalodon at 20 m (66 ft), which was also confirmed by S. Wroe et al in 2008. You can make amendments in the image like this:


 * Widely accepted size: 18 m
 * Maxmium accepted size: 20 m


 * For comparison:


 * Whale shark: 12 m
 * Great White Shark: 7 m


 * So do you agree?


 * LeGenD (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Only this part of my point is original research: (using that massive tooth by Vito for size estimation), and I do understand your concerns. However, check my comments in the section titled 20 meters within the talk page of the Megalodon article. I have provided some proper sources, which confirm the 20 m maximum size estimation for the Megalodon by reputed scientists. It will make the situation easier for you. And make the amendments in your image like I suggested above. No one would object, since we have proper sources that confirm this data.


 * LeGenD (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. There are many ways to determine the size of a shark. The most popular ones have been mentioned in the main article, which are considered to be suitable for estimating the size of even the extinct sharks. However, here is an article which may satisfy your question: A Review of Length Validation Methods and Protocols to Measure Large White Sharks (PDF File).
 * LeGenD (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gottfried et al, used this method for validating a conservative estimate for a large Megalodon on the basis of a 6.61 inch tooth: Megatooth's" Total Length in meters = [(0.096) × (enamel height of tooth in [mm])]. This tooth is obviously smaller than several Megalodon teeth found in later years (Specially the ones discovered by Vito Bertucci). Keep in mind that research of Gottfried et al was published in 1996. For 20 m, length validation, this team used a different approach though. However, Dr. Clifford Jeremiah, in 2002, proposed a more accurate method to validate the size of a Megalodon. Several of his peers agree with his proposed method. However, do not mention any methods in the image. Just make the image like this:


 * Very large Megalodon: 18 m
 * Generally accepted maximum Length of a Megalodon: 20 m
 * Very large Whale Shark: 12 m
 * Largest Great White Shark: 7 m
 * Human: 6 ft


 * LeGenD (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any diagram yet. Have you backed out?
 * LeGenD (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK! No problems. Your previous image came up quick, so I had similar expectations this time. However, take your time and when it is done, just let me know. Thanks!
 * LeGenD (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A good attempt indeed. Though, scientists believe that Megalodon would ontogenetically become more heavily developed, as it would grow larger. After-all, the 20 m shark is estimated to be around 100 tons in weight. So this shark isn't gracile looking. Additionally, the largest Megalodon in your image does not touches the 20 m barrier. So these errors are required to be addressed.
 * LeGenD (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your new scale chart for Megalodon is not properly hosted. Also, their has been no update from you during several days. Kindly fix the pointed issues, so that we can put an end to this case. LeGenD (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually a shark's swimming prowess is dependent on its Muscles, and Tail. The body shape is streamlined to reduce friction and drag, while Fins offer stability and control. Hence, even a heavily developed shark can be a powerful swimmer. See pages 62 - 64 of article: The Size and Skeletal Anatomy of Extinct Megatoothed Shark by Gottfried et al to get some idea as to how scientists believe that Megalodon looked like in real life. Additionally, your new image is not properly hosted and cannot be displayed in thumb format. So fix this issue as well.
 * LeGenD (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support and contribution. Current version is much better.
 * LeGenD (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed bits
quote: I'd definiely dispute this bit. Do kids in Papua know Giraffatitan? ;))

yes, many probably do; they have TV and books, y'know? ;) But I bet they know it as Brachiosaurus ;) HMallison (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deinonychus picture
I saw a new pic of the Deinonychus on the Deinonychus article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deinonychus_im_NHM_Wien.JPG

It looks pretty cool. Is it accurate? ScienceApe (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the quills on the head? ScienceApe (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
Hi, I remember your remarks regarding complicated references (mixing refs + footnotes etc). I have tried something out at François Leguat. Check out the source code - you'll note that it is rather plain - easy to use by novice users - and that it is very flexible - avoiding the problems of the "cite" tag, which cannot accomodate supplementary info (which in Science/Nature makes up the actual paper these days), many foreign sources, fulltext book sources etc.

It also does what the "Harvard footnotes" system does - link the footnoted Harvard-style citations to the full reference. It does so with a code that is not as automated and perhaps takes longer if you use a lot of editing scripts, but perhaps does not (this would be interesting to know). In any case, the code is more accessible to everyone.

Note paragraph 2, 4 and 5. With "ref behind punctuation", it is often impossible to tell which parts of these are properly referenced (if no page numbers are given, like here). Hence, I tend to use ref behind punctuation but collate all refs for a paragraph in a single footnote (if it makes sense). That way, the ref-punctuation debate is largely avoided.

(I find the Chicago Manual way of dealing with punctuation as regards citation and quotation marks hair-risingly sloppy, and potentially dangerous for a project like Wikipedia, where sourcing is the conditio sine qua non. If the source has no fullstop, a verbatim quote must have no fullstop either, and so on. This is OK in throwaway remarks (like the "etc." above), but I have seen a few cases where Chicago-style punctuation was used to POV an article by cutting off parts of sentences.

But at the same time, ref before punctuation is ''ugly' the way mediawiki implements it... and does not solve the problem with sources that must be read together to make sense. Hence, I try to place in-paragraph footnotes where no punctuation is in the way, and use a behind-paragraph footnote only for source pertaining to the paragraph as a whole. That way, it is fairly precise, unambiguous, and not an eyesore either). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles needs you!
Ahoy there! We're conducting our annual purge of the participants list for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in an effort to make sure our members stay current with events at the WikiProject. If you would like to renew your participation with the WikiProject, simply drop by the participants list and re-add your name to the list in alphabetical order using the following format:. Also feel free to add your specialties or points of interest. If you don't have the time or don't feel like rejoining, then ignore this request; you can rejoin at any time you'd like. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Acrocanthosaurus
I posted this on Acro's page but it hasnt been noticed, it shows that Acro was heavier than Wiki says. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/4884881/Tyrannosaurus-Rex-was-a-lean-mean-hunter.html And yes i know the article is about T-Rex but There is a small part were they mention 3 other dinosaurs and their weight after this method, and Acro is one of them. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

T-Rex
The coparison between the Rex specimins show a hip height for Sue around 3.7m. But T-Rex's page clearly says (with a source as well) 4m. Thats probally just being on the side of caution but i have another matter on the T-Rex. There is a study into T-Rex's fused nasal bones that has found that it had a bite force of at least 200 000 newtons (which i belive is 20t). Now it has long been said that T-Rex had the most powerful bite of any land animalo but something that high and impressive definatly deserves a mention in the article. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Will this do as a source> Spinodontosaurus (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

An idea I wanted to run by you
I have an idea for a new Wikimedia project. It would be a collection of data, references, and images useful for a professional researcher. Similar to Wikispecies, but with all of science (and maybe history etc) in mind instead of just biological taxonomy. Articles would be on things like taxa, specimens, researchers, studies and papers, institutions, etc. I picture a page on say, T. rex as having a brief intro (like a Wikipedia lead) and info box like on wikipedia, but then going on to technical information like diagnoses for taxa, cladograms, character matrices, specimen measurements, and a comprehensive bibliography of the relevant technical literature. The project could work along the lines of, or inspire endeavors similar to the Open Dinosaur project. Do you think this idea has any merit or potential? Your input would be greatly respected. I have a very rough draft of the T. rex page if I didn't describe it very clearly. I've left a nearly identical message at J Spencer's talk page, BTW. Abyssal (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If J. Spencer is similarly supportive, I'll ask the DML what they think. If the list is supportive I'll start promoting the idea in Wikimedia-related circles. Abyssal (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs
Hello Dinoguy2, I have an advise about Category of Dinosaurs. At present, there are 56 articles in Category:Triassic dinosaurs, 245 articles in Category:Jurassic dinosaurs, and 617 articles in Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs.

However, Cretaceous is around 80 million years long, almost equaled to Late Triassic adding Jurassic. Besides, the Lower Cretaceous Dinosaurs group and Upper Cretaceous Dinosaurs group have obvious differences. My advise is that 「Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs」 can be divided into 「Category:Lower Cretaceous dinosaurs」 and 「Category:Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs」.

Also, I have a question about Dinosaurs in Pakistan. There seveal Dinosaurs found in Pakistan, such as: Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Marisaurus, Balochisaurus. My question is that whether Pakistan was a part of Indian-Madagascar in Cretaceous, or just a part of Asia continent. If Pakistan was a part of Indian-Madagascar, maybe the above articles should be moved into Category:Dinosaurs of India and Madagascar

hoseumou(talk) 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
What's a good way to say "Non-Archosauriformes Archosauromorphs" that isn't so clunky besides "stem Archosauriformes"? I was considering "Basal Archosauromorphs," but that's not strictly accurate. Abyssal (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Late Cretaceous versus Upper Cretaceous.
Regarding the use of Late instead of Upper, there must be a cite to some international body that uses such terminology? I can't get the currently sourced paper on T. rex biomechanics but somehow I doubt this explicitly lays out a system of chronologic nomenclature in its conclusions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right in that the T-rex biomechanics ref. is inadequate. The section has been rewritten numerous times, so I've kinda lost track of things. People, even professionals, are some times slovenly with 'Late' and 'Upper'. If you look in "Glossary of Geology" from the American Geological Institute (mine is the fourth edition from 1997, ISBN 0-922152-34-9)Glossary of Geology at Amazon.com:
 * late: Pertaining to or occurring near the end of a segment of time. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to upper as applied to the name of the equivalent time-stratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of an Upper Jurassic batholith were intruded in Late Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Late Devonian") and is set in lower case indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "late Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 358)
 * early: Pertaining to or occurring near the beginning of a segment of time. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to lower as applied to the name of the equivalent chronostratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of a Lower Jurassic batholith were intruded in Early Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Early Devonian") and is set in lower case to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "early Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 198)
 * middle[geochron]: Pertaining to a segment of time intermediate between late and early. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to middle as applied to the name of the equivalent time-stratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of a Middle Jurassic batholith were intruded in Middle Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Middle Devonian") and is lowercased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "middle Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 409)
 * middle[stratig]: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are intermediate between upper and lower. The adjective is applied to the name of a chrono-stratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to middle as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Middle Jurassic Series were formed during the Middle Jurassic Epoch. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Middle Devonian") and is lowercased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "middle Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or of a series.(p.409)
 * upper: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are normally above those of earlier formations of the same subdivision of rocks. The adjective is applied to the name of a chronostratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to late as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Upper Jurassic System were formed during the Late Jurassic Period. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Upper Devonian") and is lower-cased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "upper Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or series.(p. 692)
 * lower: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are normally below those of later formations of the same subdivision of rocks. The adjective is applied to the name of a chronostratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to early as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Lower Jurassic System were formed during the Early Jurassic Period. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Lower Devonian") and is lower-cased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "lower Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or of a series.(p. 378)
 * Faithfully typed by me. The dictionary is however not flawless, since Late, Middle and Early Jurassic are epochs, and not periods. But the general idea is that T-rex are found in Upper Cretaceous, and that they lived in Late Cretaceous. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Stratigraphic distribution of Spinosaurus
Dear Dinoguy, I think you should not mention the possible Turonian age of Spinosaurus in the introduction (but certainly in the chapter on the biogeography of Spinosaurus). May be you're right but I've got a Turonian-Santanian age for the Turkana Grits of Kenya according to "The Dinosauria" 2nd edition. Besides, as you wrote, the material has been tentatively attributed to Spinosaurus sp. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen the material and therefore has never confirmed its nature. I believe no one has the publication either because it's an unpublished manuscript... Moreover, if you talk about the dubious material belonging to Spinosaurus sp. then you should write in the intro that the oldest one might come from the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian of Libya (http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=basicCollectionSearch&collection_no=69791&is_real_user=1). Regards,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)