User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 5

QUESTION
Hey, I was wondering, where do you acquire the silhouettes for creating the dinosaur scale diagrams? Thanks, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theridon (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Venom in Sinornithosaurus
Hey man, Would you mind if I revised the Sinornithosaurus venom paragraph a bit? Specifically, the part about the grooves in the teeth being seen only in venomous animals. In fact, the Folinsbee paper that Gong et al. cite notes that grooves are common in the teeth of all kinds of tetrapods, and they do not correlate with venomousness. I was thinking of writing something more like "the authors state that an inference of venomousness is well - supported in extinct animals with grooved teeth, a pocket in the maxilla and ducts between the two. However, Xu+Hu, who described Sinornithosaurus initially, did not report unusual tooth grooves. They noted that both maxillae were damaged during collection, and described maxillary pitting but no pockets large enough to house glands. They compared the putative venom ducts to the maxillary grooves in Caudipteryx, which was most likely herbivorous."Jbrougham (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey you
Look at the new dinosaur table in 2010 in paleontology. Do you like it more than the one that had been used previously? Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, instead of splitting the table, I add a column for the year that the type specimen was found? Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you moved a bunch of dinosaurs to 2010? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that when the ICZN enters the 21st century we'll have to move them back to the old date when their online publication first appeared? Abyssal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, do you think we should mark extant taxa in the formation paleofauna tables? Some thing along the lines of...

Abyssal (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No comments? Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The heart was the only symbol I saw that I thought made sense for marking something as alive, as in it's heart is still beating. I don't know of any standard marker for extant taxa, I just made that up. If you have any more logical suggestions, or know of some standard practice, please let me know. Abyssal (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

T rex
You know that study about Tyranno's bite force? Well ive heard that they scaled the muscles wrong and so gave a way over-estimate. I cant check at the momment (School PC's = crapy) so i thought id let you know. I think its this one but i doesnt load 4 me so i might not be. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs in the Signpost
Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anchiornis
But did the study reveal Anchiornis avoided treading on green backgrounds? --Lambiam 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Brachiosaurus
On this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brachiosaurus_DB.jpg the dino has quill like things all over it. Is this accurate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustration
Hello, I'm working for an article in the french version of wikipedia about the whale shark (there is a french wikicompetition now: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikiconcours/mars_2010). I've got a question for you. Is it possible to get an illustration on whale shark size? You're figure (Megalodon_scale1.png) is too complete to be used. Could you simplificate it with only the man and R. typus (and with a Fin whale) ? Thank you Glaoadare (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have time at the moment to create a new outline for the fin whale, but I've done a quick edit to isolate the whale shark, here: Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's perfect. thank you very much (it's already in the right page!) Glaoadare (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A new video I made about dinosaurs
Hey, thanks for all your help on dinosaurs. I made a video about dinosaurs, and I thought you would like to see it. Also if you notice any errors/mistakes, let me know so I can correct them. I used a few of your drawings as well because they were excellent. I hope you don't mind. Here's the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGPtXKwALY ScienceApe (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got a question about theropod height, and another about Dromaeosaurids...
Well, 2 years ago, you gave me a hand with a school project I was working in by making this size chart.

Well, I managed to get the highest possible mark in that subject, so that compensated for some weaker marks, and I managed to enter University without much pressure, so thanks again. Anyway, I was recently surfing the web and I came across this image: http://kronosaurus82.deviantart.com/art/Biggest-Ugliest-Baddest-140881861 As you can see, the animals that appear in it are the same as in the size chart you made, however, we can see some discrepances in their height. So, my question is, is this reconstruction correct in this regard? Tyrannosaurids having longer leg bones that Allosauroids and Spinosaurids (and the latter having a lower profile that other theropods) is pretty common knowledge, and longer leg bones mean more height, but, still, the mounted skeleton of Sue is not that much taller that mounted Giganotosaurus, if I recall correctly, and the mount of Spinosaurus is quite massive...

Anyway, about Dromaeosaurs, do you have any idea about the environment Deinonychus and Utahraptor lived in? I ask, mainly, because of the whole feather density (or oven presence, in some cases, it seems), and, after seeing how you reconstructed Achillobator, and the reasoning behind the ratite feathering you gave it, I've been pondering how that could affect medium-large dromaeosaurs in less arid climates.

In any case, could I ask you a favour, if you have the time and the inmediate means? If yes, remember the giant bird size chart? Could you add a Velociraptor mongoliensis silouette to it, if you can? I mainly need it to driving a point straight home (not like it is that needed, the paper that describes the quill knobs on that genus is pretty good evidence for wings, but, still...). Again, if you have time. In any case, Deinonychus' height would be slighty higher if it adopted a more natural position that the crouching (or as so I see it, correct me if needed) one it is displaying in the chart. Also, do you think Aepyornis would be heavier that Utahraptor? Seeing that the model for estimating weights was deemed somewhat flawed, and that, at least in the chart, Aepyornis has a larger body, well, yeah...

By the way, I like how you classified Oviraptorosaurs as an order of Aves, and Deinonychosaurs as part of Archaeopterygiformes. It, well, makes sense, that classification should get more standariced. One tends to forget about those things when thinking in a cladistic way, but, that update would be something needed to change the overall image of those animals. I may start writting them in that way, well, when I get my licenciature and start doing actual work and research in place of preparing exams. Well, better that "when", "if", but I hope I do.

One last question: Archaeopteryx, out of the Jurassic Paravians, is the one most adapted for a grounded lifestyle, right? I don't really know the diagnosic details of the bone structure, or the basis of the asignations to different clades, but, could Archaeopteryx be, instead of a basal bird, a basal deinonychosaur, and one of the more arboreal paravians be a basal Avialan?

Anyway, keep up your good work, I've been following your blog, and I like what I read over there! Eriorguez (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, that chart is biased. Well, then, the artist would have to explain something, as he said that it turned out that way from putting together some pics (despite the difference in position), and the disagreement with standard measurements (Giganotosaurus at 14 meters, because otherwise, he couldn't draw it in the right proportions? Tyrannosaurus clocking at 12, despite Sue being LONGER (well, we are missing parts of the tail, but, still...), for the same reasons?). Oh well, gotta stop looking at what the guy does, he just ignores the inaccuracies I point out as "looking for perfection"... While reconstructing Compsognathus as "the smallest known dinosaur", Juravenator as its larger relative, and gives them remiges and feathering only in the front half of the body, and saying that a paleontological advisor gave green light on that and that it is fine (I know those two have scale imprints from the lower part of the tail, but feathers embryologicaly appear from the top of the back, and a relative of those 2 has a feathered tail, the underside may be scaly, but the top possibly was not)... Oh well, sorry for ranting out like this, I also tend to be a bit unapreciative of works, pointing out only the cons...

Anyway, thanks for the information about the habitats, there are people who puck out of feathers those 2 genus because "they are too big and would have overheated", but, I would object. "Ratitefication" of feathers looked plausible, especially if considering that flightless, fast running ratites evolved each from flighted ancestors independently, and the plumage of rheas is not quite similar to that of tinamous, but, arid places are not pretty good for feather fossilification. Still, weight-wise, you'd say that Velociraptor is bustard/fox sized, Deinonychus is emu/wolf sized, and Utahraptor is elephant bird/bear sized, more or less, right?

By the way, the supposed Tyrannosaurid skin imprint we have, showed a pebbley pattern, without anything unusual, or had something that hinted simple, hair-like feathers? I kept hearing mixed signals, and searching arround proved insatisfactory.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to answer those! Eriorguez (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm a bit intrigued about some details of Dromaeosaur cranial anathomy: In the Deinonychus article, the skull of the mounted skeleton that acts as the main picture, is based on the old reconstructions, the ones that resembled Allosaurus, right? Because, I see it a bit too wide to agree with the adjacent text, but I guess accurate Deinonychus skull reconstructions are hard to come by... Also, speaking of Dromaeosaurines, I've been checking The Theropod Database, and most of the material asigned to that clade are teeth, but, there is the odd maxila and dentaries, and postcranial elements in larger taxa. But, we have had reconstructed Dromaeosaurus skulls for quite a long time, so, what are those based on? I guess we have more material that the one reported on that site, seeing as both Dromaeosaurus and Utahraptor are labeled "under construction", but still... By the way, in that Dromaeo skull, is the braincase the bony structure that can be seen in the middle of the skull through the antorbital fenestra? Fried fish tend to be poor specimens to look for it, and in Uni material, I'm not sure of being able to find a braincase in Nereis/Lumbricus/Hiruda, I'm afraid :P Anyway, thanks for your time! Eriorguez (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I mixed up then a bone I assume it is related to the nasal passages with the braincase, way to go... But I see then, torwards the back of the skull, it is hard to relate when your skull has an expossed and massive braincase, I guess. So, then, we have a fairly good idea of how Dromaeosaurus' skull was, good to know. And, Deinonychus, we have to wait then, right? The guy also has a convulted taxonomical history, jumping arround all of Eudromaeosauria, so, it is hard to associate it with relatives. But we can outright discard depressed nasals, right? Eriorguez (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey again, do you have time? Well, dromaeosaurine dromaeosaurids, they did not have larger wing claws that those of other eudromaeosaurs, right? I ask, because I keep hearing about (*sigh* yet again) Utahraptor having "claws in its hands that rivaled its sickle claw", but, we lack hand matherial from it if I recall correctly, so, yeah... Also, looked up the whole Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus height, and, surprise surprise, not only they have minimal differences, but Giganotosaurus (holotype) has a longer femur that Tyrannosaurus (Sue). By 10 centimeters or so, and made up with a shorter tibia, but it is in both cases shorter that the femur. So, well, what conclusion can we find? Speaking about relative speed too, as, while just numbers are not athe answer to everything, this seems a bit odd... Oh, and, Coelurosaurian plumage up to at least Archaeopteryx, was hair-like or down-like in the main body coverage role, instead of somewhat ramificated like in modern birds (while my experience with modern birds on hand is a bit limited, I belive those feathers are ramificated, due to, well, blue and green birds existing), with remiges and rectices being ramificated in Oviraptorosaurs and Paravians (Therizinosaurs had blade-like feathers, if I understood correctly what was seen in Beipiaosaurus) Anyway, thanks again! Eriorguez (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, giant dromies are a bit odd, I guess that is what happens when you get something huge in a clade of small animals... Anyway, looked up Spinosaur leg length (well, femur and tibia of Suchomimus, we need more spinosaur material), and, while it is a smaller animal that T.rex and Giga, the tibia/femur ratio is 0.879, compared with the 0.783 ratio of Giga, and the 0.89 (type)/0.873 (Sue) of Tyranno. In any case, each bone is 20-30 centimeters shorter in Sucho... Anyway, I have to ask, what is your opinion on the whole ontological stages issue with Triceratops/Torosaurus, Dracorex/Stygimoloch/Pachycephalosaurus, and Homalocephale/Prenocephale? And, speaking of the ceratopsians, what remains do we have of Torosaurus? By the way, the argument against the ontogenical relation based on Triceratops (the younger animal) being larger that Torosaurus (the fully grown one), uses not quite correct estimates for both animals, no? Because, 10 meter Triceratops and 7.5 meter Torosaurus, with Toro having a skull that is like Triceratops' but larger, and not like the ones of earlier ceratopsines, well, as far as I know. The Theropod Database is not helpful with those things that do not quite fall within theropods, I guess... Anyway, thanks! Eriorguez (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit embarrasing to see that oneself had already commented in the source given and had forgotten about doing so... XD Anyway, about the Trike/Toro issue, Eotriceratops is likely a transitional taxa between earlier ceratopsines and Triceratops, and Torosaurus has more characters in common with Triceratops that Eotriceratops does, right? Eriorguez (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, how's it going? If you have time, could you give me your opinion in this issue: What do you think about the theory of Allosaurus having a very wide gape, and using its neck to slam the skull into the prey instead of just closing the jaw onto it? I've taken a look at the paper, and, so far, it looks accurate, but I wanted a second opinion. Also, I've read somewhere that Carnotaurus had evolved a similar system, but I'm not sure about it, do you know anything about that? Finaly, the Allo paper said that Acrocanthosaurus did not have the same adaptations; well, do we know the degree of mouth opening Carcharodontosaurids could archieve? The supposed lack of that adaptation suggests a different feeding method that on Allosaurus, but, still, to be sure... Eriorguez (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A F K When Needed (talk • contribs)

Hey, asking about ceratopsians yet again... Anyway, do you know where can I find information about the Triceratops mummy that was said to have a crocodilian-like belly, and some sort of anchoring points for quills? I am specially interested on the latter, their diameter and all that. Well, and on the general topic of ceratopsian quills (and omnivory, I keep getting mentions of a Pachyrhinosaur found with bones as stomach content), what do we know? And of ornithischian tegument? Heterodontosaurs have been basal everythings except thyreophorans, and I guess they fit quite well as basal Cerapoda (if it is still in use, not quite good with Ornithischians) due to heterodoncy. However, I've heard some reports of Tianyulong having a quite dromaeosaur-like tail, and it maybe being a chimera, so I am a bit confused... Anyway, thanks for the time! Eriorguez (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/

That's from where I got said report. As for the Pachyrhinosaurus fossil with bones in the stomach, the person who mentioned it did so alongside the Psittacosaurus one; I'll try to get more information about that. Eriorguez (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the paper came out, and after reading it Torosaurus has became Triceratops (and Nedoceratops seems to be settling down). Now, all it is there to do is the long and arduous process of integrating it into pop culture, starting by the people who are aware of the paper but just outright refute it, without even reading it, mostly because of Horner's image... Well, lets see what fate awaits the Pachycephalosaurines... And Edmontosaurini, and "Homalocephalines", and Velociraptorines, and Tyrannosaurini... Anyway, I've got to ask, if we have anything new on Deinocheirus. I recall seeing some movement last year regarding it, but nothing came after all, only the study that said it and Therizinosaurus would be taller that everything else nearby... And, speaking of the latter, anything new about it, would you know? Eriorguez (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Art
You are an amazing artist. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Abundance --> Material
Good work on the Yixian insect stuff. Nice to see some spineless critters get time in the spotlight. Also, I've been considering changing the "Abundance" column to a "Material" column in this types of article due to the difficulty in finding sources that discuss taxa in terms of their abundances as opposed to just describing what remains exist. Additionally, relative abundance information like saying whether something is common or rare is relatively meaningless compared to absolute numbers. So many taxa are represented by such scant remains that an abundance cell usually ends up reading something like "known from a lower jaw, a partial vertebral column and pelvis from a single individual." The quantity of the taxon gets covered, but is usually such a minor point that it doesn't feel right calling the entire column "Abundance." The material column also allows room for potentially relevant stuff like taphonomy, comments on preservation quality and such. If you support this, I'll begin piece-mill renaming (and filling in) the replacement Material column as I work on them, starting in the next couple days. Abyssal (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think "Material" is too technical? Abyssal (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask you
I see you have made numerous scale charts for wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to make a chart of Deinocheirus (based on |this?) alongside other large Theropods (your choice), or by itself? And if you are wondering about its size, i have seen a forum user scale up from another Ornithomimusaurid using the arms, and it was 13-15m long. If you can then thanks. 90.208.141.96 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Ah well thats handy! (yes it was me who asked for the chart, i just didnt realise i wasnt logged in at the time), thanks for it. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Linheraptor size
I still don't think Linheraptor's 1.8 meters in length is large enough to be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. At minimum, I would say a dromaeosaur has to be 2.5 meters before it can be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. The Utahraptor Talk 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wood/XKCD comment
I just read your comment from a couple of years back on the "In Popular Culture" joke by XKCD... got a laugh out of me. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hesperornithes
Hi! I see you reverted my edit in the article Hesperornithes, but my edit was right. I just wanted to show you my source:. Sincerely, --87.48.0.130 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Theropod size comparision
Hey dinoguy2,

very nice pictures!

I guess you know that there are plenty of discussions 'Spino VS Rex' in the www .. And a very well discussion doesnt work without any image, thats why your 'Largesttheropods.svg' is used very often.. !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Largesttheropods.svg/800px-Largesttheropods.svg.png (largesttheropods.svg) Discussing the picture, there were some people who thought that the Spinosaurus should have been at least a bit larger in the image, because you picked the lowest current estimation (about 16m). But i guess, that the main problem of the image is, that the Spinosaurus has another poise of body than the other theropods. Which is a bit disapointing and shows the spino to be too low.

Would be really nice to know whats up there - and if it could be corrected to avoid futher problems in such discussions! ;)

Regards,

Venoxxis (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to revisit this diagram actually, maybe later this week... MMartyniuk (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice to hear that! Venoxxis (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.48 (talk)

DYK for Alanqa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Yix
Yep, Weis really listed Microraptor from the Yix. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gui was listed from Yix, Zhaoianus was listed from Jiufo. Page 198. Abyssal (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox on birds
The information I used to change the taxobox to the broken mishmash was off of tolweb.org. I am not sure why your POV is correct, is this not a NPOV problem as in cladistic vs. phylogentic? Both are accepted. I changed that entry a while ago, early on in my editing history. I am not sure if I deserved your pointed coments. The taxobox template is designed with the items that "I had to break it, to get it to work".

I probably feel that the phylogenetic version is the better version, as I have learned much in the last year. So I guess I don't have a problem with it being changed back, but i believe the NPOV guidelines dictates at least a discussion. I DO have a minor problem with the way I am portrayed.

Like I said, I was new at this when it was added so lets start a dialogue, which would educate those of us that need education, rather than summary changes.speednat (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the response, and the clarification/explanation. Now on to bigger things. How do we get the cladistic view admitted? It is obviously mainstream enough to be included in all the articles. speednat (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fanwank listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fanwank. Since you had some involvement with the Fanwank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Venom in Sinornithosaurus
Hey man, Would you mind if I revised the Sinornithosaurus venom paragraph a bit? Specifically, the part about the grooves in the teeth being seen only in venomous animals. In fact, the Folinsbee paper that Gong et al. cite notes that grooves are common in the teeth of all kinds of tetrapods, and they do not correlate with venomousness. I was thinking of writing something more like "the authors state that an inference of venomousness is well - supported in extinct animals with grooved teeth, a pocket in the maxilla and ducts between the two. However, Xu+Hu, who described Sinornithosaurus initially, did not report unusual tooth grooves. They noted that both maxillae were damaged during collection, and described maxillary pitting but no pockets large enough to house glands. They compared the putative venom ducts to the maxillary grooves in Caudipteryx, which was most likely herbivorous."Jbrougham (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey you
Look at the new dinosaur table in 2010 in paleontology. Do you like it more than the one that had been used previously? Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, instead of splitting the table, I add a column for the year that the type specimen was found? Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you moved a bunch of dinosaurs to 2010? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that when the ICZN enters the 21st century we'll have to move them back to the old date when their online publication first appeared? Abyssal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, do you think we should mark extant taxa in the formation paleofauna tables? Some thing along the lines of...

Abyssal (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No comments? Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The heart was the only symbol I saw that I thought made sense for marking something as alive, as in it's heart is still beating. I don't know of any standard marker for extant taxa, I just made that up. If you have any more logical suggestions, or know of some standard practice, please let me know. Abyssal (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

T rex
You know that study about Tyranno's bite force? Well ive heard that they scaled the muscles wrong and so gave a way over-estimate. I cant check at the momment (School PC's = crapy) so i thought id let you know. I think its this one but i doesnt load 4 me so i might not be. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs in the Signpost
Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anchiornis
But did the study reveal Anchiornis avoided treading on green backgrounds? --Lambiam 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Brachiosaurus
On this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brachiosaurus_DB.jpg the dino has quill like things all over it. Is this accurate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustration
Hello, I'm working for an article in the french version of wikipedia about the whale shark (there is a french wikicompetition now: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikiconcours/mars_2010). I've got a question for you. Is it possible to get an illustration on whale shark size? You're figure (Megalodon_scale1.png) is too complete to be used. Could you simplificate it with only the man and R. typus (and with a Fin whale) ? Thank you Glaoadare (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have time at the moment to create a new outline for the fin whale, but I've done a quick edit to isolate the whale shark, here: Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's perfect. thank you very much (it's already in the right page!) Glaoadare (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A new video I made about dinosaurs
Hey, thanks for all your help on dinosaurs. I made a video about dinosaurs, and I thought you would like to see it. Also if you notice any errors/mistakes, let me know so I can correct them. I used a few of your drawings as well because they were excellent. I hope you don't mind. Here's the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGPtXKwALY ScienceApe (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got a question about theropod height, and another about Dromaeosaurids...
Well, 2 years ago, you gave me a hand with a school project I was working in by making this size chart.

Well, I managed to get the highest possible mark in that subject, so that compensated for some weaker marks, and I managed to enter University without much pressure, so thanks again. Anyway, I was recently surfing the web and I came across this image: http://kronosaurus82.deviantart.com/art/Biggest-Ugliest-Baddest-140881861 As you can see, the animals that appear in it are the same as in the size chart you made, however, we can see some discrepances in their height. So, my question is, is this reconstruction correct in this regard? Tyrannosaurids having longer leg bones that Allosauroids and Spinosaurids (and the latter having a lower profile that other theropods) is pretty common knowledge, and longer leg bones mean more height, but, still, the mounted skeleton of Sue is not that much taller that mounted Giganotosaurus, if I recall correctly, and the mount of Spinosaurus is quite massive...

Anyway, about Dromaeosaurs, do you have any idea about the environment Deinonychus and Utahraptor lived in? I ask, mainly, because of the whole feather density (or oven presence, in some cases, it seems), and, after seeing how you reconstructed Achillobator, and the reasoning behind the ratite feathering you gave it, I've been pondering how that could affect medium-large dromaeosaurs in less arid climates.

In any case, could I ask you a favour, if you have the time and the inmediate means? If yes, remember the giant bird size chart? Could you add a Velociraptor mongoliensis silouette to it, if you can? I mainly need it to driving a point straight home (not like it is that needed, the paper that describes the quill knobs on that genus is pretty good evidence for wings, but, still...). Again, if you have time. In any case, Deinonychus' height would be slighty higher if it adopted a more natural position that the crouching (or as so I see it, correct me if needed) one it is displaying in the chart. Also, do you think Aepyornis would be heavier that Utahraptor? Seeing that the model for estimating weights was deemed somewhat flawed, and that, at least in the chart, Aepyornis has a larger body, well, yeah...

By the way, I like how you classified Oviraptorosaurs as an order of Aves, and Deinonychosaurs as part of Archaeopterygiformes. It, well, makes sense, that classification should get more standariced. One tends to forget about those things when thinking in a cladistic way, but, that update would be something needed to change the overall image of those animals. I may start writting them in that way, well, when I get my licenciature and start doing actual work and research in place of preparing exams. Well, better that "when", "if", but I hope I do.

One last question: Archaeopteryx, out of the Jurassic Paravians, is the one most adapted for a grounded lifestyle, right? I don't really know the diagnosic details of the bone structure, or the basis of the asignations to different clades, but, could Archaeopteryx be, instead of a basal bird, a basal deinonychosaur, and one of the more arboreal paravians be a basal Avialan?

Anyway, keep up your good work, I've been following your blog, and I like what I read over there! Eriorguez (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, that chart is biased. Well, then, the artist would have to explain something, as he said that it turned out that way from putting together some pics (despite the difference in position), and the disagreement with standard measurements (Giganotosaurus at 14 meters, because otherwise, he couldn't draw it in the right proportions? Tyrannosaurus clocking at 12, despite Sue being LONGER (well, we are missing parts of the tail, but, still...), for the same reasons?). Oh well, gotta stop looking at what the guy does, he just ignores the inaccuracies I point out as "looking for perfection"... While reconstructing Compsognathus as "the smallest known dinosaur", Juravenator as its larger relative, and gives them remiges and feathering only in the front half of the body, and saying that a paleontological advisor gave green light on that and that it is fine (I know those two have scale imprints from the lower part of the tail, but feathers embryologicaly appear from the top of the back, and a relative of those 2 has a feathered tail, the underside may be scaly, but the top possibly was not)... Oh well, sorry for ranting out like this, I also tend to be a bit unapreciative of works, pointing out only the cons...

Anyway, thanks for the information about the habitats, there are people who puck out of feathers those 2 genus because "they are too big and would have overheated", but, I would object. "Ratitefication" of feathers looked plausible, especially if considering that flightless, fast running ratites evolved each from flighted ancestors independently, and the plumage of rheas is not quite similar to that of tinamous, but, arid places are not pretty good for feather fossilification. Still, weight-wise, you'd say that Velociraptor is bustard/fox sized, Deinonychus is emu/wolf sized, and Utahraptor is elephant bird/bear sized, more or less, right?

By the way, the supposed Tyrannosaurid skin imprint we have, showed a pebbley pattern, without anything unusual, or had something that hinted simple, hair-like feathers? I kept hearing mixed signals, and searching arround proved insatisfactory.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to answer those! Eriorguez (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm a bit intrigued about some details of Dromaeosaur cranial anathomy: In the Deinonychus article, the skull of the mounted skeleton that acts as the main picture, is based on the old reconstructions, the ones that resembled Allosaurus, right? Because, I see it a bit too wide to agree with the adjacent text, but I guess accurate Deinonychus skull reconstructions are hard to come by... Also, speaking of Dromaeosaurines, I've been checking The Theropod Database, and most of the material asigned to that clade are teeth, but, there is the odd maxila and dentaries, and postcranial elements in larger taxa. But, we have had reconstructed Dromaeosaurus skulls for quite a long time, so, what are those based on? I guess we have more material that the one reported on that site, seeing as both Dromaeosaurus and Utahraptor are labeled "under construction", but still... By the way, in that Dromaeo skull, is the braincase the bony structure that can be seen in the middle of the skull through the antorbital fenestra? Fried fish tend to be poor specimens to look for it, and in Uni material, I'm not sure of being able to find a braincase in Nereis/Lumbricus/Hiruda, I'm afraid :P Anyway, thanks for your time! Eriorguez (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I mixed up then a bone I assume it is related to the nasal passages with the braincase, way to go... But I see then, torwards the back of the skull, it is hard to relate when your skull has an expossed and massive braincase, I guess. So, then, we have a fairly good idea of how Dromaeosaurus' skull was, good to know. And, Deinonychus, we have to wait then, right? The guy also has a convulted taxonomical history, jumping arround all of Eudromaeosauria, so, it is hard to associate it with relatives. But we can outright discard depressed nasals, right? Eriorguez (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey again, do you have time? Well, dromaeosaurine dromaeosaurids, they did not have larger wing claws that those of other eudromaeosaurs, right? I ask, because I keep hearing about (*sigh* yet again) Utahraptor having "claws in its hands that rivaled its sickle claw", but, we lack hand matherial from it if I recall correctly, so, yeah... Also, looked up the whole Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus height, and, surprise surprise, not only they have minimal differences, but Giganotosaurus (holotype) has a longer femur that Tyrannosaurus (Sue). By 10 centimeters or so, and made up with a shorter tibia, but it is in both cases shorter that the femur. So, well, what conclusion can we find? Speaking about relative speed too, as, while just numbers are not athe answer to everything, this seems a bit odd... Oh, and, Coelurosaurian plumage up to at least Archaeopteryx, was hair-like or down-like in the main body coverage role, instead of somewhat ramificated like in modern birds (while my experience with modern birds on hand is a bit limited, I belive those feathers are ramificated, due to, well, blue and green birds existing), with remiges and rectices being ramificated in Oviraptorosaurs and Paravians (Therizinosaurs had blade-like feathers, if I understood correctly what was seen in Beipiaosaurus) Anyway, thanks again! Eriorguez (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, giant dromies are a bit odd, I guess that is what happens when you get something huge in a clade of small animals... Anyway, looked up Spinosaur leg length (well, femur and tibia of Suchomimus, we need more spinosaur material), and, while it is a smaller animal that T.rex and Giga, the tibia/femur ratio is 0.879, compared with the 0.783 ratio of Giga, and the 0.89 (type)/0.873 (Sue) of Tyranno. In any case, each bone is 20-30 centimeters shorter in Sucho... Anyway, I have to ask, what is your opinion on the whole ontological stages issue with Triceratops/Torosaurus, Dracorex/Stygimoloch/Pachycephalosaurus, and Homalocephale/Prenocephale? And, speaking of the ceratopsians, what remains do we have of Torosaurus? By the way, the argument against the ontogenical relation based on Triceratops (the younger animal) being larger that Torosaurus (the fully grown one), uses not quite correct estimates for both animals, no? Because, 10 meter Triceratops and 7.5 meter Torosaurus, with Toro having a skull that is like Triceratops' but larger, and not like the ones of earlier ceratopsines, well, as far as I know. The Theropod Database is not helpful with those things that do not quite fall within theropods, I guess... Anyway, thanks! Eriorguez (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit embarrasing to see that oneself had already commented in the source given and had forgotten about doing so... XD Anyway, about the Trike/Toro issue, Eotriceratops is likely a transitional taxa between earlier ceratopsines and Triceratops, and Torosaurus has more characters in common with Triceratops that Eotriceratops does, right? Eriorguez (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, how's it going? If you have time, could you give me your opinion in this issue: What do you think about the theory of Allosaurus having a very wide gape, and using its neck to slam the skull into the prey instead of just closing the jaw onto it? I've taken a look at the paper, and, so far, it looks accurate, but I wanted a second opinion. Also, I've read somewhere that Carnotaurus had evolved a similar system, but I'm not sure about it, do you know anything about that? Finaly, the Allo paper said that Acrocanthosaurus did not have the same adaptations; well, do we know the degree of mouth opening Carcharodontosaurids could archieve? The supposed lack of that adaptation suggests a different feeding method that on Allosaurus, but, still, to be sure... Eriorguez (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A F K When Needed (talk • contribs)

Hey, asking about ceratopsians yet again... Anyway, do you know where can I find information about the Triceratops mummy that was said to have a crocodilian-like belly, and some sort of anchoring points for quills? I am specially interested on the latter, their diameter and all that. Well, and on the general topic of ceratopsian quills (and omnivory, I keep getting mentions of a Pachyrhinosaur found with bones as stomach content), what do we know? And of ornithischian tegument? Heterodontosaurs have been basal everythings except thyreophorans, and I guess they fit quite well as basal Cerapoda (if it is still in use, not quite good with Ornithischians) due to heterodoncy. However, I've heard some reports of Tianyulong having a quite dromaeosaur-like tail, and it maybe being a chimera, so I am a bit confused... Anyway, thanks for the time! Eriorguez (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/

That's from where I got said report. As for the Pachyrhinosaurus fossil with bones in the stomach, the person who mentioned it did so alongside the Psittacosaurus one; I'll try to get more information about that. Eriorguez (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Art
You are an amazing artist. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Abundance --> Material
Good work on the Yixian insect stuff. Nice to see some spineless critters get time in the spotlight. Also, I've been considering changing the "Abundance" column to a "Material" column in this types of article due to the difficulty in finding sources that discuss taxa in terms of their abundances as opposed to just describing what remains exist. Additionally, relative abundance information like saying whether something is common or rare is relatively meaningless compared to absolute numbers. So many taxa are represented by such scant remains that an abundance cell usually ends up reading something like "known from a lower jaw, a partial vertebral column and pelvis from a single individual." The quantity of the taxon gets covered, but is usually such a minor point that it doesn't feel right calling the entire column "Abundance." The material column also allows room for potentially relevant stuff like taphonomy, comments on preservation quality and such. If you support this, I'll begin piece-mill renaming (and filling in) the replacement Material column as I work on them, starting in the next couple days. Abyssal (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think "Material" is too technical? Abyssal (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask you
I see you have made numerous scale charts for wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to make a chart of Deinocheirus (based on |this?) alongside other large Theropods (your choice), or by itself? And if you are wondering about its size, i have seen a forum user scale up from another Ornithomimusaurid using the arms, and it was 13-15m long. If you can then thanks. 90.208.141.96 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Ah well thats handy! (yes it was me who asked for the chart, i just didnt realise i wasnt logged in at the time), thanks for it. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Linheraptor size
I still don't think Linheraptor's 1.8 meters in length is large enough to be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. At minimum, I would say a dromaeosaur has to be 2.5 meters before it can be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. The Utahraptor Talk 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wood/XKCD comment
I just read your comment from a couple of years back on the "In Popular Culture" joke by XKCD... got a laugh out of me. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hesperornithes
Hi! I see you reverted my edit in the article Hesperornithes, but my edit was right. I just wanted to show you my source:. Sincerely, --87.48.0.130 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Theropod size comparision
Hey dinoguy2,

very nice pictures!

I guess you know that there are plenty of discussions 'Spino VS Rex' in the www .. And a very well discussion doesnt work without any image, thats why your 'Largesttheropods.svg' is used very often.. !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Largesttheropods.svg/800px-Largesttheropods.svg.png (largesttheropods.svg) Discussing the picture, there were some people who thought that the Spinosaurus should have been at least a bit larger in the image, because you picked the lowest current estimation (about 16m). But i guess, that the main problem of the image is, that the Spinosaurus has another poise of body than the other theropods. Which is a bit disapointing and shows the spino to be too low.

Would be really nice to know whats up there - and if it could be corrected to avoid futher problems in such discussions! ;)

Regards,

Venoxxis (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to revisit this diagram actually, maybe later this week... MMartyniuk (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice to hear that! Venoxxis (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.48 (talk)

DYK for Alanqa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Yix
Yep, Weis really listed Microraptor from the Yix. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gui was listed from Yix, Zhaoianus was listed from Jiufo. Page 198. Abyssal (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox on birds
The information I used to change the taxobox to the broken mishmash was off of tolweb.org. I am not sure why your POV is correct, is this not a NPOV problem as in cladistic vs. phylogentic? Both are accepted. I changed that entry a while ago, early on in my editing history. I am not sure if I deserved your pointed coments. The taxobox template is designed with the items that "I had to break it, to get it to work".

I probably feel that the phylogenetic version is the better version, as I have learned much in the last year. So I guess I don't have a problem with it being changed back, but i believe the NPOV guidelines dictates at least a discussion. I DO have a minor problem with the way I am portrayed.

Like I said, I was new at this when it was added so lets start a dialogue, which would educate those of us that need education, rather than summary changes.speednat (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the response, and the clarification/explanation. Now on to bigger things. How do we get the cladistic view admitted? It is obviously mainstream enough to be included in all the articles. speednat (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fanwank listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fanwank. Since you had some involvement with the Fanwank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Avimimus.
Best Dinoguy2. I have been wondering about your restoration of the oviraptorosaurian Avimimus. I guess it is better than those I made last year, but I want to ask some questions about them. First, what about the shape of your Avimimus skull? I think it's head looks like an Erlikosaurus (I don't mean to affront you). If we look at Gondwanastudios.com, or at this skeletal diagram, we don't find a head shape like your restorations. What did you base your illustration on?

Secondly, shall Avimimus really have such long toes as you have given it? Avimimus had short pes phalanges, perhaps evidence for a fast runner.

i hope you don't became angry for these comments, but accept that I want to discuss one of your restorations. Conty 18:15, 10 july 2010

Re: Ornithopoda
First of all, sorry about undoing your edits; it was the only way I could reconcile an edit conflict. I changed the original chart to reflect the organization on the linked pages: for instance, Muttaburrasaurus is listed as being in Iguanodontidae on its own page. (Frankly, I've never HEARD of a 'Parvorder' before this.) The conflict is between the various pages themselves. Jintasaurus is a hadrosaur according to its own article; perhaps it should be dropped from the Ornithopod page, but I haven't gotten that far yet, and didn't want to just toss it for no reason. I've got no problem if you change them, as long as it's consistant. I did add several other genera to the Iguanodont page; I found these in the Iguanodon article, linked only in the text body, with no other link. (I must have misspelled Thelophytalia in my notes; it red-linked, and I can't find it again.) I'm trying to hit every dinosaur page, and it's no help when a page's only link is in the text body (especially since Wikipedia) no longer indicates an already clicked on link). To be honest, I'm finding that ALL of Dinosauria (and most of Prehistoric Reptiles) is a taxonomic mess, with many pages not agreeing with the pages that link to them. CFLeon (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fossil ranges
Ok sorry about messing with the taxobox fossil range on theropoda and coelurosauria, I did it because the articles themselves implied they were dealing with the clade by mentioning that they are represented by birds, and the articles saurischia and maniraptora already used the cladistic definition for the fossil range (as makes sense given these articles refer to birds being members of these groups). Is there general consensus whether articles like theropoda or saurischia should be referring to the Linnaean classification or the clade? Nevertheless, having the article text and the infobox representing slightly different subjects seems to me to be rather odd. Would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Icalanise (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries! I agree the issue should be revisited, maybe something you could bring up with WikiProject_Dinosaurs MMartyniuk (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I took up your suggestion of bringing it up at the WikiProject, talk page section is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 27. Cheers, Icalanise (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No explanation for your undos
You undid my entry on two occasions without stating a reason. I posted an explanation. "It is simple logic that if the metacarpal exists but not the digit then the digit has been lost." You did not follow protocol. Nor did you talk to me. Pterosaurus Pterosaurus (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Revised scale charts
Hey, I've seen the revised scale charts, with the animals in a neutral posture, and I have to say it is an improvement. However, there is something that bugs me with the Spinosaurus chart, it seems a bit too short-tailed. That agrees with Scott Hartman's skeletal, but, what do we have of Spinosaurid tails? It strikes me as odd, specially compared with Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus in the largest theropod chart, but both of them have fairly complete tails...

Just saying, it strikes me as odd, to have a fairly different build from Baryonyx, but, anyway, not quite important. By the way, do you have any plans of revising the Velociraptor chart? It has always felt to me as somewhat out of place, with the nonstandard orientation and the elevated tail. Just asking... Eriorguez (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chime in and say I actually like the old scale chart significantly better. Abyssal (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I liked everything about the old one better. The new pose looks unnatural and they look really widely spaced. Abyssal (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping them close also leaves them closer to the human, which makes it easier to gauge the scale. I'm glad you gave Triceratops some love. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, still, it just strikes me as odd having a long-bodied animal, with relatives with quite long tails, as somewhat short-tailed; looks awkward to something that could have spent plenty of time at the edge of the water... But still, longer torso is longer torso, and pretty much all Tyrannosaurus has on it is the bite. And the heavier build even if smaller. And the tendency to bite other Tyrannosaurs in the braincase. And the ability to survive such wounds... :P By the way, though Tyrannosaurus had a bit of a long tail, but checked some restorations of Sue, and yeah, typical theropod half-lenght tail, good catch there. As it was giving Giganotosaurus Mapusaurus-like arms, it seems pretty reasonable to assume it had them that way (or even if it was just using a silouette of a very similar animal, good catch either way!). Still, I've been checking the theropod database, and as far as I saw, for Carcharodontosaurid tails, we only had the incomplete ones of Acrocanthosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Still, a speculative long tail is also pretty much the only way to bring, say, Carcharodontosaurus, to its largest estimated lenght... So yeah, estimates are that way. Well, at least lenght estimates are easier to handle that weight ones, those are nightmarish (and many times overestimates in my opinion, I just cannot see an air-filled Tyrannosaurus as heavier that a thick-walled boned bull African elephant. But that is a matter of opinion pretty much; even relative weights are... Oh, and by the way, this morning I got into a light argument about the Jurassic Park Velociraptors, about them being pretty much badly proportioned Deinonychus with the right lenght, but as tall as Utahraptor, so I was wondering, if you have some time after finishing the revamps of the charts and are not fed up with them, could you throw those 3 Dromies together in a chart? Nothing important, it is pretty much to dance arround my friend telling him "told you so-o!"... And may prove informative for the Biological Issues in Jurassic Park article, too... XD Eriorguez (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and, I forgot before, but now I remembered, the hypothesis about the dome of Pachycephalosaurs being the base of a keratinous horn was disproven, right?Eriorguez (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, it all comes down to the Spinosaurid maxima: "Need more fossils". Riverside animals should have left better fossils...

I guess the heavier build seems to come from the animal being quite wide, specially if compared with, say, a large Allosaurus, but it is still a lightweight compared to, say, Parasaurolophus. But the low degree of pneumatization is quite interesting, I guess it would be something to be expected of animals that had to deal with water currents to some degree. Still, something I want to see more of... Oh, and thanks for the chart, I ought to erect a shrine to you! :PEriorguez (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, now I have a friend who has adopted as his personal canon that the animals in Jurassic Park were mislabeled Achillobator or Utahraptor. XD

Achillobator's problem is that its name doesn't end on "-raptor" or "-nychus" and doesn't come from the badlands of Montana, I'd say. The name's awesome and the resemblance to the movie monsters uncanny... In any case, I cannot see how Deinonychus could have spent so many years as "could look a man in the eye" in books and pop culture, really...

By the way, one thing: Dromaeosaurs (and Troodontids, but those had longer legs, most illustrations have lead me to belive) were quite low-profiled and long tailed for theropods, but, Compsognathids were even more elongated and light-bodied, no? I did a rough estimate about how many times heavier a Velociraptor-lenghted Compsognathus would be that the French specime, and, while it would be roughly 3 times heavier, that weight is still half of most estimates for Dromaeosaurs that size. Thin body, REALLY long tails, and short legs (Sinosauropteryx is exaggerating that trait) would be the responsibles, no? And, before I stop doing mental exercises at your talk page, how would Compsognathids and Coelophysids resemble each other in proportions, rough appareance... (this is Procompsognathus' fault, the guy got too much publicity, and I have trouble seeing it as a mini-Coelophysis XD... oh, and that is apart of protofeathers, of course (unless Coelophysids had them, and that would mess up some clades... Or Ceratosaurs))... Eriorguez (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, basal Tyrannosauroids are very similar to Compsognathids, you say? Heh, that reminds me of my 8-years old self, and my theories about Compsognathus being an ancestor to Tyrannosaurus due to, well, being 2-fingered coelurosaurs (hey, 8-years old self!). Then Eotyrannus came and it had 3 fingers... I still hold a grudge against Darren Naish to this day, nevermind the fact that Compsognathus has 3 fingers, and Tyrannosaurus has a third metacarpal... yep... Well, insanity aside, would it be plausible that the "jurassic incertae sedis coelurosaurs" (Compsognathus, Ornitholestes and Coelurus, pretty much, they've been everything but Ornithomimosaurs) to be basal Tyrannosauroids? Still, I keep hearing about Ornitholestes having characters of basal Maniraptorian, so, a mess... (Oh, and while we are at it, has Oviraptorosauria+Paraves got a name?) Eriorguez (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, we have Hartman restoring Ornitholestes as a basal maniraptoran, Handersen as a basal tyrannosauroid... We need a good early jurassic formation badly... And, averemigia? Straight to my vocabulary until we have anything better. Shame on the unpractical definition, but at least is easy to type...

By the way, I was taking a look at the new charts (and the neutral positions are a huge improvement, at least the dork has more reasons to wave XD), and there was something in the Pachycephalosaurus' one, namely the lack of size difference between UCMP 556078 and Stygimoloch. The larger size of the type means that UCMP is not fully grown, but the lack of growth between Stygi and it, is odd if they are the same animal. You could explain it by giving cranial rearragement priority, or by the type being a very large specimen, or even by the dome being a sign of sexual maturity (Tenontosaurus, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were sexually mature before being fully grown IIRC), but, still, it strikes me as something odd. Dracorex doesn't, though, if the guy isn't a Pachycephalosaurus, it is a Stygimoloch. And, gotta say I never expected them to have such a low profile...

By the way, 2 questions: Are you going, in the near future, to do charts on thyreophorans, ceratopsians or Allosaurus? And, are you going to revamp the Tyrannosaurid charts (and include A.sarcophagus)? Anyway, again, thanks for your answers, I hope the pestering is bearable... :P Eriorguez (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about largest theropod scale chart.
I really like the revised scale charts but, the Tyrannosaurus rex head doesn't seem right. I took your scale chart and changed the head to look like what I think it should look like. Is this how it should look or is this wrong? Thanks --Daspletosaurus (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) [Link ]

Thanks, for letting me know about the charts. I hope this doesn't seem mean but, I think the new version is better then the old one. Also I see you updated some of the other charts, I think they are better with the new pose you gave them. What chart are you going to do next? Thanks --Daspletosaurus (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Picture
The new revised picture of the largest theropods is more accurate in size than the former one, magnificent. But do you think you can make another tweak to it? You see, the tails are almost dragging on the ground and it looks like un-agile theropods. Something kind of like this. With the tails up off the ground ready for a race with prey. TDReints Talk Page/WikiContribs 4:15, 8 August, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess You got me there :) TDReints  Talk Page/WikiContribs 4:29, 8 August, 2010 (UTC)

Someother pics
I was checking out your website, azdarcho.com, and I saw some awesome images on there, like this one:, this one: , and especially, this one:. They're reeal good and can you put them on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got a Question
In your Utahraptor scale.png image, there was a gigantic, undescribed Utahraptor specimen in gray and it was 36 feet long (according to the size chart). Is there any more information you can give me on this giant raptor specimen? T-Rex Taylor My Talk/My Assistance 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Utahraptor scale
Its gotten a little messed up. Its been reverted back to its original version. And, the update you did doesnt seem to have stayed, even before the revert. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Balaur bondoc
I'm right in the middle of an illustration specifically for Wikipedia of this animal. I know you like drawing dinos for Wikipedia, but if you'd let me have this one, I'd appreciate that! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have another question about Balaur. Are you planning on making a scale chart for it any time soon? If you're not, I was wondering if you'd mind if I made one using your scale chart template, and probably referencing Ville's new skeletal. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

European dromaeosaurids, and some more bugging with scale charts...
Hi, how's it going? It seems Balaur is stirring up a bit of attention in the half a week since it became known to the public (wonder why that did not happen with Haplocheirus, heh!), but, there is something about it bugging me, and I want to know if I may be a bit right about it: Would it be possible that Balaur is the same animal as Variraptor/Pyroraptor? Those two are fragmentary, and we lack complete hands and feet of both of them, so no obvious and direct comparation here, but I don't know if anybody has looked for the diagnosic features of both euroraptors in Balaur (and that could be done, we have the sacral centres, ulna and metatarsals), and geographically is not very farfetched... Oh well, at least, Vari and Pyro could be synonyms of each other anyway...

About the charts, well, two questions:

1. The largest sauropods one, have you pondered adding a blue whale for comparation? Or a not so giant, but large sauropod? I ask mostly because of the impression the chart with the 2 Amphicoelias species gave me, as one giant being dwarfed by another giant gives an idea of how huge the thing was... But, just saying.

2. I recall reading about you making a comparative chart of Spinosaurids (and that the reason behind the Irritator chart). Do you have any more plans on it, or will you just leave it in development hell?

Well, thank you for your time. Yet again. Eriorguez (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot belive I have influence in the events that happen in the world! *cue cliche'd evil laught* On a more serious note, I the idea of Irritator being congeneric with Spinosaurus, feels a bit weird after seeing the size difference... Oh well, cougars and jaguarundis are congeneric, and one is ten times larger that the other. Each other's closest relatives is fine too, and then what makes a genus is just opinion. Nice touch the slighty elongated neural spines in Irritator, by the way! (oh, and Manospondylus gigas won't last too long as valid! :P ) Eriorguez (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) By the way, somebody called AMIJK keeps reverting the Utahraptor chart to the old version, and seems to have done it multiple times already. Eriorguez (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Suborder scale questions
Hello, I am a huge fan of your scale charts, but I have some questions about. First shoudln't the representative from Thyreophora be Ankylosaurus rather than Stegosaurus? Secondly, shouldn't Lambeosaurus be replaced with Zhuchengosaurus? And finally, shouldn't Triceratops be replaced with Eotriceratops?

Thank you for your time! SpencerCS (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

hey
i'm the guy who asked for the size scale of kelmaeisaurus(can't spell)bruhaykathosaurus(thought to be theropod), a 65 ft spino,giganotosaurus,carcharodontosaurus, and rexie. can u plz make 1?

and u asked, kelmayisaurus should be 84 feet, and bruhathkayisaurus 78 feet (both allosaurid)

thanx 111.174.186.184 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Jack (ur biggest fan)

I demand a scale chart
You should really do an ornithomimosaur scale chart. That would be badass. Abyssal (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deinocheirus it, definitely. Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus laticaudus issues
I've posted this on the Talk:Lambeosaurus and Talk:Dinosaur size talk pages, and I thought you might be able to help resolve what should actually go in the article; it seems that the specimen for which the '23 tonne' estimate is derived has not actually been assigned to Lambeosaurus laticaudus (at least not in the paper the estimate is cited to). Admittedly it probably is that species (two super-giant lambeosaurs in that time and place would be a stretch) but, nevertheless, it seems problematic. (Also that estimate is awfully obsolete. But that can't really be fixed till somebody modern takes a look at L. laticaudus and publishes something...) Vultur (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Spinosaurid scale chart
While i like it, i do have a few questions: Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Ah well thanks for the info. Oh by the way. Looks like some ones messing with the largest theropod scale. Shouldnt there be a revert button somewhere? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are Baryonyx and Suchomimus comparatively huge compared to Spinosaurus? I know the reasonsings behind that Spinosaurus, but if it is smalle than it would be scaled up from Bary and Sucho, why are those two LARGER than oft quoted to be?
 * Spinosaurus' arm looks to be about the same length as Suchomimus' arm, which is smalle than i would expect from an animal ist size (or is it based of that 75cm humerus mentioned here? |en&tbb=1&ie=utf-8 If so that would make sense for an animal of that length)
 * Finally, Irritators hump looks... weird...

Hey, if you didn't notice, somebody reverted the Sauroposeidon chart to the version uploaded in 2006. Kinda annoying to have people ignoring new data and reverting images updated by their authors, isn't it? Eriorguez (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus
What does lancensis in Nanotyrannus mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just passing through, but I can answer that if you don't mind. It means "from Lance", refering to the Lance Formation. CFLeon (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A Request.
Hey Dinoguy, I was looking at the most excellent size graphs you had done, and wondered if I could make a request? In advance, it is a bit of an arduous one, may require a bit of digging and doesn't include dinosaurs, but I don't really know anyone else to go to.

Comparing modern American Predators with their prehistoric contemporaries and relatives, the graph would include...The American Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) and Giant Short Faced Bear (Artodus), The American Black Bear (Ursus Americanus), The Mountain Lion (Puma Concolor), Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus), Coyote (Canis Latrans) and Dire Wolf. (Canis Dirus) Preferably the maximum sizes for each species.

If the request is too much or too hard or for one reason or another you can't do it, I understand completely and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks again. 217.42.212.135 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Another request..
Hi. I have seen your pictures (specially in deviantart) and it's definitly a 10+ among the "dino-birds" artists. I'm studying biology in Chile and i'm tilted to ornithology, so obviously i love this topic. I don't know what kind of "guideline" do you follow when you start to draw, but none of the artists that i know that recreate these animals draw first the bird and then change aspects of this to finish with the non-avian dinosaur. I mean, adding teeth, the long tail, the mandible, etc, etc (just having plasticity with some "few" morphological aspects). Maybe if you don't follow this line, you could experiment with this, and with the request that i have in mind: the Hongshanornis longicresta. PD:If i'm a little bit "rough" in some lines, tell me, after all, the english is not my mother language.--Diucón (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you know...
Hey Dinoguy, Bamboozling-Bert here again, after a while. And have safely cleared some of my more moronic thoughts from our much earlier discussions and improved my punctuation. I take it you know, as a paleontologist, of the "Montana Dino trail?" Well, something that may interest and please you, is that your size-graphs were actually used in some of the Museums! Whether or not you already know, but for a lot of the theropods and other dinosaurs, they used yours! I was there at two of them in the north-west of Montana and was pleasantly surprised by it.

Also...it was me who asked for the North American Predators graph, I just completely forgot to log in. So if you do actually do it, I'd like to know when its completed. Of course, any reason why you can't and I completely understand. Bamboozlingbert21 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Matt, and yeah, I was quite surprised when I saw recognized them! Bamboozlingbert21 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

William A. Parks (1924)
Hey there;

For Corythosaurus, Brachylophosaurus, Prosaurolophus, and Gryposaurus, the Arbor et al. '09 article you used for Edmontonia and Hypacrosaurus would probably work better as an absolute age reference than Parks (1924). J. Spencer (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And I see you reached that conclusion as I was writing that message. J. Spencer (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a bit surprised that Parks had access to such precise technology, given that only 9 years prior William Diller Matthew was guesstimating that the Cretaceous ended 3 million years ago (p. 82, Norell etl. al. "Discovering Dinosaurs"). ;) J. Spencer (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha!
Now you have to start a new row in your barnstar gallery! Abyssal (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn you! ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadrosauroides
I know what that specimen is! It's UNSM (Univ of Nebraska State Museum) 1200 (formerly 6-8-28), the distal end of an ?iguanodontoid-grade right femur found on a farm near Decatur in eastern Nebraska. It was first reported by Barbour in 1931 and described at some length by Galton and Jensen in 1979, in the same paper they named Hypsilophodon wielandi and Iguanodon ottigeri. Judging from what those two species were based on, if UNSM 1200 didn't get named then, it's probably never going to be named. J. Spencer (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You got published
I just got the Tetrapod Zoology book by Darren Naish today, and he uses two of your drawings, Caudipteryx and the old version of your oviraptorine image, which I see you just updated. That's cool! You're also thanked in the acknowledgments. He also uses a couple of Arthur Weasly and Bogdanov images, and I'm represented by the lousy picture of Citipati sp. I took when I was 11... FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually a new photo of the specimen that includes the tail which I found on Flickr, but it is a bit more blurred though... Both could maybe be used if it gets its own genus some day. And I was thinking the same about your oviraptorid drawings, you were exactly too late, heh. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Heilmann's Origin of Birds
I'm beginning to work on an article for Gerhard Heilmann's famous The Origin of Birds, and I thought you might be interested in lending a hand. If you would like to help contribute to the source list, feel free to add sources here. Thanks! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Clade vs. (unranked)
Wrt. this edit - should it always be (unranked), or is there a difference? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tetrapoda
I see you've been cleaning up the taxonomies, but it appears as though Mammalia is longer in Tetrapoda. Was this a mistake, or do you have a reason? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, scratch that. Mammalia is now within Reptiliomorpha. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, speaking of weird, we're having a discussion right now with WP:BIRDS at automatic taxobox about how to handle Avialae, whose parent appears to be Theropoda and daughter is Aves. Looks like we may be implementing a dummy Avialae with a separate parent in order to prevent Reptilia, Dinosauria, Saurischia, and Theropoda from showing up on every single bird taxobox. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Diapsid. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Stephen (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't vandalism, of course, the change was reasonable when it was made. Since then the new template has broken, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I saw that you had replied to my "request for clarification" and wanted to thank you. I originally took it to be a technical question and I appreciate your response which mirrors my own understanding. Since then however it seems to have developed into a question about how the misconceptions are being addressed which is a somewhat different issue. Still, thanks again for your time, Doc  Tropics  01:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ornitholestes horn
Thanks for the info pal. But I don't quite agree with him. How did he even find out? And won't we need more specimens to confirm Carpenter's theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wukongopteridae
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wukongopteridae, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0001-37652009000400016.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On the discussion of Archaeopteryx feathers
Hello Dinoguy2/Martyniuk

I recently wrote in the article about Archaeopteryx, regarding the paper by Dyke & Nudds regarding the fragile feathers of this bird. I added some information about the commentaries they have endured from Paul and Zhang, and the response by Nudds and Dyke (my version can be read HERE). However, the user "Mgiganteus1" reversed to the previous version. This could be because my version featured Nudds and Dyke as pompous and overconfident in their response (which of course, was not my intention). Do you think my rendering of their papers was fair? If not, do you think that you could give a better rendering of this discussion about Archaeopteryx feathers? I think you are the right man on Wikipedia to do so! Thank you Conty 20:10, 25 December 2010

error en las escalas
las escalas de Argentinosaurus, Bruhathkayosaurus y Sauroposeidon estan erradas por aproximadamente 10m cada una en esta imagen http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Longest_dinosaurs1.png al Bruhathkayosaurus le pusiste 34m de longitud en vez de 45m. al Argentinosaurus le pusiste 27m de longitud en vez de 40m y a Sauroposeidon 26m de longitud en vez de 34m. ademas la altura de Sauroposeidon era de 17m aproximadamente y ahi le pusiste 8m --TaTo 713 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Hope your Christmas was great and that you have a blessed new year! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ichnobox
The ichnobox is ready for testing. Let me know if you find any issues. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)