Talk:Amargasaurus

Spines

In some places it says Amargasaurus had spines all along its neck, back and tail, possibly with a skin "sail". In others it says it was only in the neck (there's even a drawing) and no sail. Which is it, I don't know. Year of discovery also varies. Maybe 1984 was initial discovery, 1991 was formal identification. Experts welcome. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Amargasaurus did have a kind of ridge that ran all the way down its back, but this isn't exactly the same as the neck "sail". The very elongated spines that make this dinosaur so unique are only found on the back of the neck; the main ridge seen over the back and tail is much lower, was almost certainly imbedded in skin (and probably fat or muscle), and can be found in other diplodocoids such as Dicraeosaurus and Apatosaurus. 70.210.243.141 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis?

Where would one find reconstructions of Gregory S. Paul's proposed hypothesis without skin sails? I'm trying to make an accurate sculpture, and finding accurate references is proving difficult...--75.38.63.39 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this? http://www.search4dinosaurs.com/lr_amargosaurus.html FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of alternative hypotheses, here's a new study suggesting Amargatitanis is a mature Amargasaurus, Jens Lallensack might want to have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Can't find it, could you share the link? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, here[1], thought I had linked it above... Saw it on the dinosaur mailing list just before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; can't download it at the moment, but will try to get it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it actually says that. It only says that the holotype of Amargatitanis represents a more mature individual than that of Amargasaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, must have over interpreted "We interpret that Amargatitanis represents a more maturational stage than Amargasaurus". But I'm sure the paper goes into more detail, and should be covered here in any casde. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems it was because of the DML headline: "Amargatitanis possible mature Amargasaurus (dicraeosaurid sauropod)?" FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• And a new paper arguing for skin sails, Jens Lallensack: [2] FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amargasaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll get on this Jens Lallensack. Overall the article looks good but I have a few comments and there are a few grammatical errors. IJReid ^discuss 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Strikingly" should be removed, seems slightly unencyclopedic (sorry I forgot the word I would use to describe it).
• What is "mid-height"? within so many meters of the ground? or about even with the back?
• As with the above, change "which suggest a habitual position of the snout some 80 cm above the ground" to "which suggests a habitual position of a lowered neck" or some such.
• I'd move the "for sauropod standards" outside brackets and to the end of the sentence.
• Just a suggestion, but instead of having references mid-sentence I prefer to order them all at the end of the sentence. I you think otherwise just mention it.
• "It followed the typical sauropod bauplan, with a long tail and neck, a small head, and a barrel-shaped trunk supported by four column-like legs. The neck of Amargasaurus was proportionally short for sauropod standards, as in other members of the Dicreosauridae." is self-contradictory
• "It measured" should be changed to "The neck measures".
• Link anatomical terms like convex, sacral vertebrae, adjacent, and dorsal vertebrae
• "It likely showed a horselike" I'd change to "Based on close relatives it likely showed..."
• Do you approve of these edits?

That's it for now. IJReid ^discuss 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi IJReid, thanks for the comments, you made some very good points, and I think I should have fixed everything by now. Do you have any further comments? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that the rest looks quite good, but you might want to explain "penultimate" (second last). IJReid ^discuss 02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm I'm not sure. "Penultimate" and "adjacent" are not really anatomical terms, I once learned them in my English classes in School as being part of the standard vocabulary. I don't really want to "translate" them into simpler terms, since Wikipedia wants to provide a high language standard, and since the "simple Wikipedia" written in simple English already exists. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, when I first heard the term "penultimate", I had to look it up to know what it meant. I agree with you that adjacent is fine, but how about you link to wiktionary:penultimate. Before I pass the article, I will give it a look for improvements before FAC. IJReid ^discuss 16:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you know better than me of course, its linked to Wiktionary now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see: "penultimate" is much more common in Britain than in America (although it exists there as well). What I learned was British Englisch. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yah, that makes sense. IJReid ^discuss 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Final look:

• I would use template:convert for all measurements, as it shows the conversion from metric to imperial for americans. IJReid ^discuss 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

After this final suggestion is completed, this article can pass. IJReid ^discuss 20:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 03:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.