Talk:Ornithomimus

identity problem

Images removed as I had made an identity error (images were of Struthiomimus). - Ballista 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ornithomimus species

There are only two valid species of Ornithomimus, O. velox and O. edmontonicus. O. sedens and O. tenuis are nomina dubia, probably synonymous with O. velox (they were found in the same location as O. velox). In other words, Coelosaurus antiquus, a dubious ornithomimosaur from the eastern US, is probably distinct from Ornithomimus on the basis of geographical location.

P. J. Makovicky, Y. Kobayashi, and P. J. Currie. 2004. Ornithomimosauria. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria (second edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 137-150. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.151.49 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I have a personal record of other species, O. altus, O. asiaticus, O. grandis, and O. minitus. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are probably 'lumped' species generally considered to form other genera, like Struthiomimus altus. I think Greg Paul lumped a lot of the ornithomimids in PDW just as he did the velociraptorines. Dinoguy2 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This dinosaur is part of the family with Gallimimus and Struthiomimus.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coelosaurus redirects here, but it shouldn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's best to create a new page for Coelosaurus antiquus because the holotype of Coelosaurus has been largely neglected since Baird and Horner (1979) and because the syntype tibia of Ornithomimus velox is too incomplete for comparison with the syntype tibiae of Coelosaurus. We'll just have to wait for someone to re-evaluate the systematic position of Coelosaurus and compare it with other ornithomimids. Since Coelosaurus is preoccupied by Owen (1854), it might be logical to coin a replacement name for Coelosaurus Leidy 1865 if the New Jersey taxon proves generically distinct from Ornithomimus. However, the name Coelosaurus Owen, 1854 (based on a poorly preserved centrum) has not been used as valid since 1899 and thus would be a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9. In this case, anyone who re-examines Coelosaurus antiquus should file a petition to the ICZN to have Coelosaurus Owen 1854 suppressed and keep Coelosaurus Leidy 1865 as unpreoccupied.

Owen, R. (1854): Descriptive catalogue of the fossil organic remains of Reptilia and Pisces contained in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Taylor & Francis, London. 184 pp. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Dromiceiomimus

Out of curoiosity wy is Dromiceiomimus listed as a synonym here, a quick google scholar search seems to show that it is considered a valid genus still.--Kevmin § 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? I just ran one for the past five years and got only 28 hits, most of which are regurgitation in kids books or one-off mentions of the names in papers, not actual defenses of its validity or really any discussions of it at all. (And several of the hits appear to expressing agreement that it's a junior synonym). Of course, like Brontosaurus, this is a subjective synonymy--there's no reason to prefer Ornithomimus edmontonicus over Dromiceiomimus edmontonicus which is clearly different from Ornithomimus velox, nor is there any particular reason to prefer Apatosaurus excelsus over Brontosaurus excelsus which is clearly different from Apatosaurus ajax. But doing otherwise would border on OR so we might as well support the current status quo. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

is there any possibility of getting the Dromiceiomimus section here expanded a bit then to actually cover the current trend for treating it as a synonym then?--Kevmin § 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not other than it will be really difficult to find sources saying why something is not done. Kinda like trying to prove a negative. The text already says that most recent studies treat it as a synonym. Not much more can be said. It's not a cultural icon like Brontosaurus (maybe aside from among Dinosaur comics fans) so nobody really gives it much discussion. Compare with the Cryptovolans situation: pretty much all current scientists consider it to be a synonym of Microraptor. this synonymy has been supported in a few recent papers basically without comment, and that's the end of the story so far. Same goes for this one. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is the current text here just states that Dromiceiomimus was erected in 1972 and leaves it at that, no comments on subsequent studies not recognizing it. The impression given is that it is valid but yet the name is redirected here without explanation that it is not.--Kevmin § 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing that gets me is that O. edmontonicus is the youngest available species name. If brevi. and samueli are considered synonyms of edmontonicus (and I have no reason to doubt the synonymy), brevi. is the oldest available name. (Being in Ornithomimus is another issue; O. velox is based on sketchy material from a much younger formation...) J. Spencer (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Very true. however certain researchers seem to only follow the rules of taxonomy when it suits them or when they think it won't disrupt the more commonly-discussed name (see also papers opining that Baryonyx and Suchosaurus are identical but concluding "eh, why not keep using Baryonyx anyway because it's more popular?"). MMartyniuk (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of taxonomy changes have been made to the page, based partially on blog websites. Anyone know what the current classification scheme is? FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone does, and won't until a specimen-level phylogeny is done. There seems to be no current consensus regarding species like samueli (synonym of edomontonicus or not? Ornithomimus or not?) and sedans (Ornithomimus, Struthiomimus, or other? BHI specimen included or not?). The new feathers paper lists both the good Dinosaur Park and Hell Creek specimens as Ornithomimus sp. Long rich 2014 listed the Dinosaur Park specimens as O. samueli. Since that's the most recent "status quo" maybe we should use that until the next paper uses something different? Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ornithomimini

Ornithomimini does not appear to have been published, though it somehow appears on a couple of web sites without attribution. Tribes like Ornithomimini and subtribes (which would be Ornithomimina in this case) are "automatically" created with the rest of the family group whenever a family-group name is coined, according to the ICZN--however, it's best to wait until someone actually uses the implied names before listing every single possible variant in the taxobox. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ornithomimus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904224111/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R88_2006Weishampel.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R88_2006Weishampel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)