 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tyrannosaurid attack
editIsn't there a Tarchia skull that bears (partly-healed?) marks of a tyrannosaurid attack? That would be a good addition to the article I would think, but we might need to find a cite. Albertonykus (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- That would be PIN 3142/250 as well.--MWAK (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong images
editI'm afraid specimen PIN 3142/250, skull casts of which have been widely exhibited under the name of Tarchia, has in 2014 been referred to Saichania by Arbour. The nice osteoderm image too has become doubtful as the specimen has not been referred to Tarchia.--MWAK (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yikes. Is this[1] the same one? FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinosaurium,_Tarchia_gigantea.jpg){kind=link}
- I surmise this is PIN 3142/250 itself. In Arbour's analysis Tarchia = Minotaurasaurus and the standard image of Tarchia has been an amalgam of "Dyoplosaurus" giganteus, itself a nomen dubium, and PIN 3142/250, which is either Saichania (the hypothesis preferred by her) or a third (fourth, fifth?), as yet unnamed taxon. Maybe GSP can have a go at it ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- If we merge Minotaurasaurus into this, the image problem will be solved... Is it premature? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I surmise this is PIN 3142/250 itself. In Arbour's analysis Tarchia = Minotaurasaurus and the standard image of Tarchia has been an amalgam of "Dyoplosaurus" giganteus, itself a nomen dubium, and PIN 3142/250, which is either Saichania (the hypothesis preferred by her) or a third (fourth, fifth?), as yet unnamed taxon. Maybe GSP can have a go at it ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I feel it's a bit early for that. The identity is in essence the conclusion by a single researcher, based on limited fossil material. If it's clear the scientific community agrees, we can merge but that will take a few years. Also it's always tricky when good material is referred to a poorly known taxon. Allosaurus and Stegosaurus come to mind :o). There is of course no objection against using the Minotaurasaurus images, as long as we make the situation understandable to the reader.--MWAK (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Time for an update
editThis article is badly out of date. There are more images here of Minotaurasaurus than of Tarchia, and not coincidentally there are more images of Tarchia in the Saichania article, than of Saichania! So, that needs fixing too. Those images should be moved here. There are also new skulls referable to Tarchia teresae that are not mentioned in this article. Azul iguana (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, you are very welcome to update as you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)