User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Regarding Cosesaurus.

So, Matt, let's get down to it.

Sock puppet: The Jeholopterus ID is no longer valid. I've moved and changed servers several times. I contribute so rarely I have no idea what the password is. That's why the new nom de plume. Remove the block.

Methods: Who criticized my methods? Hone and Benton? Have you examined their criticisms? Hone and Benton used a quarter of the possible characters for Cosesaurus, coding without even seeing a photo of the fossil, based on Evans, who coded from Sanz and Lopez-Martinez. They ended up, like others before and since, deriving pterosaurs from parasuchians and proterochampsids. Let's criticize THOSE methods. You're completely in the wrong. I saw the fossil. I made mistakes. I acknowledged and corrected my mistakes. The work in 2000 still represents the most detailed study of Cosesaurus to date. That is what this represents. Your little snipes half-quoting what others say about my methods are below contempt and border on the personal. They are certainly prejudiced. Without providing evidence to the contrary, you arbitrarily threw out published data and cast aspersions on the rest, all baseless. Get back to being fair-minded and a scientist and I won't report you. Or make me happy and show how anything close to Parasuchus was ancestral to Eudimorphodon.

JohnWikiSmith (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)David Peters

Carcharodontosauridae size, and Morrison giant theropods.

Hey, how's it going?

I was looking arround the different carcharodontosaur pages, as well as the largest dinosaur one, and noticed that, while the largest estimates for Carcharodontosaurus put it as larger that Giganotosaurus, but its skull lenght (and size) is smaller, and to add to that, the postcranial skeleton of said taxa is quite unknown. So, what is the basis behind that reasoning, apart of divergent estimates? Is there any paper that compared Carcharodontosaurus with Giganotosaurines?

On another topic, I'm working on an exposition about Morrison giant theropods (a short one, 10 minutes and it is over), and having a size chart with Torvosaurus, Allosaurus and Ceratosaurus would be beneficial for the mark (I have to compensate for that one class where they checked assistance and I had pressed the snooze button XD). Anyway, I don't have the exposition until March, but, if you could give me a hand with that, it'd be of great help (as would be incluiding, along the classical sized specimens, the giant ones such as "Epanterias" or Scott Hartman's Bulldozersaurus nasicornis; that'd be optimal).

Anyway, thanks for your time, hope you have merry christmas and a happy new year! Eriorguez (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, rougly same size, minor differences in skull proportions and maybe in arm development, I'll go look for the paper to get a clearer view, thanks!

Your newer charts look better that the older ones, specially the renewed versions of older ones based on other illustrations (Utahraptor, Pachycephalosaurus...), so, if you plan to keep going that way, I can only say that the best choice. I would also say that, to my untrained, unartistical eye, I would say that Andrea Cau is right, and tails tend to be forgotten. Eriorguez (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, and even wide enough to cover a PowerPoint slide leaving some room for text ;P. Thanks, really. Eriorguez (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Matt. I was thinking about that mention at Hell Creek of you planing to do a scale chart of "rauisuchians"/stem Loricatans. If you still have said intentions, would you mind doing also a rauisuchian/theropod comparation one? Ideally, having Postosuchus, Saurosuchus and the larger estimates of Fasolasuchus side to side with, say, AMNH 680 and Sue, would give a good idea of how large those "crocs" got, but, as I said, if you have time and if you end up doing a Rauisuchian chart. Eriorguez (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Phylogenetic nomenclature

I noticed your comment at Talk:Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Editorializing, with which I totally agree. Whenever I look at this article, it annoys me. The problem is that I can't see how to fix it without a total re-write: the whole structure and approach is simply not encyclopedic. Scattering a few alternative views with references won't work (I tried a bit of this offline; it just jars with the tone of what is there). Any ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you've been bold! It's certainly much better like this, but now needs some expanding in a balanced and properly referenced way. I won't have much time for the next couple of weeks, but it's something I'm willing to work on after that. Well done! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with taxobox

Hi!

Seeing your work in taxoboxes, I'd like some help with this one at Jialingpus. What else is there to add?

Thanks! Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 02:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles assessment drive

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in which you are listed as a member, we're working on a pretty massive backlog (1000+ articles!) of unassessed articles. We would appreciate it greatly if you would help assess the articles in the link. It's simple to do!

1. Read over the article.
2. On the discussion page, look for the {{AARTalk}} template. Add in a "class" and "importance" parameter if the template does not have them already. Example: {{AARTalk|class= |importance= }}
3. --Piotr967 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)For the class, fill in the article's quality using the WikiProject's quality scale: stub, start, C, B, GA, A, or FA. Most unassessed articles will probably be stubs or start class articles, and definitely B or lower.
4. For the importance, fill in the article's importance to the WikiProject using the importance scale: low, mid, high, or top. Most unassessed articles will probably be low or mid importance.
5. Then you're done!

It's not a difficult task, but there's a lot to get done. Our hope is that we can chip through the backlog and assess every article within the auspices of the project. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Testudines template

I'm curious about where you're going with this. Are you taking Anapsida out? Why does Template:Taxonomy/Chelonia/Order have "Order" in its name if it's a superorder? There are two Orders in this ancestry tree (one being "incertae sedis"), so all the taxoboxes don't look quite right, I think. I've reverted it for now. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what is going on. One issue here is that Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Reptilia is an order. Maybe move Taxonomy/Chelonia/Order -> Taxonomy/Chelonia/Superorder and just parent it to Reptilia? The fact that Anapsida is out of the chain is only really going to matter at Testudines, right? I don't know. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT ranking "Incertae sedis" templates, I think the point of them is for things like where there is no identified family or something, so rather than having no family show up in all the taxoboxes, there would be "Family: Incertae sedis" - see Acrophyseter. For the turtle species/genera articles, you don't need it, the order and class are not in question. The only time the "incertae sedis" would ever show up is if you had a Chelonia (order) article, which we don't have, right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Chelonia

Chelonia is a genus of turtle with one species Green sea turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Testudines}} For the arrangement within Testudines see the above template. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's also the name of a superorder/order/whatever comprising Testudines and some extinct groups. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a complex issue, to some Chelonia and Testudines are synonymous, others consider Chelonia a superorder encompassing Testudines, there has been a recent paper that elevated Chelonia to Class though I have not read this yet and am not sure it will be generally accepted. But all modern Turtles etc are by most considered as Testudines with Chelonian being a common name. It will depend on your point of view. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for Chelonia being a superorder? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Geosternbergia

Hi, Dinoguy2! Last month you created the article Geosternbergia. Kellner's use of the concept is of course highly problematic — it certainly caused me a lot of problems while writing the Dutch article :o). I'd like to add some information to the English one but I am unsure about what you intended exactly with the last section. It seems to me that you started with taking a part from the Pteranodon article in order to adapt it but then became uncertain about the exact content to give it. As I see it, the basic problem with transferring Bennett's hypotheses on sexual dimorphism in Pteranodon to an article about Geosternbergia is that Kellner implicitly claims that there is not a single specimen of Geosternbergia known to be female! He only refers the two holotypes of G. sternbergi and G. maysei to the genus and no other fossil. Of the sex of NMC41-358, pictured in the article, could thus, under Kellner's interpretation, nothing be stated with certainty. That this is not some temporary refraining from judgement follows from his lengthy discourse on our limitations to establish firm conclusions on such matters. So a Geosternbergia sensu Bennett could be quite different from a Geosternbergia sensu Kellner. Obviously Kellner cannot determine once and for all what content a concept has, but juxtaposing the different standpoints might be a handy tool to restructure this aspect in the article. But what are your views on this?--MWAK (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that anagenesis is certainly the core concept necessary to understand the situation (or Kellner's article)! However, even though Kellner acknowledges that Bennett's work on sexual dimorphism has potential merit he still implicitly rejected the reference of any female material to G. sternbergi. This is because he very explicitly rejected the reference of any further material to that species. In his opinion only the holotype is known to be G. sternbergi! He states on page 1068: "The holotype of Geosternbergia sternbergi represents one of the largest flying reptiles recovered from the Niobrara Formation, known solely from one skull". Nota bene: it does not say "known from the skull" in which case it could be interpreted as referring to the type specimen as such and merely stating that it consists of a skull. No, it claims that the species itself is known only from that single skull. Accordingly the species is diagnosed with a set of traits that has only ever been identified in that skull. That's the taxonomic species concept for you :o).

Kellner makes it pretty clear what the consequences are for the issue of potential sexual dimorphism: The limitation of specimens is still more problematic in order to understand changes of morphology as a function of individual variation and sexual dimorphism....there is a lack of empirical data to address this interesting question properly....The new interpretation of a larger taxonomic diversity in the material previously restricted to two species of Pteranodon does not necessarily invalidate some ideas presented before, such as the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism....Although the idea is tempting, it is still necessary to find specimens with the skull and pelvis showing the morphological attributes of the respective gender. A larger diversity within the Pteranodon material does not per se invalidate the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism, but makes it more difficult to select characters (and specimens) that reflect a particular gender. So, Kellner says, to test the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism we need a statistically significant set of specimens in which there is a correlation between a certain crest shape (e.g. large versus small) and a certain pelvis shape (e.g. narrow versus broad). Sadly, in the case of G. sternbergi our needs aren't yet met because N=1 and the single specimen known doesn't even have a pelvis preserved.--MWAK (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Triceratops Wars Episode II: Revenge of the Nedoceratops

(Sorry but I had to do that :P)

Anyway: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016196

I'd like to know your opinion on this. I won't say anything, work with human skulls for a nearby exam makes me go "INDIVIDUAL VARIATION" with every single slight detail, and Carpenter's Allosaur paper abstract does nothing to calm my inner lumper.

Thanks for your time! Eriorguez (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this paper is that almost all of the 'unique' characters are, even in the paper, recognized as pathologies. The skull is simply riddled with deformities. The remaining two or three characters (lack of nasal horn, slightly more anterior squamosal articulation, a couple extra episquamosals) are only considered valid because no direct evidence exists that they're definitely pathological (or as you say, individual variation). I personally would be very wary of any diagnostic features in such a pathologic skull. I hazard to point out that the extra length of the squamosals also seems to support, not refute, Horner's lumping it as intermediate between Triceratops and Torosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx

Hey, there;

If you get a chance, could you look at Sinosauropteryx? It's getting to that point when we might wish to push it forward for various things, and since you wrote most of it, it would be fitting for you to give it a once-over. J. Spencer (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a Wikipedia article on leg-wings?

Hi Joxer, this is Aggie/Microraptor. I was recently wondering whether the leg-wings that exist on Microraptor, Anchiornis and (possibly) Sinornithosaurus ought to have their own article describing their function, evolution, etc. Right now they’re just discussed in the articles about the individual animals, as well as in the Origin of birds article, but there’s enough literature about them that it might be appropriate for there to be an article devoted to them. We already have some articles about other unique features of dinosaur anatomy, such as Thagomizer.

I’m currently in the middle of a major rewrite of the William Beebe article, so my availability to contribute to an article on leg-wings will probably be pretty limited for the next little while, but I’d help with it as I’m able to. I think Ferahgo is interested in working on an article about this also, if you think creating the article is a good idea. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

new Tyrannosaurus rex paper - T. rex was an active hunter

Hello Matt,

thanks for your contributions to all dinosaur pages. as I can see you are an active editor of the t rex page (which is semi protected), i think it is better to contact you to include the findings of this important new T. rex paper:

++

Intra-guild competition and its implications for one of the biggest terrestrial predators, Tyrannosaurus rex Proc. R. Soc. B published online before print January 26, 2011, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2497

++

proceedings of the royal society b has a high impact factor and the findings are more scientifically significant than those "unpublished scavenger theories" from Jack Horner.

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerstripe88 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it. Tigerstripe88, please feel free to make complete edit requests at talk:Tyrannosaurus – tons of people are watching that page and would love to help you get your changes in. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SVG Images

Following one of your images appearing on the Top 4 images to be updated to SVG list, I've discovered your treasure trove of scale images. I'm happy to update them all to SVG, preserving your beautiful original artwork. This enables them to be infinitely scaled and provides a base of graphical objects (eg. the scale human) for easy creation of future images. As I'm by no means a paleontology expert(!) I thought you might like to cast an eye over the couple I've done already and check you thought I'd kept all the original features as you intended. So far, I've tackled the Anchiornis and Velociraptor. Look forward to hearing from you! Serenthia 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Scale chart update

Hi!

Just happened upon one of your scale charts pictured here. Should it be updated to replace Triceratops with Eotriceratops? The latter's size is only an estimate of course, but I think the skull size tells all :) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox tip

Hi, keep up the great work!

However-- it would be helpful if you create the parent taxa before saving.

Here's the method I use...

Insert the automatic taxobox. Preview. If the parent needs entered, open the "create" link in a new tab.

Create the parent, and preview. Again, if the parent needs entered, do as before, opening the create link in a new tab.

Once you get to a taxon that exists, save all the templates, beginning with the top-level one. Wait to save each level down until the parent is saved.

Lastly, save the article.

If you follow this procedure, you'll prevent the several-minute period of ugliness in the article. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"beginning with the top-level one" - Is there any reason why it would matter which order they are saved in, as long as they are all created before the {{Automatic taxobox}} is added to the article? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So long as the taxobox is saved last, no. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Dave" specimen really not a Sinornithosaurus?

Hi Joxer, I just noticed this edit from you. I don’t have access to the paper being cited about the “Dave” specimen being more closely related to Microraptor than to Sinornithosaurus, but I believe you that this is what it says. What I’d like to know is, what’s the general attitude towards this idea among paleontologists? The Senter paper cited there is from 2007, but every recent dinosaur book I’ve seen discussing this specimen (including those published after 2007) still refer to it as Sinornithosaurus, and I was also intending to refer to it as Sinornithosaurus in my own evolution book that I’m working on. If this is still the most common view among paleontologists, I’m hoping it’s not a problem to do that, but I’d like to make sure. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Phylogenetic position of Ornitholestes

I noticed your adjustment to the "Classification and systematics" section of Ornitholestes. You are, of course, correct that Gregory S. Paul's classification of Ornitholestes as a relative of Allosaurus (and implicitly therefore a carnosaur, though Paul rejected that term) has not subsequently been accepted. On the other hand, Thomas R. Holtz et al. did find Proceratosaurus to be the sister taxon of Ornitholestes, as Paul speculated. (The Dinosauria, 2nd Edition, p. 107) The 2010 re-evaluation of the Proceratosaurus skull by Rauhut et al., however, rejected this, finding Proceratosaurus to be a primitive tyrannosauroid (p. 183) and instead grouping Ornitholestes with Tanycolagreus (both just outside of Maniraptoriformes) (p. 184).

This section has been very difficult for me to write for two reasons: one, that there are simply so *many* different published speculations about the phylogenetic position of Ornitholestes, and two, that in many cases it's not possible to find a source *explicitly* stating what is implied. It's very difficult to write naturally on Wikipedia, since each statement must be cited to a specific source in order not to fall afoul of policies on original research. For instance, at the time you made that edit, I was looking for a source that explicitly rejected Paul's classification of Ornitholestes as an allosaur relative, but was unable to find one. Ironically, when composing this talk page message, I did find something fairly close - a statement in Rauhut's 2010 paper that a grouping of Proceratosaurus and Ornitholestes together results in trees that are "24 steps (4.31%) longer if placed as a sister taxon to Allosaurus, as proposed by Paul" (p. 184). I'm trying to think of a good way to incorporate Rauhut's findings into the section.

If you have any further suggestions on how to improve this particular section, I'd be glad to hear them. FanCollector (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I went ahead and added a statement that even Paul no longer considers Ornitholestes to be an allosaur relative, since his 2010 Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs now says it is a coelurosaur (as does everyone else). While I was at it, I re-added a statement about how Paul's 2010 illustration no longer includes the nasal horn he used to think was present. Hopefully that's not considered overreaching past what the sources say. In general I would agree with you that newer papers should take precedence over older ones, though I would add the caveat that some caution might be called for if the new sources suggest sweeping changes that may not yet have attained general acceptance (e.g. the proposed Triceratops/Torosaurus synonymy by Scannella and Horner 2010). That of course isn't the case here, since no drastic changes are proposed; the only open question is whether Ornitholestes is a basal maniraptoran, or a basal coelurosaur outside Maniraptora. The most recent analysis I'm aware of (Rauhut et al. 2010) puts it outside Maniraptoriformes, so that should probably be added. I'm not sure the consensus of the recent papers supports one over the other, though. Do you know of any other papers which I might be overlooking that place Ornitholestes within Maniraptora? FanCollector (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Scale Charts

Thanks for the effort in making all of the scale charts; it really helps visializing these creatures to have something to compare them to. Do you do any non-prehistoric animal ones? I recently needed something like this comparing different types of balls, and couldn't find anything. Would you mind making one or could you recommend a source? CFLeon (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Vagaceratops

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Good catch noticing that Chasmosaurus irvinensis is now Vagaceratops. Abyssal (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DPF/Horseshoe Canyon

I didn't add those names to the list, so they may be incorrect. They weren't cited in-line, but Ryan, M.J., and Evans, D.C. 2005. Ornithischian dinosaurs. In: Currie, P.J., and Koppelhus, E.B. (eds), Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press: Bloomington and Indianapolis, 312-348. is supposedly the source for the information. I own the anthology that paper was published in, so if you want I can verify any taxa you have doubts about. Then again you might own that book, too, but if you need me to check I can. Abyssal (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you should mark them since the taxa may have been present in both formations. What taxa do you want me to verify? It'll be a few hours before I can get back to you as I'm not at home. Abyssal (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Abyssal (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaeocursor

April Fools joke... Are you sure?? It was published in 6 April, with real names.... the idea is also good... :P :P :P sorry!! Rnnsh (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, speedy deletion was declined and the article was restored. It is up now for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeocursor.  --Lambiam 07:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nephila jurassica According to cited paper the 15 cm and 5 cm concern the modern species of Nephila not Nephila jurassica: "Nephilids are the largest web-weaving spiders alive today (body length up to 5 cm, leg span 15 cm)". Fig. 1a show that the body is about 2,5 mm long (because the scale bar is 5 mm). --Piotr967 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper

Greetings, I was wondering if I might interest you in working on the page of Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. She's a Ukrainian-American who was an astronaut with NASA and flew on two Space Shuttle missions. I found a bunch of links that can be used as citations and dropped them on the Talk Page. I added a few things to the article, but there is plenty of potential for expansion. The reason I am asking for help, is because I actually know Captain Heide and I don't feel entirely comfortable working on her page (she and I met at a Plast Camp in 1979). Thank you. Gamweb (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rank of Reptiliomorpha

I see you have replaced the "unranked" status of Reptiliomorpha with "clade". The small problem is that it is not unranked, neither is it really a clade, at least not under all authors. Benton has it as a paraphyletic subclass of Amphibia, the traditional approach (Romer/Colbert/Carroll) is to rank it as an order (also parphyletic), usually called Anthracosauria (though the definition and content is the same as Benton's). There are authors that use it as an unranked clade (e.g. Michel Laurin), but even then it is only used for the amphibian grade members of the group. Unlike amniotes and tetrapods which you will used in their full (clade) sense, Reptiliomorpha is only "technically" a clade.

I don't have an easy solution at the moment. I had planned a full revision of the various labyrinthodont groups, but it is going to be a big job. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Geological range#Quaternary added to time scale?

I'd like to see this RfC wrapped up. As it is, it is very unclear where we stand on it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ping re K/T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dinosaur#K.2FT_boundary_abbreviation. pls re :) HMallison (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Feathers on Utahraptor

Hi Matt, I have a question about feathers on Utahraptor. I'm working on a new illustration of Utahraptor to use in the article, based on Scott's skeletal, that pays closer attention to anatomical accuracy than the one currently being used (with no disrespect to Nobu). I saw this comment by you [1] and wasn't sure how to proceed with the hand feathers. What's your reasoning for why Utahraptor wouldn't have had pennaceous feathers on its arms, when other way-too-large-to-glide dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus are frequently reconstructed with them? I figured that it would be reasonable to assume that larger dromaeosaurs could have used pennaceous arm feathers for display. If the general consensus among paleoart experts is that Utahraptor shouldn't have them, what sort of feathering do you think it should have on its arms? For the rest of its body covering, I've been using reference like kiwi body feathers [2] for a probable analogue. Any links to discussions or speculations (or illustrations) about arm feathers in Utahraptor would be appreciated, as I'm unaware of this issue having been discussed in a professional context. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative response. (I hope you don't mind being my go-to guy for dinosaur anatomy information, off-Wiki included - your advice has been immeasurably helpful to me over the years.) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Troodontidae

Hi, Matt;

Do you have a copy of the 1997 Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs? I'm concerned that this edit could be a word-for-word duplicate of its text, but I don't own it. J. Spencer (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Darn it, I should have stopped at the library today when I was out. J. Spencer (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

You are cordially invited to comment on the potential inclusion of Charlie the Unicorn in Liopleurodon here. Thanks! -Deathsythe (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi!

Excuse me don't you know, how to upload pictures to Wiki-Commons?User:John Troodon,talk

Compsognathus

Hello Dinoguy2! If you could do this quickly and without circumstances, could you correct the specimen Number in your Compsognathus-scale-picture? It should be BSP AS I 563 instead of BSP AS I 536. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me putting your picture of Epidendrosaurus on my user page on the Serbo-Croatian wiki? It was just too awesome not to be added there :D -- Duma

Anhanguera

Hi, Matt! Someone posted at Talk:Anhanguera that they are having difficulty imagining what the reptile must have looked like. I understand you do reconstructions and figured I'd pass it along to you. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ornithischia

Hi, Matt! I need an advice about Euornithopoda (Sereno, 1986). Sereno defined it as "All ornithopods closer to Parasaurolophus than to Heterodontosaurus" (Butler et al., 2008). Based on Butler et al., 2008, Zheng et al., 2009, Butler et al., 2011 and Makovicky et al., 2011 (who didn't use this clade) Euornithopoda should include Eocursor+Genasauria. What do you think? And about Cerapoda, Butler et al., 2008 and Butler et al., 2011 used it as node based clade. (whereas Neornithischia is stem based..) Thanks! Rnnsh (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, I'll go with the most recent usage (Butler et al., 2008, Butler et al., 2011 and Makovicky et al., 2011) for now. Thanks! Rnnsh (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Allosaurus

Dinoguy2, why did you remove my edits to the Allosaurus page (specifically, the "In popular culture" section) regarding Dinosaur Revolution? Honestly, I really don't mind as long as you have a good reason. Did I format them incorrectly or something like that? Chris (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Suuwassea

There are some recent sources that I know about (like John A. Whitlock & Jerald D. Harris, 2010 "The dentary of Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea)" and John A. Whitlock, 2011 "A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda)".). If it's OK I will try to rewrite the article in a few days or so. Thanks for pointing this up!! Rnnsh (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaur Revolution

Hi, Matt,

On the Dinosaur Revolution talk page, Xaostation, who claims he worked on the show, says that the information regarding the rendering of the program is "incomplete or possibly erroneous." I posted information on the Dinosaur Revolution page saying that the rendering rendering was done in Autodesk Maya, citing this source. Xaostation claims that another program, called Bakery "Relight," was used as well. He also gave this link as proof. But is a testimonial from one of the companies involved in the show a valid source for Wikipedia? I apologize for my inexperience. Chris (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Venomous dinosuars

There's a discussion over at the reference desk regarding venomous dinosaurs that I thought you might be able to lend your expertise to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Jurassic_Park ScienceApe (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I must have been half asleep when I wrote this, I can't believe I misspelled dinosaurs lol. ScienceApe (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

DR unsourced animal list

Hi, Matt,

Just a heads-up that a user going by the name of "Prickysquid" put the list back up again, claiming that anyone who takes it down will be "issued a warning." Chris (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

About the Animal list, I realize that we can't cite our own viewing of the Dino Rev as a source, is there a way that we can put the name of the animal appearing in the show? Afterall the other dino doc's (Walking with Dinos, Planet Dino etc. have animal lists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.39.230 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dinoguy2/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

About the largest theropods scale

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Largesttheropods.png)

Hi, there is something that has been bugging me about it for ages, I just never got round to asking. No, it isnt about their lengths, nor about Spinosaurus at all (!), but about Tyrannosaurus' (and to an extent the two carcharodontosaurids) height, at the hips of course. From what I can gather, it is a slightly modified version of your illustration of Tyrannosaurus. (http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-10-20T16%3A50%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7) Correct me if im wrong. (great blog btw, /offtopic)

The Tyrannosaurus looks to be 3.5m tall at the hips. Mortimer's Database lists Sue's (largest) femur at 1.321m long, its tibia at 1.143m long and its at 0.671m long. I belive these are the main bones in the leg of a theropod that would effect its height? Assuming they were all lined perfectly vertical, it would equal 3.125m tall. There is the hip bone itself, but even allowing an extra 50cm (put this onto some scale squares) that is still only little over 3.6m - with perfectly straight legs. But as you so often say, theropod (indeed, dinosaur) legs are not perfectly straight at all. Ok, they also have cartillage between the joints, that and the hip itself makes estimating a theropods height at the hips pretty hard I guess. I dont know how you can really, but is there a reason that Tyrannosaurus (the same issue applies to Giganotosaurus, as it was virtually the same height as Sue) in the scale is so tall?

The way I do height is calculate the height of the leg bones stacked on top of each other, then sort of assume the joint kinks, the cartillage and the hip cancel each other out, and round as you see fit (always up, making theropods seem bigger is mandatory ;D). Any better ideas? Just curious.

On a different topic, have you heard of this before?

http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=dinosaur&thread=1979&page=3#138163

Probably dont need the other members views on it to form your own mind.

Also, from the same forum and guy:

http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=dinosaur&action=display&thread=11819

nOTE HIS FANATICAL OBSESSION WITH IT BEING HUGE IS A JOKE, and his original assesment of its size was wrong by his own admission (spread out over a couple of comments, just scroll down, its Big Al):

http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=dinosaur&action=display&thread=11819&page=4

Just wondering if you knew anything about these, or indeed the neural spine Planet Dinosaur refers to (Big Al makes a point somewhere in that forum that the spine may be from the same specimen, or at least site as the supposed new limbs, though I have no idea which thread it is). Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A possible solution to the repeated addition of unsourced animal lists to Dinosaur Revolution

Hi, Matt,

I've noticed that you still have to keep removing these animal lists that people put up. I suggest that hidden text be added to the top of the page saying this:

"Please do not add an animal list unless you can provide references for each animal. Adding animals based on your interpretation of the program is considered original research; see the talk page for more details. Thank you for your consideration."

This appears to fall under the appropriate uses for hidden text; specifically, "reminding others of Wikipedia policies where they have been frequently broken." Chris (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Hi Dinoguy2! While reading the DML I noticed that you recently made some insightful contributions regarding the flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx. As these have bearing on some remarks made by me previously, I felt I couldn't remain silent ;o). So here some considerations that might be useful. Most of it you probably were aware of already, but some repetition won't hurt.

1. So there probably were tertials. Perhaps not "true" ones but even a row of short coverts would have prevented many adverse edge effects. We might also point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that, unless one would imagine such structures as having evolved one at the time, it is more parsimonious to assume a complete row was present. Also, have a good look how the new specimen is endowed in this respect. Two-thirds shaft length I'd say.
2. People seem to assume that it is proven that the hallux could not be reversed. This is a bit hasty. Yes, the old hypothesis that the first metatarsal attached to the posterior side of the second metatarsal has been largely disproven. It attached to the medial side. However, it should be understood that it very likely touched with its flat tapering upper posterior side, making it point caudomedially. This explains why in all specimens without exception the first toe after compression seems to point backwards or sidewards. In the unprepared foot of the "Maxberg", preserved for us as a X-ray picture showing the metatarsus frontally, it can be clearly seen that the first toe is sticking out to the side. Some claimed that the hallux of the "London" had become detached. In a way that is true: due to breakage in the plate, the bone itself is also broken — but its position has apparently not changed by it. As the first metatarsal was slightly J-shaped and likely a bit twisted, adding to the "caudal" part of "caudomedial", and the first phalanx possibly too had a twist, the (very large, very recurved and very functional) ungual might have pointed quite a bit to the back. The foot likely was able to anchor itself on larger branches and the imperfect opposition of the first toe, leaving less room in flexion, would have actually helped in grasping smaller twigs.
3. Repeating myself, I again want to emphasise that there is no good evidence Archaeopteryx couldn't lift its wing "above the dorsum". That a seemingly dorsal position of the shoulder joint could be caused by post mortem shifting of a anteroventrally placed joint is very true but does not imply that such a placement must be seen as the default state just because more basal taxa possess one. Senter could present only one specimen as factual proof: the "Eichstätt" but that exemplar does clearly not show an undisturbed condition. Its situation could be explained by Senter's model for the relative movement of the body parts, but that model itself depends for its proof on the truth of the anteroventral position, so offers no additional corroboration. Senter's interpretation of the Berlin and Solnhofen specimens is highly flawed and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their taphonomic position. In fine there is no cogent proof that Archaeopteryx could not attain a sufficient upstroke for level flight. Of course it was neither a hummingbird nor a canary ;o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a small typo: "Maxberg speciman" should be "Maxberg specimen". ;-) Regards, 2001:838:305:0:0:0:0:3 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I love your art. You know, your Beipiaosaurus and Scansoriopteryx (both) are really cute. Keep up your awesome art :) HoopoeBaijiKite 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of retooling our "paleobiota" table format

I'm thinking about changing the format of the tables we use to list taxa in articles on geologic formations and ancient ecosystems. After implementing the current format across most of the geologic formations and watching how other editors tried to follow my "conventions" I've become dissatisfied with how complicated it all is for everyone. I'm thinking maybe I've been trying to cram to much into one table and most of what's currently being accomplished with colors and text formatting (like small size and crossed out entries) might best be accomplished by breaking up the table itself. So I'm thinking we use a separate table for most if not all of the functions we previously used for colors and formatting. I'm imagining the new layout being something like:

[table holding only legitimate taxa]

[table holding only legitimate ichnotaxa, ootaxa, and morphotaxa]

[table holding potential reports of taxa like cfs, afs, ?s, etc.]

[table holding taxa reported from the formation but no longer thought to represent an actual animal living in the ancient environment, like junior synonyms, nomena dubia, misidentifications, etc.]

This has the advantage of communicating the same information while not requiring the reader to familiarize themselves with any colors or text conventions to get everything they need from the tables. Editors likewise wouldn't have to memorize the same confusing conventions before being able to contribute. This approach has a few drawbacks, though. One is that it would break up genera. Say if Camptosaurus in the Morrison Formation has a handful of valid species and a handful of invalid species the valid ones would be listed in one table and the invalid ones listed in another. That may not be a big deal though. Another problem is that this approach takes up slightly more vertical space due to line breaks between tables and possible repeated taxa. The last is possibly the most serious. Going back to the Camptosaurus example, its discredited species are going to be listed under its name in the table for discredited taxa, which some readers might interpret as implying that Camptosaurus itself is invalid. Maybe the title for this kind of table should strongly imply that the the genus isn't necessarily invalid. What do you think of this approach to the tables, or to the idea of retooling our way of listing taxa from geologic formations generally? Abyssal (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm still trying to process everything you've written, but I want to make a preliminary reply. As far as "discredited" goes I meant that to be a taxon reported from a formation wasn't actually represented by a distinct kind of animal in the ancient environment. Like junior synonyms (the senior 'nym is the actual animal), nomena dubia (remains don't justify confidence that the specimen represents a distinct taxon), etc. As far as nomena dubia representing real taxa, could you give an example? I don't understand how that could happen given the definition of the term, but your bigger into the philosophy of nomenclature than I am. Aren't junior synonyms just redundant names for an already named taxon? Wouldn't the specimens be what is reclassified when one taxon is found to be a junior synonym of another rather than the taxon itself? I'm not sure an additional color would help for tentative records because even taxa known from some sites and positions in the stratigraphic columns are known only tentatively in others, which we wouldn't be able to show in color without implying all the reports that are certain are tentative as well. One thing I think an extra table would be good for is specimens thought to originate from a formation but were actually from some other geological unit, which fits with your last idea. Abyssal (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Paleontology by state

I'm thinking about starting a long term project by making articles about paleontology for each US state. I've got a template in my user space and I was wondering what you thought about the structure of the article. Are there any section headings I should add or take away? Do you have any ideas or opinions for the project generally? Abyssal (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No thoughts? Abyssal (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'll keep them confined to my userspace until they get reasonably developed. Abyssal (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note

I noticed you changed the label for the gray color on the formational taxa list color key to "dubious" the other day. Well, I just remembered that we had been using the grey color for junior synonyms, too. Maybe we should retitle it "deprecated taxa" or something. Deprecated means that something's importance is being downplayed, which seems like a nice description of how paleontologists view dubious or subjectively synonymous taxa, they exist nomenclaturally, but don't really provide any insight into ancient life. Abyssal (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on synonymy makes sense. Abyssal (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)