![]() | Daspletosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hay ive drawn a picture of daspletosaurus, you can see it on my personal page. I think its reasonably accurate its based of skeletal drawings. Is it possible i could add it to the artical? It may not be that usefull however. :) Steveoc 86 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh I know where the next FAC is comin' from....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the article & proof read it all - there weren't very many mistakes at all, but still a few things to work on. Overall, the article is very repetitive in regard to Daspletosaurus' relationship with other tyrannosaurids - it mentions its relations to T rex & Gorgosaurus in the opening, then again in comparison in Description, then again many times in Discovery & Naming, and then again in Paleobiology (where even a section is devoted to Gorgi) & then again in Paleoecology & Classification. By the end of the article I'm unaware whether I'm reading an article on Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus or an article devoted to the relationship between the two. This either needs to be edited out, stated in a couple of places or moved to the section in Paleobiology on the relationship between the two.
Next is the short paragraph side of things. Both the Description, Discovery & naming & Paleobiology sections have short paragraphs, as well as the opening. These need to be expanded. I experimented merging a couple of them, but it looked kind of silly. The opening sentence to the Paleobiology section looks out of place - a flimsy one sentence line - and needs to be deleted or expanded upon. Other than that, the article looks well on its way to being featured with the usual editing & polishing requirements. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page)
Well if you'll read what you wrote, you'll notice you didn't specify anyone else but me, so it's not hard to see how I might have thought you were dumping it all on me. I'm also not sure how else to read "I'm sure I'll be able to support in any future FAC this article might have if you fix the problem" other than how Dinoguy did. And I'm flabbergasted that when you said "The text on the relationship between Gorgi & Daspi is too overpowering & consumes a large portion of the text..." you were really only referring to one sentence in the entire article, since apparently you are fine with the rest. So maybe you just need to work on writing what you actually mean. That's all I'm gonna say. (shrug) Sheep81
Should we remove the "2 or 3 unnamed species" from the taxobox? Sheep81 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is looking good - I did muse on mentioning co-habitants Centrosaurus and Hypacrosaurus in the lead's final para...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Something like:
"While Daspletosaurus fossils are rarer than other tyrannosaurids, the available specimens allow some analysis of the biology of these animals, including social behavior, diet and life history. In some areas Daspletosaurus coexisted with another tyrannosaurid, Gorgosaurus, though there is some evidence of niche differentiation between the two. Other large animals (and potential prey) it shared its landscape with include the horned dinosaur Centrosaurus and the ornithopod Hypacrosaurus."
I did it with Steggy and Diplodocus just to give an added 'feel' of what other dinos were around for the kiddies..cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: Anyone have a problem with widening the taxobox a bit as the image looks a bit tiny as is?cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - The old drawing of Dasp. was replaced with a photo of a skull. Personally, I think the drawing was more appropriate for the taxobox, and the skull would be better in the article. Anyone else agree? de Bivort 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: Eh, this probably fits here. Anyway, there are some issues that are problematic with the current taxobox image we have right now that could be easily fixed with an image of a different mount. While yes, the image is of a mount composed of the original holotype specimen, and this photo is in an almost-perfect lateral view, there are numerous problems. In the mount itself, one big problem is that the arms are pronated, especially noticeable in the left arm. Another problem is that this mount is a composite of multiple specimens, so proportions may very well be inaccurate. One smaller problem(that's been ignored in other taxoboxes) is that the coracoids are too far apart, which is quite noticeable at this angle. Another problem with the way the photo's been taken is that there's a lot of stuff around it, and it can even be a bit distracting, in the case of that chasmosaur mount to the left. I'm proposing any one of the three images below of a more accurate mount, still of D. torosus, but with non-pronated hands, correctly placed coracoids, a furcula, and gastralia. While these photos all have a bit of foreshortening, I think that the pros of the new mount outweighs the cons of the new mount and the pros of the current mount. Morosaurus shinyae ( talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If Daspletosaurus torosus is an adult Aublysodon mirandus then Daspletosaurus is invalid in favor for Aublysodon because:
Or is their some other wacky rule in the ICZN that I should know about? Taylor Reints ( talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This was taken from the Wikipedia article, Aublysodon. If this is true then Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon. But you're right about the Judith River Formation and Daspletosaurus's distribution. Although, Albertosaurus, an albertosaurine that has long been confused with Daspletosaurus due to their convergent similarities, is known from the formation so maybe it could be a juvenile A. libratus. 99.56.36.169 ( talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ancient discussion, I know, but I'll just let in my two cents on this.
"Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon."
Daspletosaurus would retain priority over "Aublysodon" since not only is "Aublysodon" a nomen dubium, but Daspletosaurus would be considered a nomen protectum since it's been used far more then "Aublysodon" and thus, as of 1999, has priority over all junior or senior synonyms. Thus, "Aublysodon" is the senior synonym of Daspletosaurus, but is invalid. Daspletosaurus remains untouched (aside from possible new species), but "Aublysodon" would become a synonym of Daspletosaurus if the remains are found to be that of Daspletosaurus. "Aublysodon" could either be a juvenile Daspletosaurus or an indeterminate tyrannosaur. Raptormimus 5:08 PM, 29 April 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Any chance that we can find more details for the Pathology section? Or merge it elsewhere? Chris857 ( talk) 01:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems all the images we have here depict the two undescribed taxa (and will therefore be moved once they are named). Does even a single image on Commons show Daspletosaurus proper? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fossil_Daspletosaurus FunkMonk ( talk) 18:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing some research on Daspletosaurus which has included the Wikipedia information on it. I'm getting the impression some of the Daspletosaurus images on Wikipedia are misleading, so I thought I'd ask about this here in case this is the case or if I'm misunderstanding things. My understanding is the Dinosaur Park Formation species might represent a currently unnamed species, based on what I've read including on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page. The skull of the DPF species looks noticeably different to the skull of Daspletosaurus torosus in these two comparison images: [3] [4] I've noticed a number of Wikipedia images appear to show the DPF species, but are labelled as showing D. torosus. On the Daspeletosaurus Wikipedia page, I think this applies to the following images: this size comparison [5], and this feeding individual [6]. Additionally, on the Tyrannosauridae Wikipedia page, the first image on the page labels the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 as D. torosus: [7] If I'm understanding correctly, the top of the skull in the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 isn't known. The lacrimal horns seen on FMNH PR308 look like the more forward pointing horns of Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, and unlike the more upward pointing horns of the juvenile DPF specimen RTMP 94.143.1 (as seen in the first comparison I posted) and of adults of Daspletosaurus torosus and the currently unnamed Two Medicine Formation "Daspletosaurus sp.". That makes me wonder if the lacrimal horns of FMNH PR308 are actually just made out of plaster and look like those of Albertosaurus/Gorgosaurus because as mentioned on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page: "It was mounted for display in Chicago and labeled as Albertosaurus libratus for many years, but after several skull features were later found to be modeled in plaster, including most of the teeth, the specimen (FMNH PR308) was reassigned to Daspletosaurus." Are lacrimal horns known from adults of the DPF species? So, what I think might be misleading on Wikipedia is: 1. Some images of the DPF species are labelled as showing D. torosus. 2. The lacrimal horns of the DPF species, as seen in photos of FMNH PR308 and the size comparison and feeding individual images I linked to, might be unlikely or inaccurate due to what I mentioned. If this is the case, it isn't said under any of the images, and Daspletosaurus is represented prominently in this form on Wikipedia e.g.: the first image on the Tyrannosauridae page, the first image on the Daspletosaurus page, the second image on the Daspletosaurus page which is a size comparison. 94.10.250.226 ( talk) 23:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daspletosaurus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daspletosaurus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Daspletosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hay ive drawn a picture of daspletosaurus, you can see it on my personal page. I think its reasonably accurate its based of skeletal drawings. Is it possible i could add it to the artical? It may not be that usefull however. :) Steveoc 86 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh I know where the next FAC is comin' from....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the article & proof read it all - there weren't very many mistakes at all, but still a few things to work on. Overall, the article is very repetitive in regard to Daspletosaurus' relationship with other tyrannosaurids - it mentions its relations to T rex & Gorgosaurus in the opening, then again in comparison in Description, then again many times in Discovery & Naming, and then again in Paleobiology (where even a section is devoted to Gorgi) & then again in Paleoecology & Classification. By the end of the article I'm unaware whether I'm reading an article on Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus or an article devoted to the relationship between the two. This either needs to be edited out, stated in a couple of places or moved to the section in Paleobiology on the relationship between the two.
Next is the short paragraph side of things. Both the Description, Discovery & naming & Paleobiology sections have short paragraphs, as well as the opening. These need to be expanded. I experimented merging a couple of them, but it looked kind of silly. The opening sentence to the Paleobiology section looks out of place - a flimsy one sentence line - and needs to be deleted or expanded upon. Other than that, the article looks well on its way to being featured with the usual editing & polishing requirements. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page)
Well if you'll read what you wrote, you'll notice you didn't specify anyone else but me, so it's not hard to see how I might have thought you were dumping it all on me. I'm also not sure how else to read "I'm sure I'll be able to support in any future FAC this article might have if you fix the problem" other than how Dinoguy did. And I'm flabbergasted that when you said "The text on the relationship between Gorgi & Daspi is too overpowering & consumes a large portion of the text..." you were really only referring to one sentence in the entire article, since apparently you are fine with the rest. So maybe you just need to work on writing what you actually mean. That's all I'm gonna say. (shrug) Sheep81
Should we remove the "2 or 3 unnamed species" from the taxobox? Sheep81 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is looking good - I did muse on mentioning co-habitants Centrosaurus and Hypacrosaurus in the lead's final para...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Something like:
"While Daspletosaurus fossils are rarer than other tyrannosaurids, the available specimens allow some analysis of the biology of these animals, including social behavior, diet and life history. In some areas Daspletosaurus coexisted with another tyrannosaurid, Gorgosaurus, though there is some evidence of niche differentiation between the two. Other large animals (and potential prey) it shared its landscape with include the horned dinosaur Centrosaurus and the ornithopod Hypacrosaurus."
I did it with Steggy and Diplodocus just to give an added 'feel' of what other dinos were around for the kiddies..cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: Anyone have a problem with widening the taxobox a bit as the image looks a bit tiny as is?cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - The old drawing of Dasp. was replaced with a photo of a skull. Personally, I think the drawing was more appropriate for the taxobox, and the skull would be better in the article. Anyone else agree? de Bivort 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: Eh, this probably fits here. Anyway, there are some issues that are problematic with the current taxobox image we have right now that could be easily fixed with an image of a different mount. While yes, the image is of a mount composed of the original holotype specimen, and this photo is in an almost-perfect lateral view, there are numerous problems. In the mount itself, one big problem is that the arms are pronated, especially noticeable in the left arm. Another problem is that this mount is a composite of multiple specimens, so proportions may very well be inaccurate. One smaller problem(that's been ignored in other taxoboxes) is that the coracoids are too far apart, which is quite noticeable at this angle. Another problem with the way the photo's been taken is that there's a lot of stuff around it, and it can even be a bit distracting, in the case of that chasmosaur mount to the left. I'm proposing any one of the three images below of a more accurate mount, still of D. torosus, but with non-pronated hands, correctly placed coracoids, a furcula, and gastralia. While these photos all have a bit of foreshortening, I think that the pros of the new mount outweighs the cons of the new mount and the pros of the current mount. Morosaurus shinyae ( talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If Daspletosaurus torosus is an adult Aublysodon mirandus then Daspletosaurus is invalid in favor for Aublysodon because:
Or is their some other wacky rule in the ICZN that I should know about? Taylor Reints ( talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This was taken from the Wikipedia article, Aublysodon. If this is true then Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon. But you're right about the Judith River Formation and Daspletosaurus's distribution. Although, Albertosaurus, an albertosaurine that has long been confused with Daspletosaurus due to their convergent similarities, is known from the formation so maybe it could be a juvenile A. libratus. 99.56.36.169 ( talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ancient discussion, I know, but I'll just let in my two cents on this.
"Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon."
Daspletosaurus would retain priority over "Aublysodon" since not only is "Aublysodon" a nomen dubium, but Daspletosaurus would be considered a nomen protectum since it's been used far more then "Aublysodon" and thus, as of 1999, has priority over all junior or senior synonyms. Thus, "Aublysodon" is the senior synonym of Daspletosaurus, but is invalid. Daspletosaurus remains untouched (aside from possible new species), but "Aublysodon" would become a synonym of Daspletosaurus if the remains are found to be that of Daspletosaurus. "Aublysodon" could either be a juvenile Daspletosaurus or an indeterminate tyrannosaur. Raptormimus 5:08 PM, 29 April 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Any chance that we can find more details for the Pathology section? Or merge it elsewhere? Chris857 ( talk) 01:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems all the images we have here depict the two undescribed taxa (and will therefore be moved once they are named). Does even a single image on Commons show Daspletosaurus proper? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fossil_Daspletosaurus FunkMonk ( talk) 18:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing some research on Daspletosaurus which has included the Wikipedia information on it. I'm getting the impression some of the Daspletosaurus images on Wikipedia are misleading, so I thought I'd ask about this here in case this is the case or if I'm misunderstanding things. My understanding is the Dinosaur Park Formation species might represent a currently unnamed species, based on what I've read including on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page. The skull of the DPF species looks noticeably different to the skull of Daspletosaurus torosus in these two comparison images: [3] [4] I've noticed a number of Wikipedia images appear to show the DPF species, but are labelled as showing D. torosus. On the Daspeletosaurus Wikipedia page, I think this applies to the following images: this size comparison [5], and this feeding individual [6]. Additionally, on the Tyrannosauridae Wikipedia page, the first image on the page labels the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 as D. torosus: [7] If I'm understanding correctly, the top of the skull in the DPF specimen FMNH PR308 isn't known. The lacrimal horns seen on FMNH PR308 look like the more forward pointing horns of Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, and unlike the more upward pointing horns of the juvenile DPF specimen RTMP 94.143.1 (as seen in the first comparison I posted) and of adults of Daspletosaurus torosus and the currently unnamed Two Medicine Formation "Daspletosaurus sp.". That makes me wonder if the lacrimal horns of FMNH PR308 are actually just made out of plaster and look like those of Albertosaurus/Gorgosaurus because as mentioned on the Daspletosaurus Wikipedia page: "It was mounted for display in Chicago and labeled as Albertosaurus libratus for many years, but after several skull features were later found to be modeled in plaster, including most of the teeth, the specimen (FMNH PR308) was reassigned to Daspletosaurus." Are lacrimal horns known from adults of the DPF species? So, what I think might be misleading on Wikipedia is: 1. Some images of the DPF species are labelled as showing D. torosus. 2. The lacrimal horns of the DPF species, as seen in photos of FMNH PR308 and the size comparison and feeding individual images I linked to, might be unlikely or inaccurate due to what I mentioned. If this is the case, it isn't said under any of the images, and Daspletosaurus is represented prominently in this form on Wikipedia e.g.: the first image on the Tyrannosauridae page, the first image on the Daspletosaurus page, the second image on the Daspletosaurus page which is a size comparison. 94.10.250.226 ( talk) 23:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daspletosaurus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daspletosaurus. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)