![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a small problem with the opening of this article, in that only the full binomial name means "Dawn plunderer from the Valley of the Moon", but the binomial name, Eoraptor lunensis including the species, does not appear in the opening sentence, per guidelines, rendering this information false. Either the full binomial name needs to be mentioned somewhere in the opening paragraph, or the bit about the meaning of the full name needs fixing.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
weird - I can get dawn, plunderer & 'of the moon' but I can't see no valley in the latin name (?) (does sound nice and poetic though..) Cas Liber 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove Eoraptor from the Theropoda and place it as Saurischia incertae sedis, because Eoraptor is close to the Herrerasauridae.
I notice many juvenile characters in Eoraptor such as a short snout and large eye sockets. Could it possibly be a juvenile herrerasaurid? Somebody please point me in the right direction.
That is a rather interesting idea, as both species were contemporary to eachother. Herrerasaurus had five visible clawed toes, Eoraptor only had three, Herrerasaurus also had three clawed fingers and one unclawed one, Eoraptor had only three clawed ones. so its possible but unlikely-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
231.4 Ma seems way too exact for dating. Did somebody take a few estimated ages and average them? There is a citation for that number, and someone with access to that source should probably change it to reflect the uncertainty in the date... at the very least, round it so that it doesn't look like we can claim to have it within 100 ka. Also, the article should probably cite Sereno et al. 1993, the first published finding of Eoraptor lunesis. (P.C. Sereno, C.A. Forster, R.R. Rogers, and A.M. Monetta, Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature 361, 64-66, 1993.)
The adult body length suggested by http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2013.820113 could have reached 150 cm (4.92 feet) in length; the holotype PVSJ 559 was ~1.3 m (4.2 feet) and holotype PVSJ 512 (the first specimen; https://www.nature.com/articles/361064a0) was 1 m. This then implies that the scale for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Human-eoraptor_size_comparison.svg is off. Thangalin ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether this claim is true or not depends on how “digit” is defined. In a strict sense a digit only comprises the digital phalanges, but in a wider sense it also includes the corresponding metacarpal (phalanges + metacarpal = “digital ray”). According to the detailed description given by Sereno et al. (2013) E. lunensis possessed five metacarpals, but its phalangeal formula is given as 2-3-4-1?-0. This means that Eoraptor had five digital rays, but only four digits “sensu strictu”, the fourth of which was only a “stump”... -- Gretarsson ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a small problem with the opening of this article, in that only the full binomial name means "Dawn plunderer from the Valley of the Moon", but the binomial name, Eoraptor lunensis including the species, does not appear in the opening sentence, per guidelines, rendering this information false. Either the full binomial name needs to be mentioned somewhere in the opening paragraph, or the bit about the meaning of the full name needs fixing.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
weird - I can get dawn, plunderer & 'of the moon' but I can't see no valley in the latin name (?) (does sound nice and poetic though..) Cas Liber 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Remove Eoraptor from the Theropoda and place it as Saurischia incertae sedis, because Eoraptor is close to the Herrerasauridae.
I notice many juvenile characters in Eoraptor such as a short snout and large eye sockets. Could it possibly be a juvenile herrerasaurid? Somebody please point me in the right direction.
That is a rather interesting idea, as both species were contemporary to eachother. Herrerasaurus had five visible clawed toes, Eoraptor only had three, Herrerasaurus also had three clawed fingers and one unclawed one, Eoraptor had only three clawed ones. so its possible but unlikely-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
231.4 Ma seems way too exact for dating. Did somebody take a few estimated ages and average them? There is a citation for that number, and someone with access to that source should probably change it to reflect the uncertainty in the date... at the very least, round it so that it doesn't look like we can claim to have it within 100 ka. Also, the article should probably cite Sereno et al. 1993, the first published finding of Eoraptor lunesis. (P.C. Sereno, C.A. Forster, R.R. Rogers, and A.M. Monetta, Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature 361, 64-66, 1993.)
The adult body length suggested by http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2013.820113 could have reached 150 cm (4.92 feet) in length; the holotype PVSJ 559 was ~1.3 m (4.2 feet) and holotype PVSJ 512 (the first specimen; https://www.nature.com/articles/361064a0) was 1 m. This then implies that the scale for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Human-eoraptor_size_comparison.svg is off. Thangalin ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether this claim is true or not depends on how “digit” is defined. In a strict sense a digit only comprises the digital phalanges, but in a wider sense it also includes the corresponding metacarpal (phalanges + metacarpal = “digital ray”). According to the detailed description given by Sereno et al. (2013) E. lunensis possessed five metacarpals, but its phalangeal formula is given as 2-3-4-1?-0. This means that Eoraptor had five digital rays, but only four digits “sensu strictu”, the fourth of which was only a “stump”... -- Gretarsson ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)