Herrerasaurus 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 October 17, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
When was Herrerasaurus in Jurassic Park? J. Spencer 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the website Park Pedia it shows an image with a map of the entire park, and Herrerasaurus is seen along with Baryonyx and Segisaurus, neither of which was given a proper appearance either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The artical says 'It is estimated that Herrerasaurus could reach up to 15 feet (5 meters) in length. Some fossils indicate that Herrerasaurus could grow up to 3 meters in length and 1 meter in height.' .... it makes it sound as though 3m is larger or more spectacular than 5m ............which it isn't .... :) ......... Also 15 feet isn't 5m its more like 4.6m. which size is it. ive hered 3m, 4.6m, 5m? Steveoc 86 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Greg Paul also said that Deinonychus and Velociraptor were synonymous. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
"Image:Herrerasaurus 2.jpg" has been bothering me as I look at it. I may be wrong, but most common reconstructions I've seen have had a more blunt snout- see the taxobox image, for example. Does anyone know how recent this reconstruction is? David Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support:
Comments:
cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Classification: The only parts of this article that I think are not straightforward and clear are those dealing with classification, particularly the third paragraph under History. One concern is that Langer (2004) and Benton and Langer (2006) actually find the basal saurischian position to be most parsimonious, which is shared with the recent Dromomeron paper (which oddly omits Eoraptor). J. Spencer 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Going forward, there are still five redlinks, a couple of places for citations, and the usual need for copyediting. The needed citations and redlinks would keep it from a GA, but I think that with the cites and two or three of the redlinks filled in, it could pass. J. Spencer 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article easily meets the GA criteria. It is very readable. The coverage of the topic is very good. I particularly enjoyed the NPOV discussion of the history of the classification debate, which is what makes this such an interesting animal. The research for the paleobiology and paleoecology sections was also impressive. The images are good, but you might want to select a larger size than the standard thumb size for the image accompaning the classification section. It is a nice image but you can hardly make it out. I am hard pressed to come up with many other suggestions to improve the article, but I would suggest getting rid of the red links. The are distracting If you don't plan to create the article yourself in the next few weeks just de-link the names. You can always add a link back if someone someday creates the appropriate article. Rusty Cashman 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by "up to at least". If this was a single specimen, shouldn't a single measurement be known for the head size? Perhaps the intent is that the heads of these guys varied, with a range of (what least estimated size? up to 56 cm in the large specimen, and possibly more in as-yet-undiscovered specimens. Let me know what info is known about the range of sizes. If this is the only head specimen, then that would need to be stated accordingly (plus whatever ranges might be estimated, if any.) Or perhaps, "measured up to as much as 56 cm, the measurement of one large..." Existing wording is unclear. Thanks.
Systematics
Frenguellisaurus gen. nov.
Etymology
In honor of Dr. Joaquín Frenguelli, who realized an important paleontological and geological work in the Triassic Ischigualasto-Villa Unión Valley.
Typespecies
Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis.
Have you a source for that statement? Should the article mention such synonyms? I'm not a saurophile (sic), so not familiar with the technical standards for such articles. However, if another lay reader, like this one, were to check the source, they might feel the same confusion. Just food for thought. Unimaginative Username 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pardon my denseness, but I'm still not getting it. Current revision:
The monophyly of dinosaurs was explicitly proposed in the 1970s by Bakker,[37][38] and nine cranial and about fifty postcranial synapomorphies (common anatomical traits derived from the common ancestor) have been listed. However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]
From a base of zero knowledge, here's what I get:
Are the hands on the drawing under the classifiction section too pronated? If so, It'll be fixed. Funkynusayri ( talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nominated December 7, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
So, what do we want to do with the article now that we've got it again? We've had two outside editors give it a shine. The redlinks are gone and everything has been referenced. What do we think needs to be done? J. Spencer ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on revising the article for grammar, style, clarity, et cetera, but I'm unsure about what to do with the Paleoecology section. I'll start with the first paragraph and hopefully other interested folks (I know they exist) can help.
Awickert ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
References
The article states that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. Isn't this inaccurate? Isn't it a sauropod ancestor, the sole member of a third suborder of saurischians or a dinosaur too primitive to be classed as a saurischian or an ornithischian? I swear that one of those is correct... 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For practical purposes, I would suggest putting a question mark next to Theropoda in the taxobox. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
24.50.151.151 ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
24.50.151.151 ( talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurikosaurus
P Ward Out Of Thin Air page 169, 170 proposes Herrersaurus as the proginator of both lines --saurischians and ornithischian--that split at the end of the Triassic. This is interesting as he links low O2 to bipedalism overcoming Carrier's Constraint.
See details in section 3 of webpage http://creation.com/more-dino-sightings-png
Andrew Lamb, CMI 150.101.189.78 ( talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
its on a website that supports creationism as a science rather than a matter of faith, so its likely a fake and second it does not sound like a Herrerasaurus at all, either the people that made this don't understand that dinosaurs could not pronate their hands or they somehow confused Herrerasaurus with Ornithosuchus, it might be a misidentification of a Varanid or a Crocodilian-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Our lead paragraph boldly declares:
All known fossils of this carnivorous dinosaur have been discovered in rocks of late Ladinian age (middle Triassic according to the ICS, dated to 231.4 million years ago) in northwestern Argentina.
However, our Carnian Wikipedia Article tells us that this faunal stage lasted from about ~235 till ~228 million years ago.
If the Carnian article is accurate, then Herrerasaurus is Carnian in terms of age. I will make the change unless there are any objections. As always, I welcome your advice and allow for the possibility that I may have overlooked or oversimplified something.
Humbly, Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 03:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This link goes to the wrong place. Does it mean Fernando Novas? Colonies Chris ( talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the age. The article states that this animal is dated to 231.4 Ma ago, and also that it's from the Ladinian. Accordning to the ICS, 231.4 Ma ago is within the Carnian. What's the correct age/faunal stage? MMartyniuk ( talk) 11:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In the taxobox image, would it be better to just have the image we have right now, or is it better to have an image of this mount and the model nearby? BleachedRice ( talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded two photos of the FMNH Herrerasaurus to Commons, and I propose that one or the other can replace the current taxobox image. Our current taxobox image has too much of a focus on the skull, blurring out the rest of the body. I propose either of these two images(Option A and Option B) to take its spot, as both have a much better focus on the postcrania and the skull, instead of just the skull exclusively. We should try to show the entire body as good as we can. Would be nice to hear second opinions on this. Morosaurus shinyae ( talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we have a pop culture section?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Was Herrerasaurus a dinosaur to be sure? I'm not sure about it. Esagurton ( talk) 01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Herrerasaurus 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 October 17, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
When was Herrerasaurus in Jurassic Park? J. Spencer 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you go to the website Park Pedia it shows an image with a map of the entire park, and Herrerasaurus is seen along with Baryonyx and Segisaurus, neither of which was given a proper appearance either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The artical says 'It is estimated that Herrerasaurus could reach up to 15 feet (5 meters) in length. Some fossils indicate that Herrerasaurus could grow up to 3 meters in length and 1 meter in height.' .... it makes it sound as though 3m is larger or more spectacular than 5m ............which it isn't .... :) ......... Also 15 feet isn't 5m its more like 4.6m. which size is it. ive hered 3m, 4.6m, 5m? Steveoc 86 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Greg Paul also said that Deinonychus and Velociraptor were synonymous. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
"Image:Herrerasaurus 2.jpg" has been bothering me as I look at it. I may be wrong, but most common reconstructions I've seen have had a more blunt snout- see the taxobox image, for example. Does anyone know how recent this reconstruction is? David Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support:
Comments:
cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Classification: The only parts of this article that I think are not straightforward and clear are those dealing with classification, particularly the third paragraph under History. One concern is that Langer (2004) and Benton and Langer (2006) actually find the basal saurischian position to be most parsimonious, which is shared with the recent Dromomeron paper (which oddly omits Eoraptor). J. Spencer 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Going forward, there are still five redlinks, a couple of places for citations, and the usual need for copyediting. The needed citations and redlinks would keep it from a GA, but I think that with the cites and two or three of the redlinks filled in, it could pass. J. Spencer 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article easily meets the GA criteria. It is very readable. The coverage of the topic is very good. I particularly enjoyed the NPOV discussion of the history of the classification debate, which is what makes this such an interesting animal. The research for the paleobiology and paleoecology sections was also impressive. The images are good, but you might want to select a larger size than the standard thumb size for the image accompaning the classification section. It is a nice image but you can hardly make it out. I am hard pressed to come up with many other suggestions to improve the article, but I would suggest getting rid of the red links. The are distracting If you don't plan to create the article yourself in the next few weeks just de-link the names. You can always add a link back if someone someday creates the appropriate article. Rusty Cashman 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by "up to at least". If this was a single specimen, shouldn't a single measurement be known for the head size? Perhaps the intent is that the heads of these guys varied, with a range of (what least estimated size? up to 56 cm in the large specimen, and possibly more in as-yet-undiscovered specimens. Let me know what info is known about the range of sizes. If this is the only head specimen, then that would need to be stated accordingly (plus whatever ranges might be estimated, if any.) Or perhaps, "measured up to as much as 56 cm, the measurement of one large..." Existing wording is unclear. Thanks.
Systematics
Frenguellisaurus gen. nov.
Etymology
In honor of Dr. Joaquín Frenguelli, who realized an important paleontological and geological work in the Triassic Ischigualasto-Villa Unión Valley.
Typespecies
Frenguellisaurus ischigualastensis.
Have you a source for that statement? Should the article mention such synonyms? I'm not a saurophile (sic), so not familiar with the technical standards for such articles. However, if another lay reader, like this one, were to check the source, they might feel the same confusion. Just food for thought. Unimaginative Username 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pardon my denseness, but I'm still not getting it. Current revision:
The monophyly of dinosaurs was explicitly proposed in the 1970s by Bakker,[37][38] and nine cranial and about fifty postcranial synapomorphies (common anatomical traits derived from the common ancestor) have been listed. However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]
From a base of zero knowledge, here's what I get:
Are the hands on the drawing under the classifiction section too pronated? If so, It'll be fixed. Funkynusayri ( talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nominated December 7, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
So, what do we want to do with the article now that we've got it again? We've had two outside editors give it a shine. The redlinks are gone and everything has been referenced. What do we think needs to be done? J. Spencer ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on revising the article for grammar, style, clarity, et cetera, but I'm unsure about what to do with the Paleoecology section. I'll start with the first paragraph and hopefully other interested folks (I know they exist) can help.
Awickert ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
References
The article states that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. Isn't this inaccurate? Isn't it a sauropod ancestor, the sole member of a third suborder of saurischians or a dinosaur too primitive to be classed as a saurischian or an ornithischian? I swear that one of those is correct... 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For practical purposes, I would suggest putting a question mark next to Theropoda in the taxobox. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
24.50.151.151 ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
24.50.151.151 ( talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurikosaurus
P Ward Out Of Thin Air page 169, 170 proposes Herrersaurus as the proginator of both lines --saurischians and ornithischian--that split at the end of the Triassic. This is interesting as he links low O2 to bipedalism overcoming Carrier's Constraint.
See details in section 3 of webpage http://creation.com/more-dino-sightings-png
Andrew Lamb, CMI 150.101.189.78 ( talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
its on a website that supports creationism as a science rather than a matter of faith, so its likely a fake and second it does not sound like a Herrerasaurus at all, either the people that made this don't understand that dinosaurs could not pronate their hands or they somehow confused Herrerasaurus with Ornithosuchus, it might be a misidentification of a Varanid or a Crocodilian-- 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Our lead paragraph boldly declares:
All known fossils of this carnivorous dinosaur have been discovered in rocks of late Ladinian age (middle Triassic according to the ICS, dated to 231.4 million years ago) in northwestern Argentina.
However, our Carnian Wikipedia Article tells us that this faunal stage lasted from about ~235 till ~228 million years ago.
If the Carnian article is accurate, then Herrerasaurus is Carnian in terms of age. I will make the change unless there are any objections. As always, I welcome your advice and allow for the possibility that I may have overlooked or oversimplified something.
Humbly, Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 03:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This link goes to the wrong place. Does it mean Fernando Novas? Colonies Chris ( talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the age. The article states that this animal is dated to 231.4 Ma ago, and also that it's from the Ladinian. Accordning to the ICS, 231.4 Ma ago is within the Carnian. What's the correct age/faunal stage? MMartyniuk ( talk) 11:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In the taxobox image, would it be better to just have the image we have right now, or is it better to have an image of this mount and the model nearby? BleachedRice ( talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded two photos of the FMNH Herrerasaurus to Commons, and I propose that one or the other can replace the current taxobox image. Our current taxobox image has too much of a focus on the skull, blurring out the rest of the body. I propose either of these two images(Option A and Option B) to take its spot, as both have a much better focus on the postcrania and the skull, instead of just the skull exclusively. We should try to show the entire body as good as we can. Would be nice to hear second opinions on this. Morosaurus shinyae ( talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Should we have a pop culture section?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Was Herrerasaurus a dinosaur to be sure? I'm not sure about it. Esagurton ( talk) 01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)