![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article said that the 1676 discovery was of "A jawbone and teeth" but Plot's picture clearly shows the lower extremity of a femur. Is this just a mistake, or was there more material recovered? Gdr 04:18:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Yes, it seems there was another discovery in 1818. Gdr 04:20:41, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Hi, No feedback from 'Image Review' page, so I've created a 'gallery' on the article, so that folk can take a look - I've put another message on the image review page, so it should turn up on people's 'watchlist', somewhere. (May have been missed with the hornet's nest created by my 'model' photos!) - Ballista 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Tricky, I had a load of images on other pages which I put into galleries only to have someone take it all off and redirect link to Wikipedia commons gallery. I have been working with some others and tend to agree the images have a bit more oompf when they are within the body of the text. A second photo of teh old-style reconstruction is probably redundant, while the bones could be scattered down the left size in a floating left column near where they are mentioned in the text. The trackway...? A mention then made of that separately, I guess.
I don't have any primary therapod texts which talk about this dinosaur unfortunately as I would add more. But I will look around. Cas Liber 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should steer away from the gallery look. It is generally regarded as a sign of a lack imagination, where one can just plonk any old pic there without editing them carefully into the article's text. In my experience, galleries are frowned upon & usually are forced to be deleted during FAC or peer review. For now it should stay until more text is created to place the pics in, but after that, or if it is up for FAC, the gallery should be deleted... Spawn Man 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems entirely logical and I had intended that they should be selected and inserted, acc. to editors' decisions. - Ballista 02:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"...he named the genus Megalosaurus, estimating it to be 12 m long." I'm just dumb foreigner, or did he estimate the genus, not animal itself, being 12 meters long? -- 195.148.29.73 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
But there are no more species of Megalosaurus? If you see in Haţeg Island the list of the species found there contains "Megalosaurus hungaricus" (one that not appears in this article), also in Megalosaurus at Spanish Wikipedia there are listed 25 species, some are invalid but not all except the "Megalosaurus bucklandii" and the dubious "Megalosaurus hesperis". Really how much species have the Megalosaurus?-- 201.218.24.21 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a personal record of other species, M. cuvieri, M. dunkeri, and M. parkeri. Can anyone else verify these? Ninjatacoshell 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The correct authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii is Ritgen, 1826, according to http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm, so change the authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii from Mantell, 1827 to Ritgen, 1826.
Ritgen, F., 1826. Versuchte Herstellung einiger Becken urweltlichter Thiere. Nova Acta Caesareaa Leopold.-Carol. Ger. Nat. Curiosorum. 13, 331-358.
Remove "M." cambrensis from the Taxobox and merge it with the "Newtonsaurus" page when the name "Newtonsaurus" is published.
On this unused image, a part of an upper jaw is shown at the left, but I haven't read about that being known before, so has that part been assigned to another genus? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
'Cause if they are whoever wrote this part of the article must earn one;
He called it "Scrotum humanum," while comparing its appearance to a pair of human testicles. The label was not considered to be a proper Linnaean "name" for the animal in question at the time, and was not used in subsequent literature. Technically, though, the name was published after the advent of binomial nomenclature, and so if it was truly intended to represent the erection of a new genus it would have priority over Megalosaurus.
after all, it is a dirty pun but no one can claim it is invalid... Undead Herle King ( talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim that Megalosaurus was the first dinosaur to be described is dubious. Take a look here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2009/06/miti-e-leggende-post-moderne-sui.html&hl=en&langpair=it%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=utf-8 Basically says that we have no idea if the Scrotum humanum specimen was actually Megalosaurus, in the modern sense. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
Who submitted the petition, Sarjeant or Halstead? GregorB ( talk) 12:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the complicated history of this genus I'd've thought that the article would be larger and certainly with more references. Yes, I know I'm complaining and not fixing but I recognise that this will take time that I simply do not have.
However, this in the Modern reconstructions subsection:
strikes me as a bit of OR - it certainly appears to be uncited. I thought that the image of theropods attacking "defenseless" 30 tonne sauropods had largely been relegated to the popular books of the past.
Also, the bit about its scavenging not detracting from its "prowess" as a hunter (with the inevitable comparision with T.) reads more like something I would find in a book written for a younger audience, not an encyclopaedia. Should we add this caveat to all articles about larger theropods or members of Felidae or <insert any taxon that hunts and scavenges>.? If someone could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks. 124.168.245.200 ( talk) 06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The introduction says "It is significant as the first genus of dinosaur (outside of birds) to be described and named." Does this mean that modern or recent historical bird genera are now considered to be dinosaurs? I'm not saying that's not so, because I'm not a paleontologist, but I thought birds were considered to be descendants of certain kinds of dinosaurs, not actual dinosaurs. TCSaint ( talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Here I will list some minor issues, some more may come.
This image — and all images in Commons of the same skeleton — is not of Megalosaurus, but of a cast of the Neovenator replica from the 1990s:
I'm not sure what image should replace it in the taxobox.
However, the skull image could be replaced by a enlargement of the authentic skull elements shown in this image:
-- MWAK ( talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The cast was labelled Megalosaurus because the original intention was to name Neovenator as a Megalosaurus species. Very bad idea, of course :o). The skull diagram is not very accurate. It is in fact based on the display, as shown by the fact it erroneously shows the praemaxilla as having been preserved (it is in fact a complete fake). It seems we have no serious alternative for the photograph of the display.-- MWAK ( talk) 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article said that the 1676 discovery was of "A jawbone and teeth" but Plot's picture clearly shows the lower extremity of a femur. Is this just a mistake, or was there more material recovered? Gdr 04:18:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Yes, it seems there was another discovery in 1818. Gdr 04:20:41, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Hi, No feedback from 'Image Review' page, so I've created a 'gallery' on the article, so that folk can take a look - I've put another message on the image review page, so it should turn up on people's 'watchlist', somewhere. (May have been missed with the hornet's nest created by my 'model' photos!) - Ballista 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Tricky, I had a load of images on other pages which I put into galleries only to have someone take it all off and redirect link to Wikipedia commons gallery. I have been working with some others and tend to agree the images have a bit more oompf when they are within the body of the text. A second photo of teh old-style reconstruction is probably redundant, while the bones could be scattered down the left size in a floating left column near where they are mentioned in the text. The trackway...? A mention then made of that separately, I guess.
I don't have any primary therapod texts which talk about this dinosaur unfortunately as I would add more. But I will look around. Cas Liber 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should steer away from the gallery look. It is generally regarded as a sign of a lack imagination, where one can just plonk any old pic there without editing them carefully into the article's text. In my experience, galleries are frowned upon & usually are forced to be deleted during FAC or peer review. For now it should stay until more text is created to place the pics in, but after that, or if it is up for FAC, the gallery should be deleted... Spawn Man 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems entirely logical and I had intended that they should be selected and inserted, acc. to editors' decisions. - Ballista 02:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"...he named the genus Megalosaurus, estimating it to be 12 m long." I'm just dumb foreigner, or did he estimate the genus, not animal itself, being 12 meters long? -- 195.148.29.73 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
But there are no more species of Megalosaurus? If you see in Haţeg Island the list of the species found there contains "Megalosaurus hungaricus" (one that not appears in this article), also in Megalosaurus at Spanish Wikipedia there are listed 25 species, some are invalid but not all except the "Megalosaurus bucklandii" and the dubious "Megalosaurus hesperis". Really how much species have the Megalosaurus?-- 201.218.24.21 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a personal record of other species, M. cuvieri, M. dunkeri, and M. parkeri. Can anyone else verify these? Ninjatacoshell 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The correct authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii is Ritgen, 1826, according to http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm, so change the authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii from Mantell, 1827 to Ritgen, 1826.
Ritgen, F., 1826. Versuchte Herstellung einiger Becken urweltlichter Thiere. Nova Acta Caesareaa Leopold.-Carol. Ger. Nat. Curiosorum. 13, 331-358.
Remove "M." cambrensis from the Taxobox and merge it with the "Newtonsaurus" page when the name "Newtonsaurus" is published.
On this unused image, a part of an upper jaw is shown at the left, but I haven't read about that being known before, so has that part been assigned to another genus? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
'Cause if they are whoever wrote this part of the article must earn one;
He called it "Scrotum humanum," while comparing its appearance to a pair of human testicles. The label was not considered to be a proper Linnaean "name" for the animal in question at the time, and was not used in subsequent literature. Technically, though, the name was published after the advent of binomial nomenclature, and so if it was truly intended to represent the erection of a new genus it would have priority over Megalosaurus.
after all, it is a dirty pun but no one can claim it is invalid... Undead Herle King ( talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim that Megalosaurus was the first dinosaur to be described is dubious. Take a look here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2009/06/miti-e-leggende-post-moderne-sui.html&hl=en&langpair=it%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=utf-8 Basically says that we have no idea if the Scrotum humanum specimen was actually Megalosaurus, in the modern sense. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
Who submitted the petition, Sarjeant or Halstead? GregorB ( talk) 12:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the complicated history of this genus I'd've thought that the article would be larger and certainly with more references. Yes, I know I'm complaining and not fixing but I recognise that this will take time that I simply do not have.
However, this in the Modern reconstructions subsection:
strikes me as a bit of OR - it certainly appears to be uncited. I thought that the image of theropods attacking "defenseless" 30 tonne sauropods had largely been relegated to the popular books of the past.
Also, the bit about its scavenging not detracting from its "prowess" as a hunter (with the inevitable comparision with T.) reads more like something I would find in a book written for a younger audience, not an encyclopaedia. Should we add this caveat to all articles about larger theropods or members of Felidae or <insert any taxon that hunts and scavenges>.? If someone could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks. 124.168.245.200 ( talk) 06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The introduction says "It is significant as the first genus of dinosaur (outside of birds) to be described and named." Does this mean that modern or recent historical bird genera are now considered to be dinosaurs? I'm not saying that's not so, because I'm not a paleontologist, but I thought birds were considered to be descendants of certain kinds of dinosaurs, not actual dinosaurs. TCSaint ( talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Here I will list some minor issues, some more may come.
This image — and all images in Commons of the same skeleton — is not of Megalosaurus, but of a cast of the Neovenator replica from the 1990s:
I'm not sure what image should replace it in the taxobox.
However, the skull image could be replaced by a enlargement of the authentic skull elements shown in this image:
-- MWAK ( talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The cast was labelled Megalosaurus because the original intention was to name Neovenator as a Megalosaurus species. Very bad idea, of course :o). The skull diagram is not very accurate. It is in fact based on the display, as shown by the fact it erroneously shows the praemaxilla as having been preserved (it is in fact a complete fake). It seems we have no serious alternative for the photograph of the display.-- MWAK ( talk) 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)