![]() | Psittacosaurus 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 January 7, 2013. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apparently there has been a relatively recent fossil discovery of spine-like hairs along the tail of psittacosaurus. It was published in Nature and later on a more detailed examination in Naturwissenschaften [1]
-- BobBobtheBob 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of white space in the taxobox with the picture set to 250px. 200px only makes it a little smaller and streamlines the whole thing. As others are pretty heavily invested in this article I'm going to refrain from changing this myself. Just throwing it out there. :) Dinoguy2 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Brian0918 we have a great new picture for the taxobox, drawn by Rainer_Zenz from German Wikipedia. The original picture was moved into the text. Originally it was in the Description section, but I felt it better illustrated the tail bristles, plus there was need for an image down there. If anyone has other ideas, go ahead and implement them. Thank you! Sheep81 08:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to revert all my edits on that matter though, my stance on it isn't exactly strong, but I thought copyright issues would be more important to clear out on featured articles than on regular ones. Funkynusayri ( talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to look at a new article " Endocranial morphology of psittacosaurs". Lejean2000 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does the 400 specimen figure come from? Xu and Norell 2006 reported over a thousand specimens in the Yixian Lujiatun beds alone! Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this article I read, some paleontologists believe that this animal's quills aren't real, and that the animal died on a plant. Is there any information about this idea, or is it outdated? Star Hound For those who want to see the article, go here: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/blah-blah-feathered-ornithischians-yawn/ ( talk) 04:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Senter (2007) says that Psittacosaurus was an obligate biped, yet nearly every full-bodied reconstruction in this article has it walking on four legs. Edit pending? Albertonykus ( talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The article cited does not call the Psittacosaurus an "index fossil," instead, it uses two sets of index fossils (without Psittacosaurus in either set) and the first appearance datum and last appearance datum of Psittacosaurus and its field distribution to define a Pisttacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of East Asia, not "central Asia."
It is not an index fossil, but defines a biochron according to the citation. It is not Central Asian, it is an East Asian biochron. Also, the sediments are Lower Cretaceous, the time is Early Cretaceous.
This sentence should be changed to read:
"The abundance of this dinosaur in the fossil record has led to establishing the Psittacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of east Asia.
See 978-0231084833, pp. 168-170 and the cited source, Lucas, Spencer G. (2006). The Psittacosaurus biochron, Early Cretaceous of Asia. Cretaceous Research 27: 189–198.
I posted this also on the main page. There are many other problems with this article, but I don't have time to go into them.
-- 68.107.134.74 ( talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A special thanks to FunkMonk for making an important revision to this high-profile featured article, reflecting the new find that an adult specimen was added, literally glued, to a matrix of 34 juveniles, in an apparent attempt to give the appearance of parenting behavior in Psittacosaurus. The 2013 paper by Zhao, Benton, Xu, and Sander demonstrates not only that some scientists are inclined to engage in deception to make the evidence fit their narrative, but also that science, when employed in the pursuit of a provable truth, can be self-correcting. Our commitment here in Wikipedia to promulgate facts that are carefully referenced is exemplified by our friend FunkMonk, who edited this article on May 16th, just one day after the Zhao et al. paper became available online. I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge FunkMonk's outstanding efforts. Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is the abstract:
"Psittacosaurus is one of the most abundant and speciose genera in the Dinosauria, with fifteen named species. The genus is geographically and temporally widespread with large sample sizes of several of the nominal species allowing detailed analysis of intra- and interspecific variation. We present a reanalysis of three separate, coeval species within the Psittacosauridae; P. lujiatunensis, P. major, and Hongshanosaurus houi from the Lujiatun beds of the Yixian Formation, northeastern China, using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics on a sample set of thirty skulls in combination with a reevaluation of the proposed character states for each species. Using these complementary methods, we show that individual and taphonomic variation are the joint causes of a large range of variation among the skulls when they are plotted in a morphospace. Our results demonstrate that there is only one species of Psittacosaurus within the Lujiatun beds and that the three nominal species represent different taphomorphotypes of P. lujiatunensis. The wide range of geometric morphometric variation in a single species of Psittacosaurus implies that the range of variation found in other dinosaurian groups may also be related to taphonomic distortion rather than interspecific variation. As the morphospace is driven primarily by variation resulting from taphonomic distortion, this study demonstrates that the geometric morphometric approach can only be used with great caution to delineate interspecific variation in Psittacosaurus and likely other dinosaur groups without a complementary evaluation of character states. This study presents the first application of 3D geometric morphometrics to the dinosaurian morphospace and the first attempt to quantify taphonomic variation in dinosaur skulls."
link to study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069265 News: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8762/20130812/three-species-plant-eating-dinosaur-really-one.htm
We do not know if there is consensus regarding this. There was no consensus that Triceratops that Torosaurus were one and the same, and a study was published soon after disputing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinopediaR ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Citations need to be cleaned up, and as one example of how badly outdated the article is, this source says there are 1,000 specimens, while the article mentions 400. Is anyone able to restore this article to Featured standard to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone planning to work on this, or should we head to WP:FAR (which often entices people to dig in)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
There is one part that says "it has been suggested" but doesn't say who suggested it. There is also a mixture of American and British spelling. DrKay ( talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Do remove A 2016 study by Ji Qiang and colleagues was published in the Journal of Geology. Their conclusion was that these were actually highly modified scales because the morphology and anatomy did not resemble feathers ? Towccf ( talk) 05:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Psittacosaurus 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 January 7, 2013. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apparently there has been a relatively recent fossil discovery of spine-like hairs along the tail of psittacosaurus. It was published in Nature and later on a more detailed examination in Naturwissenschaften [1]
-- BobBobtheBob 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of white space in the taxobox with the picture set to 250px. 200px only makes it a little smaller and streamlines the whole thing. As others are pretty heavily invested in this article I'm going to refrain from changing this myself. Just throwing it out there. :) Dinoguy2 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Brian0918 we have a great new picture for the taxobox, drawn by Rainer_Zenz from German Wikipedia. The original picture was moved into the text. Originally it was in the Description section, but I felt it better illustrated the tail bristles, plus there was need for an image down there. If anyone has other ideas, go ahead and implement them. Thank you! Sheep81 08:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to revert all my edits on that matter though, my stance on it isn't exactly strong, but I thought copyright issues would be more important to clear out on featured articles than on regular ones. Funkynusayri ( talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone might want to look at a new article " Endocranial morphology of psittacosaurs". Lejean2000 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Where does the 400 specimen figure come from? Xu and Norell 2006 reported over a thousand specimens in the Yixian Lujiatun beds alone! Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
According to this article I read, some paleontologists believe that this animal's quills aren't real, and that the animal died on a plant. Is there any information about this idea, or is it outdated? Star Hound For those who want to see the article, go here: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/blah-blah-feathered-ornithischians-yawn/ ( talk) 04:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Senter (2007) says that Psittacosaurus was an obligate biped, yet nearly every full-bodied reconstruction in this article has it walking on four legs. Edit pending? Albertonykus ( talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The article cited does not call the Psittacosaurus an "index fossil," instead, it uses two sets of index fossils (without Psittacosaurus in either set) and the first appearance datum and last appearance datum of Psittacosaurus and its field distribution to define a Pisttacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of East Asia, not "central Asia."
It is not an index fossil, but defines a biochron according to the citation. It is not Central Asian, it is an East Asian biochron. Also, the sediments are Lower Cretaceous, the time is Early Cretaceous.
This sentence should be changed to read:
"The abundance of this dinosaur in the fossil record has led to establishing the Psittacosaurus biochron for the Early Cretaceous of east Asia.
See 978-0231084833, pp. 168-170 and the cited source, Lucas, Spencer G. (2006). The Psittacosaurus biochron, Early Cretaceous of Asia. Cretaceous Research 27: 189–198.
I posted this also on the main page. There are many other problems with this article, but I don't have time to go into them.
-- 68.107.134.74 ( talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A special thanks to FunkMonk for making an important revision to this high-profile featured article, reflecting the new find that an adult specimen was added, literally glued, to a matrix of 34 juveniles, in an apparent attempt to give the appearance of parenting behavior in Psittacosaurus. The 2013 paper by Zhao, Benton, Xu, and Sander demonstrates not only that some scientists are inclined to engage in deception to make the evidence fit their narrative, but also that science, when employed in the pursuit of a provable truth, can be self-correcting. Our commitment here in Wikipedia to promulgate facts that are carefully referenced is exemplified by our friend FunkMonk, who edited this article on May 16th, just one day after the Zhao et al. paper became available online. I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge FunkMonk's outstanding efforts. Evangelos Giakoumatos ( talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is the abstract:
"Psittacosaurus is one of the most abundant and speciose genera in the Dinosauria, with fifteen named species. The genus is geographically and temporally widespread with large sample sizes of several of the nominal species allowing detailed analysis of intra- and interspecific variation. We present a reanalysis of three separate, coeval species within the Psittacosauridae; P. lujiatunensis, P. major, and Hongshanosaurus houi from the Lujiatun beds of the Yixian Formation, northeastern China, using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics on a sample set of thirty skulls in combination with a reevaluation of the proposed character states for each species. Using these complementary methods, we show that individual and taphonomic variation are the joint causes of a large range of variation among the skulls when they are plotted in a morphospace. Our results demonstrate that there is only one species of Psittacosaurus within the Lujiatun beds and that the three nominal species represent different taphomorphotypes of P. lujiatunensis. The wide range of geometric morphometric variation in a single species of Psittacosaurus implies that the range of variation found in other dinosaurian groups may also be related to taphonomic distortion rather than interspecific variation. As the morphospace is driven primarily by variation resulting from taphonomic distortion, this study demonstrates that the geometric morphometric approach can only be used with great caution to delineate interspecific variation in Psittacosaurus and likely other dinosaur groups without a complementary evaluation of character states. This study presents the first application of 3D geometric morphometrics to the dinosaurian morphospace and the first attempt to quantify taphonomic variation in dinosaur skulls."
link to study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069265 News: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8762/20130812/three-species-plant-eating-dinosaur-really-one.htm
We do not know if there is consensus regarding this. There was no consensus that Triceratops that Torosaurus were one and the same, and a study was published soon after disputing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinopediaR ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Citations need to be cleaned up, and as one example of how badly outdated the article is, this source says there are 1,000 specimens, while the article mentions 400. Is anyone able to restore this article to Featured standard to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone planning to work on this, or should we head to WP:FAR (which often entices people to dig in)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
There is one part that says "it has been suggested" but doesn't say who suggested it. There is also a mixture of American and British spelling. DrKay ( talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Do remove A 2016 study by Ji Qiang and colleagues was published in the Journal of Geology. Their conclusion was that these were actually highly modified scales because the morphology and anatomy did not resemble feathers ? Towccf ( talk) 05:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)