This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once more information on Falcarius utahensis and Nothronychus is available, we may be able to add more family tree information. We might also be able to be more accurate in comparing the specimans, as it sounds like Falcarius may be slightly larger and Nothronychus larger still. Comments welcome. WBardwin 10:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
-- MWAK 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering if someone had a better translation of Beipiaosaurus than "Beipiao reptile". Fairly silly to translate it as that, since it's like translating Tyrannosaurus as "Tyranno reptile".
My own guess is that has something to do with it's spine, but without any further info I can't really do much. Hopefully someone else knows.
I agree I don't understand why, all of a sudden "saurus" means reptile. I know that lizard isn't accurate, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't mean what it means. (I don't have an account... yet a least)
Beipiaosaurus means "Beipiao lizard", not "Beipiao dragon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.67.61 ( talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"Writing in PNAS journal ... Xing Xu, a palaeontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. [writes that] The structures found on the fossils appear to be early feathers, based on their simple form.
[This feather] type was previously unknown to science: it is a single, unbranched filament which is much longer than those seen before on theropod dinosaurs.
The researchers named these Elongated Broad Filamentous Feathers (EBFFs), because of their unique shape."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7825364.stm
-- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that the picture at the top right of the article (in that box with all the information) is very good quality. I think that there are much better pictures... but I don't know how to change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 ( talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (I don't have an account... yet a least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 ( talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beipiaosaurus. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that Beipiaosaurus had a toothless beak, however, it's not cited and the literature I have read doesn't specifically mention whether it does or not. Some skeletal reconstructions like the Jamie Headden one in the article show it with a beak and others by GSPs show small teeth going to the tip of the snout. I can't find Hi-Res images to help answer the question. Have I missed something or does anyone know of any literature that mentions if there is evidence of a beak or not? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once more information on Falcarius utahensis and Nothronychus is available, we may be able to add more family tree information. We might also be able to be more accurate in comparing the specimans, as it sounds like Falcarius may be slightly larger and Nothronychus larger still. Comments welcome. WBardwin 10:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
-- MWAK 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering if someone had a better translation of Beipiaosaurus than "Beipiao reptile". Fairly silly to translate it as that, since it's like translating Tyrannosaurus as "Tyranno reptile".
My own guess is that has something to do with it's spine, but without any further info I can't really do much. Hopefully someone else knows.
I agree I don't understand why, all of a sudden "saurus" means reptile. I know that lizard isn't accurate, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't mean what it means. (I don't have an account... yet a least)
Beipiaosaurus means "Beipiao lizard", not "Beipiao dragon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.67.61 ( talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"Writing in PNAS journal ... Xing Xu, a palaeontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. [writes that] The structures found on the fossils appear to be early feathers, based on their simple form.
[This feather] type was previously unknown to science: it is a single, unbranched filament which is much longer than those seen before on theropod dinosaurs.
The researchers named these Elongated Broad Filamentous Feathers (EBFFs), because of their unique shape."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7825364.stm
-- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that the picture at the top right of the article (in that box with all the information) is very good quality. I think that there are much better pictures... but I don't know how to change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 ( talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (I don't have an account... yet a least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.243.86 ( talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beipiaosaurus. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that Beipiaosaurus had a toothless beak, however, it's not cited and the literature I have read doesn't specifically mention whether it does or not. Some skeletal reconstructions like the Jamie Headden one in the article show it with a beak and others by GSPs show small teeth going to the tip of the snout. I can't find Hi-Res images to help answer the question. Have I missed something or does anyone know of any literature that mentions if there is evidence of a beak or not? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)