![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Prehistoricplanes persists in changing the rank in templates like Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda. Since such changes can affect many article's taxoboxes, I have reverted and asked them to seek consensus here, but they just keep on. As I'm in danger of being accused of edit warring, please could others look at this? Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently article " 2020 in archosaur paleontology" was proposed for deletion. Please join the discussion. I know, this article not only about dinosaurs, but it highly related with this topic. Maksim Dolgun ( talk) 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There has recently been a bit of an argument going on about how early to clarify that birds are dinosaurs on Bird. I feel that the two concepts are so important that they should be linked within the first paragraph of the introduction, as occurs on Dinosaur. Several of the Bird Wikiproject people disagree and want to wait until the second paragraph, and even then only if we clarify that birds are dinosaurs in a strictly cladistic sense. I disagree with this greatly as it serves to confuse the general public, which in general are unfamiliar with the concept of cladistics. I wanted to inform you all of this development in the hopes that someone could offer a better rationale than I could. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Paper is here (Open access and images can be uploaded to commons. An exciting discovery, less exciting than Asfaltovenator though as it's pretty scrappy by comparison. Does someone want to make a size comparison? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion beginning with the taxon Yunyangosaurus on the DML has found that no dinosaurs first described in Scientific Reports except for Shishugounykus have been properly registered in ZooBank. Probably has no bearing on the articles for these taxa yet, but whatever taxonomic acts arise from this will be worth mentioning. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Paper is here, from Campanian of Canada, known from parts of skull, closest relative of Daspletosaurus. Given this is a tyrannosaur I expect the article will be fairly substantial once created. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
With this paper on Nanotyrannus as juvenile Tyrannosaurus just out [1], I think it's a good time to discuss our stance on maintaining separate articles for possible ontogenetic synonyms (contra to the proposal in this edit summary [2]). I'm for erring on the side of caution by keeping them separate - in addition to the relative uncertainty in these proposals, taxa like Nanotyrannus, Stygimoloch, and Dracorex do have some degree of historical significance. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Over the days following the release of the new Woodward et al. paper on Tyrannosaurus rex ontogeny that rejected the validity of Nanotyrannus, I witnessed a growing concern by people in the online palaeoart community to update Nano's article, and add in more arguments in favour of it being a separate genus to make the article "less biased". Shortly after looking at the article myself, I started sharing this concern as well. But then I did a little digging into the actual scientific publications cited on the page, as well as some other, formal discussions, and noticed that most palaeontologists (as well as professional natural history illustrators and palaeoartists) agree that it is a dubious and probably invalid taxon likely representing T.rex juveniles. This has led me to think more closely about these "Phantom controversies", which seem to be a common phenomenon among online palaeoartists, most often originating from sites like Instagram or DeviantArt. As some examples (I'm more familiar with research on spinosaurids so I noticed these more readily), if you were to go off the claims in discussions on either of the aforementioned sites, you'd get the impression that most palaeontologists now agree Ichthyovenator's sail shape represents a taphonomic distorsion/breakage of the bones or a pathology. And also that Oxalaia is highly debated by researchers as to whether or not it simply represents a smaller, Brazilian species of Spinosaurus called "Spinosaurus quilombensis". When in fact, neither of these alledged debates show up anywhere in the actual body of published and peer-reviewed research, however, lots of people seem convinced they do, and it seems to be affecting Wikipedia articles now as well. The same appears to apply to the case of Nanotyrannus, as after the Woodward paper came out, a few self-proclaimed "NanoGang" members started editing its article to shift the focus more in favour of its proposed validity. At least (in regards to Nanotyrannus) these are the impressions I've gotten from the little investigating that I've done. However, I'm still wildly unfamiliar with that particular taxon and T.rex's history as a whole. So anyone's free to let me know if I'm getting something wrong here; is Nanotyrannus really that controversial and does its article have any sort of bias/lack of research that needs improvement? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
José Bonaparte (14 June 1928 – 18 February 2020) essentially founded dinosaur paleontology in Argentina during the Mid-Late 20th century and is easily the greatest argentine paleontologist since Florentino Ameghino. The article is quite lacking though, can a collaborative effort be made to expand it? The news is in spanish here but I can't access it due to GDPR. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Tralkasaurus has been described, paper is here, as usual Atlantis536 has written a barren two sentence stub that barely any better than having no article at all. Does someone want to take a shot at expanding it a bit? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the longest known foot claw among all theropods that lived during the Cretaceous period.
Speed estimates have suggested 28 km per hour, making this the fastest dinosauriform known from the fossil record.
Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
-- Yewtharaptor ( talk) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Macronaria currently reads
This was the result of vandalism on 23 January 2020 by 167.98.94.147
(May be a school account, has been warned several times - [12] )
I tried to fix this and user JavaHurricane reverted my edit.
I think that both of us might have gotten this fix wrong, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR,
so therefore I'm asking the folks here to take a look at it.
Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The oldest crown group bird Asteriornis has been described from the Maastricht Formation, consisting of a mostly complete skull and some limb bones. Paper is here, not open access unfortunately, but definitely worth an article. Albertonykus is a co-author on the paper, so congratulations are in order. Hemiauchenia, trapped in Cyprus because of the Coronavirus. 185.230.112.252 ( talk) 16:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
A new paper on a bizarre skull in Burmese amber was published in Nature recently. The paper interprets the fossil as a basal avialan. However, they only put the fossil in a bird matrix, which created a huge polytomy and other researchers believe based on anatomical features that the fossil is a misidentified lepidosaur, based on the spike like coronary process on the dentary and "the scleral ring is very large and is formed by elongated spoon-shaped ossicles; a morphology similar to this is otherwise known only in lizards" (literal quote from the paper). While none of this is published in WP:RS yet I would expect a response paper soon. If it is a lepidosaur through it's still an unusual and spectacular find. This is Hemiauchena but I can't log into my account at the moment. 185.230.112.252 ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oculudentavis is on the front page! Of course, there's the inevitable discourse about the wording of the blurb, including its dinosaurian affinities: [13] Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently The Theropod Database is the only website that seems to mention it after its description. The definition is Compsognathidae+Maniraptoriformes. The website says it isn't synonymous with Maniraptoromorpha as it shows compsognathids are non-maniraptoriform maniraptoromorphs and that Ornitholestes is a non-neocoelurosaur. I wonder if we have to edit a few pages to fit these new findings?
Hendrickx, Mateus, Araújo and Choiniere, 2019. The distribution of dental features in non-avian theropod dinosaurs: Taxonomic potential, degree of homoplasy, and major evolutionary trends. Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.74, 1-110.
https://www.theropoddatabase.com/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html
Atlantis536 ( talk) 03:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've recently reverted several changes to dinosaur articles by the IP editor 2001:2D8:E20A:1F92:F7FB:C5A2:ADAC:ED09. From what I can tell virtually all of the changes are unsupported by sources, but some of them may be genuine I suppose. I've started blanket reverting these changes, but this is not an area that I spend much of my time. Mikenorton ( talk) 09:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I was recently thinking about "Zanclodon" cambriensis otherwise known as Newtonsaurus (which there are some spectacular photographs of), and It got me thinking, what's the difference between "Zanclodon" cambriensis and other nomen dubium articles like "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis or "Megalosaurus" dunkeri?. While "Z". cambriensis has been given an informal name, it has and is regularly referred to by its formal (dubious) name, which should put it in the same class as the latter articles. There are also other taxa like Siamosaurus which I would consider nomina dubia as they aren't diagnostic. I was wondering what other contributors thought about this, as there doesn't appear to be a clear answer either way. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, in order for a specimen to be placed onto the List of informally named dinosaurs does it need to have been given an informal taxonomic name like "Ronaldoraptor" etc? As I was thinking about adding an entry for the "Barnes High Sauropod". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Since we already have taxa in correct order with Template:Automatic taxobox, can we use this info to create something like {{Automatic cladogram}}? The idea is you put two parameters, name and depth and it would automatically draw a cladogram for you. For example: {{Automatic cladogram|Dinosauria|2}} would create a cladogram with Dinosaur as parent and two taxon ranks below. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Category:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for merging with Category:Dinosaurs in popular culture. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss and reflect on the 2014 Spinosaurus controversy, 5 and a half years on. It's amazing to me it was over 5 years ago now, time really flies doesn't it. I'm sure all of you remember in 2014 when Sereno and Ibrahim published their new Spinosaurus reconstruction with short legs, and the controversy that followed it. To me the big problem with it wasn't that the paper was a speculative reconstruction, it was that there was the Predator X and Ida/ Darwinius style PR blitz with National Geographic, which made the paper seem like a much more definitive interpretation than it actually was. You can see how the 2014 "correct" reconstruction has almost completely displaced the old reconstruction in paleontology related media, with most casual dinosaur enthusiasts assuming it is the "correct" one and the controversy is settled, despite that in the literature that is clearly not the case. I ended up speaking to one of the co-authors of the 2018 study at ProgPal 2019. Part of the issue is that for the most part that associated skeletons in the Kem Kem are extremely rare, so many estimates are made on the proportions of single bones. In retrospect I think Hartman's decision to debate proportions of the bones based on photos was a mistake, we all know that drawing stuff based on viewing the bones in images, particularly at an angle skews the measurements, and you really need to be there in person to appreciate the 3d nature of bones, drawing solely of images leads to the same kinds of systematic errors Dave Peters makes. Also afaik the promised monograph still hasn't been published unless someone wants to correct me.I personally would like to see Spinosaurus gotten to GA or even FA at some point, and much of the Spinosaurus article hinges around this controversy, so I thought it would be worthwhile having this discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For the next WikiProject Dinosaurs/Palaeontology collaboration, I think it might be nice if we could get all articles related to the Kem Kem Group to GA/FA, making it a good/featured topic! It'd be a pretty sustained effort - there's a lot of information and history in both this monograph and other sources for these articles. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 19:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The newly discovered Spinosaurus tail seems to pretty conclusively confirm that Spinosaurus is indeed semi aquatic, but this was the kind of unambiguous evidence that should have been presented initially in order to justify the PR blitz. The fact that the tail also occurs in Ichthyovenator (per pers comm from Allain to PGS, 2020) and the fact that the tails are largely unknown in Suchomimus and Baryonyx means that there is much left to be said about the morphology and ecology of the group. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
[Moved from being incorrectly placed at WP:DINOART.]
Don't know if this is more appropriate at WP:PALAEO, but the problem is most severe for dinosaurs. A lot of low-quality content has been inserted into taxon listings on the older "years in palaeontology" pages, including nonsensical etymologies and nicknames: e.g. [24] I feel like some cleanup would be useful. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
A new paper by Alexey V. Lopatin and Alexander O. Averianov was recently published in Paleontological Journal - so far only in the Russian version, but English translations of articles from this journal usually come out within a couple of weeks after Russian versions. The title seems to indicate that the authors consider Riabininohadros to be a valid genus. However, it's not clear whether Lopatin and Averianov accept it as validly named by Ulansky in 2015, or name it themselves. Could someone with an access to the article clarify this?-- 188.146.231.232 ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Prehistoricplanes persists in changing the rank in templates like Template:Taxonomy/Theropoda. Since such changes can affect many article's taxoboxes, I have reverted and asked them to seek consensus here, but they just keep on. As I'm in danger of being accused of edit warring, please could others look at this? Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently article " 2020 in archosaur paleontology" was proposed for deletion. Please join the discussion. I know, this article not only about dinosaurs, but it highly related with this topic. Maksim Dolgun ( talk) 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There has recently been a bit of an argument going on about how early to clarify that birds are dinosaurs on Bird. I feel that the two concepts are so important that they should be linked within the first paragraph of the introduction, as occurs on Dinosaur. Several of the Bird Wikiproject people disagree and want to wait until the second paragraph, and even then only if we clarify that birds are dinosaurs in a strictly cladistic sense. I disagree with this greatly as it serves to confuse the general public, which in general are unfamiliar with the concept of cladistics. I wanted to inform you all of this development in the hopes that someone could offer a better rationale than I could. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Paper is here (Open access and images can be uploaded to commons. An exciting discovery, less exciting than Asfaltovenator though as it's pretty scrappy by comparison. Does someone want to make a size comparison? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion beginning with the taxon Yunyangosaurus on the DML has found that no dinosaurs first described in Scientific Reports except for Shishugounykus have been properly registered in ZooBank. Probably has no bearing on the articles for these taxa yet, but whatever taxonomic acts arise from this will be worth mentioning. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Paper is here, from Campanian of Canada, known from parts of skull, closest relative of Daspletosaurus. Given this is a tyrannosaur I expect the article will be fairly substantial once created. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
With this paper on Nanotyrannus as juvenile Tyrannosaurus just out [1], I think it's a good time to discuss our stance on maintaining separate articles for possible ontogenetic synonyms (contra to the proposal in this edit summary [2]). I'm for erring on the side of caution by keeping them separate - in addition to the relative uncertainty in these proposals, taxa like Nanotyrannus, Stygimoloch, and Dracorex do have some degree of historical significance. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Over the days following the release of the new Woodward et al. paper on Tyrannosaurus rex ontogeny that rejected the validity of Nanotyrannus, I witnessed a growing concern by people in the online palaeoart community to update Nano's article, and add in more arguments in favour of it being a separate genus to make the article "less biased". Shortly after looking at the article myself, I started sharing this concern as well. But then I did a little digging into the actual scientific publications cited on the page, as well as some other, formal discussions, and noticed that most palaeontologists (as well as professional natural history illustrators and palaeoartists) agree that it is a dubious and probably invalid taxon likely representing T.rex juveniles. This has led me to think more closely about these "Phantom controversies", which seem to be a common phenomenon among online palaeoartists, most often originating from sites like Instagram or DeviantArt. As some examples (I'm more familiar with research on spinosaurids so I noticed these more readily), if you were to go off the claims in discussions on either of the aforementioned sites, you'd get the impression that most palaeontologists now agree Ichthyovenator's sail shape represents a taphonomic distorsion/breakage of the bones or a pathology. And also that Oxalaia is highly debated by researchers as to whether or not it simply represents a smaller, Brazilian species of Spinosaurus called "Spinosaurus quilombensis". When in fact, neither of these alledged debates show up anywhere in the actual body of published and peer-reviewed research, however, lots of people seem convinced they do, and it seems to be affecting Wikipedia articles now as well. The same appears to apply to the case of Nanotyrannus, as after the Woodward paper came out, a few self-proclaimed "NanoGang" members started editing its article to shift the focus more in favour of its proposed validity. At least (in regards to Nanotyrannus) these are the impressions I've gotten from the little investigating that I've done. However, I'm still wildly unfamiliar with that particular taxon and T.rex's history as a whole. So anyone's free to let me know if I'm getting something wrong here; is Nanotyrannus really that controversial and does its article have any sort of bias/lack of research that needs improvement? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
José Bonaparte (14 June 1928 – 18 February 2020) essentially founded dinosaur paleontology in Argentina during the Mid-Late 20th century and is easily the greatest argentine paleontologist since Florentino Ameghino. The article is quite lacking though, can a collaborative effort be made to expand it? The news is in spanish here but I can't access it due to GDPR. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Tralkasaurus has been described, paper is here, as usual Atlantis536 has written a barren two sentence stub that barely any better than having no article at all. Does someone want to take a shot at expanding it a bit? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the longest known foot claw among all theropods that lived during the Cretaceous period.
Speed estimates have suggested 28 km per hour, making this the fastest dinosauriform known from the fossil record.
Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
-- Yewtharaptor ( talk) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Macronaria currently reads
This was the result of vandalism on 23 January 2020 by 167.98.94.147
(May be a school account, has been warned several times - [12] )
I tried to fix this and user JavaHurricane reverted my edit.
I think that both of us might have gotten this fix wrong, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR,
so therefore I'm asking the folks here to take a look at it.
Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The oldest crown group bird Asteriornis has been described from the Maastricht Formation, consisting of a mostly complete skull and some limb bones. Paper is here, not open access unfortunately, but definitely worth an article. Albertonykus is a co-author on the paper, so congratulations are in order. Hemiauchenia, trapped in Cyprus because of the Coronavirus. 185.230.112.252 ( talk) 16:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
A new paper on a bizarre skull in Burmese amber was published in Nature recently. The paper interprets the fossil as a basal avialan. However, they only put the fossil in a bird matrix, which created a huge polytomy and other researchers believe based on anatomical features that the fossil is a misidentified lepidosaur, based on the spike like coronary process on the dentary and "the scleral ring is very large and is formed by elongated spoon-shaped ossicles; a morphology similar to this is otherwise known only in lizards" (literal quote from the paper). While none of this is published in WP:RS yet I would expect a response paper soon. If it is a lepidosaur through it's still an unusual and spectacular find. This is Hemiauchena but I can't log into my account at the moment. 185.230.112.252 ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oculudentavis is on the front page! Of course, there's the inevitable discourse about the wording of the blurb, including its dinosaurian affinities: [13] Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently The Theropod Database is the only website that seems to mention it after its description. The definition is Compsognathidae+Maniraptoriformes. The website says it isn't synonymous with Maniraptoromorpha as it shows compsognathids are non-maniraptoriform maniraptoromorphs and that Ornitholestes is a non-neocoelurosaur. I wonder if we have to edit a few pages to fit these new findings?
Hendrickx, Mateus, Araújo and Choiniere, 2019. The distribution of dental features in non-avian theropod dinosaurs: Taxonomic potential, degree of homoplasy, and major evolutionary trends. Palaeontologia Electronica. 22.3.74, 1-110.
https://www.theropoddatabase.com/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html
Atlantis536 ( talk) 03:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've recently reverted several changes to dinosaur articles by the IP editor 2001:2D8:E20A:1F92:F7FB:C5A2:ADAC:ED09. From what I can tell virtually all of the changes are unsupported by sources, but some of them may be genuine I suppose. I've started blanket reverting these changes, but this is not an area that I spend much of my time. Mikenorton ( talk) 09:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I was recently thinking about "Zanclodon" cambriensis otherwise known as Newtonsaurus (which there are some spectacular photographs of), and It got me thinking, what's the difference between "Zanclodon" cambriensis and other nomen dubium articles like "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis or "Megalosaurus" dunkeri?. While "Z". cambriensis has been given an informal name, it has and is regularly referred to by its formal (dubious) name, which should put it in the same class as the latter articles. There are also other taxa like Siamosaurus which I would consider nomina dubia as they aren't diagnostic. I was wondering what other contributors thought about this, as there doesn't appear to be a clear answer either way. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, in order for a specimen to be placed onto the List of informally named dinosaurs does it need to have been given an informal taxonomic name like "Ronaldoraptor" etc? As I was thinking about adding an entry for the "Barnes High Sauropod". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Since we already have taxa in correct order with Template:Automatic taxobox, can we use this info to create something like {{Automatic cladogram}}? The idea is you put two parameters, name and depth and it would automatically draw a cladogram for you. For example: {{Automatic cladogram|Dinosauria|2}} would create a cladogram with Dinosaur as parent and two taxon ranks below. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Category:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for merging with Category:Dinosaurs in popular culture. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss and reflect on the 2014 Spinosaurus controversy, 5 and a half years on. It's amazing to me it was over 5 years ago now, time really flies doesn't it. I'm sure all of you remember in 2014 when Sereno and Ibrahim published their new Spinosaurus reconstruction with short legs, and the controversy that followed it. To me the big problem with it wasn't that the paper was a speculative reconstruction, it was that there was the Predator X and Ida/ Darwinius style PR blitz with National Geographic, which made the paper seem like a much more definitive interpretation than it actually was. You can see how the 2014 "correct" reconstruction has almost completely displaced the old reconstruction in paleontology related media, with most casual dinosaur enthusiasts assuming it is the "correct" one and the controversy is settled, despite that in the literature that is clearly not the case. I ended up speaking to one of the co-authors of the 2018 study at ProgPal 2019. Part of the issue is that for the most part that associated skeletons in the Kem Kem are extremely rare, so many estimates are made on the proportions of single bones. In retrospect I think Hartman's decision to debate proportions of the bones based on photos was a mistake, we all know that drawing stuff based on viewing the bones in images, particularly at an angle skews the measurements, and you really need to be there in person to appreciate the 3d nature of bones, drawing solely of images leads to the same kinds of systematic errors Dave Peters makes. Also afaik the promised monograph still hasn't been published unless someone wants to correct me.I personally would like to see Spinosaurus gotten to GA or even FA at some point, and much of the Spinosaurus article hinges around this controversy, so I thought it would be worthwhile having this discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For the next WikiProject Dinosaurs/Palaeontology collaboration, I think it might be nice if we could get all articles related to the Kem Kem Group to GA/FA, making it a good/featured topic! It'd be a pretty sustained effort - there's a lot of information and history in both this monograph and other sources for these articles. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 19:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The newly discovered Spinosaurus tail seems to pretty conclusively confirm that Spinosaurus is indeed semi aquatic, but this was the kind of unambiguous evidence that should have been presented initially in order to justify the PR blitz. The fact that the tail also occurs in Ichthyovenator (per pers comm from Allain to PGS, 2020) and the fact that the tails are largely unknown in Suchomimus and Baryonyx means that there is much left to be said about the morphology and ecology of the group. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
[Moved from being incorrectly placed at WP:DINOART.]
Don't know if this is more appropriate at WP:PALAEO, but the problem is most severe for dinosaurs. A lot of low-quality content has been inserted into taxon listings on the older "years in palaeontology" pages, including nonsensical etymologies and nicknames: e.g. [24] I feel like some cleanup would be useful. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
A new paper by Alexey V. Lopatin and Alexander O. Averianov was recently published in Paleontological Journal - so far only in the Russian version, but English translations of articles from this journal usually come out within a couple of weeks after Russian versions. The title seems to indicate that the authors consider Riabininohadros to be a valid genus. However, it's not clear whether Lopatin and Averianov accept it as validly named by Ulansky in 2015, or name it themselves. Could someone with an access to the article clarify this?-- 188.146.231.232 ( talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)