Talk:Avimimus

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not toothless?

The Theropod Database reports that the Watabe et al. paper "New nearly complete skeleton of the bird-like theropod, Avimimus, from the Upper Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert, Mongolia" shows that Avimimus actually had some small premaxillary teeth, not toothless as currently described in the article. Haven't been able to find this paper on the web though, not even a final abstract. Albertonykus (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innnteresting... guess that makes it's relationship with basal ovis rather than caenagnathids more likely. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or not! Albertonykus (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon box image

Currently, I am wondering whether the skull image should or should not be in the taxon box. I think that having it in there, when the only known pieces of the skull are from the rear, and are not plentiful, is misleading making readers assume that much more material is known. Originally, I replaced it with MMartyniuk's illustration, but now I think Headden's skeletal would be a better replacement. Thoughts? IJReid (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute, the skeletal is fine as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's another skull specimen which is more complete. It's just not the specimen illustrated in that skeletal. Here's a reconstruction of the other skull: [1]. We'll know more about it if that avimimid bonebed is ever described. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a skeletal reconstruction based on the new material:[2] Not sure how much of it is known, though, seems like it is only the front of the jaws that are new in the skull... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the skull anterior to the orbit is known, so now we need to fix the illustrations and such, and the skeletons are probably outdated. IJReid ^discuss 14:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the skull in the taxobox image is (luckily) too dark and unclear to show whether it is wrong or not, but the skull only reconstruction is probably off... Maybe Dinoguy2 wants to fix his restoration? The one by Conty has some other issues as well... I think the skeletal diagram just needs its outline fix, and then we can say it only shows specimens known by 2009 or so... Not sure why the hands are so small in the new skeletal, no hand bones seem to be figured in the new paper? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avimimus images

I find myself worried that many of our images may depict a chimaeric composite of A. portentosus and A. nemegtensis... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nemegtensis is based on pretty new material, isn't it? I think most of our images predate the discovery/description of those fossils (I think they were only reported and figured in 2016)... But yeah, seems that bone-bed was discovered in 2006, so some info may have trickled out and found its way to new restorations. But even if we do assume that the missing elements in our portentosus reconstructions were filled in with what's known from nemegtensis, that would just be in line with phylogenetic bracketing... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think for the skull it's a little more problematic, where elements from both species overlap extensively (and bear some notable differences). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Dinoguy2's image and Jamie Headden's skeletal show specimen numbers on the description pages or in the image itself, so they can at least be cross-checked with the new paper. The skeleton in the taxobox could maybe incorporate parts from both species (or maybe it's even based on what later became nemegtensis), but the skull isn't very visible there... FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, they appear to be based on PIN, not MPC-D... I guess they are good. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This skull[3] image could be chimaeric maybe? Seems Headden used fossils from both institutions, or am I reading the caption wrong? Maybe it only shows the new species. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that one only incorporates material of A. nemegtensis, not A. portenosus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, added, and also noted species in all captions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]