Talk:Dakotaraptor

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.

Scale Chart

So, I made the scale chart as currently displayed based on the scale bar in the skeletal. The total length comes out to over 7m, contradicting the paper's estimate of 5.5m. I believe the scale bar in the paper is too large. The tibia length is reported as 67cm but in the skeletal, compared with the scale bar, it appears to be more like 90cm long. Similarly, the ulna is reportedly 36cm but appears nearly half the length of the scale bar, bearing out the idea that the scale bar is 15-20cm too large. The result is that the size diagram in the paper is grossly over-sized. I'll revise my size diagram tomorrow scaled to reported tibia length. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I already found it peculiar that a dromaeosaurid 5.5 metres long would have had a head of one metre :o). And the human figure profiled next to it, would need to be a veritable giant.--MWAK (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, an unenlagiine that was nearly as long as Albertosaurus would have a metre-long skull...but this is a dromaeosaurine, not a unenlagiine. :p Raptormimus456 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Additions

The article has been expanded with text and images created, it seems, by the senior author of the describing article, Robert DePalma. While any contributions by professional paleontologists are, of course, in principle very welcome and we should feel honoured by Robert DePalma joining the ranks of the Wikipedians, in this case they pose two problems. In the first place, the added text expresses views and interpretations that clearly go beyond those stated in the original article. E.g. a comparison is made between Dakotaraptor and Acheroraptor that is wholly lacking in the published article, possibly in response to a blog by Andrea Cau, suggesting Acheroraptor were cospecific. Opinions or analysis that have not yet been published in some other source constitute a forbidden Original Research, see WP:OR. Secondly, any images, though badly needed of course, should be free of copyright. It can be very hard to determine this. There is among them a beautiful drawing by the hand of Robert DePalma himself. We are safe there. But some of the added images were used in the published article, which seems suspicious. I would like to ask Robert DePalma to carefully reconsider for each picture whether in relation to the other authors, or possible photographers employed by him, or institutions by which he is or was himself employed or cooperated with (especially those owning the fossil material depicted), or the publishing agency, he was indeed juridically entitled to give away most of its copyright to Wikipedia.--MWAK (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how CC works in this case. The images in the paper are NOT under a Wiki-usable license, but as with the illustration by Willoughby, if the artist in question chooses to also release them here under CC, I think we are OK. DePalma seems to be an artist himself and if he claims the figures are his own work and not the work of any other author or contributor, we can use them unless there is evidence that the work was improperly attributed. I have removed the section on Acheroraptor which is clearly OR and needs t be published before it is reinstated. (And frankly, the arguments presented were fairly weak IMO - adult body size seems to be highly variable in the avian stem group). Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions by DePalma also need to be copyedited for neutral style, removing portions about how "exciting" certain aspects are etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed mention of it being an "exceptional" size, rewording it to be less excited. I'll continue looking for things to clean up (and have already spotted one...) Raptormimus456 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "exceptional" was in the describing article, indeed in its diagnosis. I'll give text a full copy-edit.--MWAK (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for GA?

This article is currently listed as C class, which is certainly incorrect and is from when this article was probably less than a third the length it is now. I think, looking at other dinosaur articles passed as GA, this article, and the GA criteria, I think this article is more than good enough to become a GA. I've read through a fair amount on the GA process and criteria, but I've never done one or been involved in any way with one, so I'm not completely sure if this article could qualify, or if I'm myself allowed to do this, and if so how I go about doing it format wise and such, so I've made this first instead of going straight into nominating it. On one hand, I would certainly like to learn the process, on the other hand, perhaps someone else should do it instead. Or, if this article obviously fails before even entering nomination, then we could just end it here and make it a B. Lusotitan (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, it seems to be potentially a bit too unstable for that. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furcula a turtle shell?

A few days ago, someone edited the article to say that the furcula was actually a turtle shell. This was promptly reverted, but upon going over to the Theropoda blog it seems this is probably correct. However, other than Cau's blog post (and apparently comments), I'm not sure how much we could really get in terms of references. Not entirely sure what to do now, but the edit was no vandalism. Lusotitan (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Published on PeerJ and currently in review. [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should be a section on why Dakotaraptor was "predicted"

Most articles on this animal describe how paleontologists had long wondered where the mid-sized predator between the tyrannosaurids and the small jackal-like dinosaurs was in the North American fauna of the time. Dakotaraptor filled this niche perfectly. One of the SME's should write a few lines in the article about this, don't you think? 104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this niche was not predicted, and is not present in Late Cretaceous North American paleoenvironments. The Campanian and Maastrichtian is dominated by different forms of the same predator levels - a large tyrannosaurid and one or more small dromaeosaurids. The closest anything gets to a large intermediate predator is Latenivenatrix, which is half the size of "Dakotaraptor". This is why "Dakotaraptor" is so aberrant. BoneSharpe (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dakotaraptor was a part of Unenlagiinae

Sorry for edting before consulting, its a bad habit. A peer review study said that Dakotaraptor was part of Unenlagiinae. Do you agree with this?--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't. You can't just take a single phylogenetic tree and treat it as gospel. Showing that Dakotaraptor is an unenlagiine - a highly unusual result - would require multiple lines of evidence including but not limited to a detailed analysis of comparative morphology. In the phylogenetic analysis, it is only slightly less likely (three extra steps) for it to be a basal dromaeosaur. 2001:569:7CF0:9300:1506:60BB:14AE:71AB (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on Dakotaraptor being an unenlagiid because of saurolophine hadrosaurs and panoplosaurin nodosaurs being present in South America. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What characters are unenlagiine? Can they be interpreted otherwise (e.g. symplesiomorphies)? Or does the "Dakoptaraptor" material indeed contain unenlagiine remains? (I think it is almost certain now that it is a composite.) 2A02:908:4B33:BD80:0:0:0:984E (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because of the furcula belongs to a turtle so they made the statement of the genus being a chimera?

After I saw a online post saying that the furcula is a turtle's but the rest are dromaeosaur remains. so is it more likely that most internet saying that Dakotaraptor is a chimera only because the furcula belongs to a turtle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's a separate issue. The main page mentions "potential non-dromaeosaurid affinities" listed separate from the trionychid turtle elements, though it's frustratingly vague. As I understand it, the fossils ascribed to the holotype might be kind of a mess of parts in general. It seems to me that there's definitely a giant deinonychosaur somewhere in those fossils, but unfortunately Dakotaraptor will probably remain a controversial genus until we can reliably pick out the parts that actually belong to the holotype from the chimaeric elements (which, to my knowledge, has not yet been seriously attempted). 2001:1970:5063:DC00:0:0:0:9E05 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be scrutinized intensely now (in the wake of the Tanis fake-data scandal), and putting a warning header on the article should be in order. The least we can say now is that the burden of proof rests on those who consider "Dakotaraptor" to be a real animal instead of a chimera invented for the purpose of scientific fraud. A pity really, because as it seems a lot of highly interesting fossils that would have warranted study in their own individual right were apparently subsumed into a fabricated animal. 2A02:908:4B33:BD80:0:0:0:984E (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the fossils attributed to Dakotaraptor are chimeric, they cannot be considered the type specimen of a new genus, and therefore the name Dakotaraptor is not valid. There do appear to be at least a few fossils in the holotype that are, in fact, from a giant dromaeosaur, but since the holotype as a whole contains fossils of several species, it is incorrect to use Dakotaraptor as the name for that dinosaur. The dromaeosaur elements from the Dakotaraptor holotype will need to be re-described and possibly re-named. 68.71.166.188 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Cau now suggests none of the involved elements are dromaeosaurian:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cau talks about its chimeric nature again in this paper; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379902868_A_Unified_Framework_for_Predatory_Dinosaur_Macroevolution, suggesting many of the assigned bones come from ornithomimids and caenagnathids instead.

Attribution

Text and references copied from Dakotaraptor to Big John (dinosaur), See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]