Jump to content

Talk:Parasaurolophus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Redundancy

The line "Fossils of Parasaurolophus have been found across North America, as well as in Canada, where a complete skeleton was found." seems to indicate that Canada is not in North America. I'm not sure if the person who wrote that meant Northern United States and Canada, but as it stands it is just redundant. I'll try to change it. You can hear what this dinosaur may have looked like here: http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/sci_parasaur.html

But I don't know how to wikify the information. :)

Image taxobox

Old Parasaurolophus
Suggestion new Parasaurolophus


Is it ok if I would replace the image in the taxobox by a new one? The old sketch has some anatomical inaccuracies, for example the shape and thickness of the tail. Cheers, Tbc2 15:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. The new one is much better.Dinoguy2 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Aww I like the old ones better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Apparently not, according to Greg Paul; the three load-bearing fingers were united in a single fleshy unit. J. Spencer (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it, although the lambeo illustrations would be easier to fix than the Parasaurolophus (erasing the lines between fingers [and adding the free outer finger to the taxobox image] versus a complete redo of the hand). J. Spencer (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. J. Spencer (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@Lusotitan: So, ya told me to revive the talk page. What issues have there been over the taxobox image(of the FMNH mount)?(besides the stuff up above.) Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I made a comment on this at the end of the section "Potential Article Redo". But it boils down to that the old image showed the skull better (in profile, not from slightly behind), which is after all the most recognisable feature of the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus

The photograph in the artical shows a parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus and calls it a female p. Walkeri Has it been proven that parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus is acually a female. If so maybe it could be mentionted in the artical. thanks Steveoc 86 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems this idea has been published and should be discussed in the text, though I can't find a cite. It's not open and shut, however, so it's probably best to change the caption. Dinoguy2 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks, i found this paper 'Dodson, P., 1975, Taxonomic implications of relative growth in lambeosaurine hadrosaurs. Systematic Zoology v. 24, p. 37-54.' I can only find an extract but apparently it talks about parasaurolophus. The abstract doesn't mention parasaurolphus only Lambeosaurus and corythosaurus. Steveoc 86 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article can be found under the Nov. 22 readings at this site. If that's not working, I can send it by email. J. Spencer 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it doesn't talk about parasaurolophus sadly. Maybe the corythosaurus artical could talk about this. Pad out the artical a bit. The Lambeosaurus artical talks about this but doesn't have a reference, maybe a refernce to the paper could be put in. ThanksSteveoc 86 09:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I came to this article in the forlorn hope that it would give some clue about pronunciation. I've heard two different stabs at it: ˌpærəsəˈrɑləfəs and ˌpærəˌsɔrəˈlofəs, that is, either a pair of dactyls or three trochees. (I've also heard, once, a variant of the trochaic pronunciation that put primary stress on "saur".) Is there any authority to appeal to here? ACW 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. A Google search on "Parasaurolophus"+"pronounced" appears to give various different pronunciations, none of which appear to be in IPA (which I don't know anyway). This site has a wav file. Lambert (1993) offers "par-a-SORE-a-LOAF-us", and that's the pronunciation I've been using ever since. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are no standard pronunciations for dinosaur names, unfortunately. I know many people who try to stick to the pronunciation of the root words from Greek, Latin, whatever, though these usually result in... unorthodox pronunciations, like "SOUR-oos" for saurus. Others follow pronunciation by the original author, if available. But I've seen both "para-SORE-a-LOAF-us" and "para-saur-OLOPH-us" in equal proportion. I've laways used the later. I remember Ostrom had a particularly odd sounding pronunciation of Deinonychus, but I can't remember what it was (I used to say "dein-o-NIK-us", but switched to "dein-ON-ick-us" at some point for a reason I forget...). Dinoguy2 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Back when I went through my dinosaur phase, I always said it pah-ruh-sore-oh-luh-phus. Just a note. PS: Parasaurolophus are sweet.
Gawd - agree there is no correct way to pronunciate them as they are all miles off ancient greek and latin anyway (though my ability at those is very rusty indeed). I always said "Parasor-OL-ofus", and "DeiNONikus"....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How to pronounce Parasaurolophus: PAR-ah-saw-RAH-loh-fuss

Errors?

This sentence " In the verterbrate there was a cut where the horn would hit the back, this prevented the horn from hitting the back." not only makes it sound like some parasaurolophi are not vertebrates, but makes a redundancy saying that "where the horn hits the back it doesn't hit the back" and .. also, what kind of cut? I don't see a cut either in the horn or the spine. Oh, and how exactly is Ducky "identified as a parasaurolophus" when they just call them duckbills? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

isn't that cut in the spine a pathological condition, both GSP's and Scott Hartmans skeletal drawing don't show this. Hartman's even staits that he has corrected it.Steveoc 86 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello I am pianoloverizme. I want to ask you if you will please allow me to have a theroy label in you artical because it is one just like creation is a theroy not one can be proven scientifically. And sorry for the "editing war" Pianoloverizme 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pianoloverizme,
Thank you for writing here instead of reverting to your version of the article. "Theory" is spelled with the O before the R. We also do not add multiple exclamation marks in Wikipedia articles, as they do not help present material in an encyclopedic tone. I do also recommend that you run a spell checker on your contributions before submitting them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all submissions should be properly spelled, to the best of each editor's ability. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep that in mind next time. I am new to this Wikipedia thing. Pianoloverizme 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Pianoloverizme. I don't quite understand the rationale behind your request: are you saying that radiometric dating is the same kind of theory that creation science is, and that neither can be proven scientifically? Also, why Parasaurolophus? J. Spencer 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They be proven by scientific fact. You say that radiometric dating is all at the same rate. But how in the world do you know that? Have you watched a rock since it was created and had a control? You have to have a control to make it scientific. You don't know if the "year" you have now could be a day or a week there is no scientific proof. And yes I do say the Creation has no scientific fact. You must have faith. But you must also have faith in evolution and raiometric dating. You didn't see it and you have no control. FAITH! Pianoloverizme 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that it is puzzling that this would be brought up here, at the Parasaurolophus article. I haven't seen any papers where the age of (specifically) Parasaurolophus is in dispute. Wikipedia's policy is that any material that is challenged r likely to be challenged needs a citation from a reliable source. WikiProject Dinosaurs guidelines state that for material to be included, it should come from a reputable source, preferrably a peer-reviewed journal or book. Do you have a citation, Pianoloverizme, for an assertion that the age of the genus Parasaurolophus is in dispute? It would need to be mentioned specifically by name to be included in this article, because this article is about Parasaurolophus. The citation would also preferrably be from a peer-reviewed journal or book. If the citation is not specifically about this dinosaur, I would recommend placing it in the article the source covers. Does this help? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was looking up Parasaurolophus from different sources and comparing information when I found a phrase that offended me and my beliefs. I'm sure other people have been offended as well. To make the article more useful for everyone you could show both sides. Thank you. Pianoloverizme 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how beliefs (which are concepts) can be "offended" (which is an emotion felt only by animate objects), but if you were offended by the claims of this article, you can fix that by providing us with a reliable source which states that the age of (specifically) Parasaurolophus is in dispute. Post a link here to the peer-reviewed journal which gives a different age for Parasaurolophus, so that we can add it somewhere into the article. Everything added to Wikipedia should have a source to back up the claim. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well every thing in Wikipedia should be neutral to opinion or pov I read in the second benchmark or what ever it was that you sent me. Here you are showing one side. If you have to say that some believe that it could be only 6,000 years old Pianoloverizme 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Offending beliefs" is a really bad reason to change an article. Just think about it for a second; there are over six billion people in the world, with an equal number of points of view. These articles are intended to be compilations of reliable material, not catalogs of beliefs or faith positions. Therefore, only obviously true information (like size and shape), and information that has been tested (like what the closest known relatives of Parasaurolophus are, what likely functions of its crest were, and the approximate age of the rocks that it was buried in), with proper citations where necessary, should be included. The age is quite testable; I can use argon-argon dates from the numerous bentonite layers in the Dinosaur Park Formation, and if I want to cross-check, I can look for granitic intrusions in the nearby area that occurred at about the same time based on the Law of Superposition and Principle of cross-cutting relationships, and extract zircons from them for uranium-lead methods (of which there are two). Half-lives are well-established as exponential and constant (in that the decay constant of a particular isotope does not change) from decades of work in nuclear physics (and those nuclear physicists must be doing something right given the presence of functioning nuclear powerplants, submarines, space probes, and weapons), and so one does not need to observe for millions of years to get an accurate number.
Additionally, "show both sides" is a misnomer, as there are not two sides, but science, which relies on observation and testing questions, and many different religiously-inspired groups, which rely on faith and strict adherence. There are YECs of various stripes versus OECs of various stripes versus Islamic creationists versus groups of believers from every other religion who find it important that the creation stories from their religion be taken as absolute literal truth. J. Spencer 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments not directed at anyone in particular

(split from above) Frankly, I don't see why it should be an issue, because a) faith positions are not testable in a scientific way; and b) whether or not Parasaurolophus existed 74 million years ago, last week, or not at all shouldn't be a primary concern of a system of worship and ethics. Literalism turns people into Pharisees, overly concerned about strict adherence to minutae and not to actually being a good, moral person. It seems to me that God would be more pleased with churches that helped the sick and poor, spread love, and acted by example, rather than those that frittered away money and influence on attempting to force their views on biology and geology into the public schools. I know that I respect people that do the right thing, as opposed to "party loyalists" who cannot think for themselves and can only act as they've been instructed. J. Spencer 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So I should just sit here while you tell everyone that the Parasaurlolphus and all of the other dinosaurs exsisted blah blah years ago? Everyday people are brain washed into thinking that this is true. when you were little did you learn that dinos were that old? Yes. I learned it and believed it. Now I know the truth. I'm not just fighting the age of a parasaurolophus, but right now maybe I can everybody from being brain washed to maybe opening their minds a little. It's good that you guys are trying to find out the truth but it's right in front of you. God made the earth. I mean look around, you think this all came by accident? Every thing is complex I know that a series of mutations wouln't do that. If you would just look around and open your eyes maybe you would see that maybe just maybe evolution isn't true.
And back to the FACTS!You cheak the age by testing rock that you don't know for sure is right. But then you cross cheak by testing another rock? That's like testing a mathimatical problem by makeing a completly different problem. The blind leading the Blind...
Why should I get the same answers from different rocks and different isotopes unless a) they're both telling the truth or b) God is being a jerk (or permitting Satan to be a jerk, which is about the same thing)? J. Spencer 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Or c) maybe you have your dating system wrong? Instead of 582263596557 Million years it could be only a couple thousand. He gave us free will so do really think he's a jerk? I can clearly tell you have no trust in God because you would be offended by what you said if you had any. Really go to church once and a while. Pianoloverizme 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? Ar-Ar and the two U-Pb systems are different systems, and should not provide the same results unless either a) or b) holds. Your statement about offense makes no sense on a logical or grammatical level, and I don't see why it's so important for a anybody that dinosaurs have to be ~6000 years old. Last time I checked, the Bible was not a biology textbook, but an ethical/moral compendium (with a lot of genealogical/historical information that most people skim through) that does a lot of instruction through stories that include figurative language, such as parables, so a literal interpretation sees the trees but misses the forest. Finally, according to the implications of your position, God has spent a lot of time making the world look a lot older than it really is, then expects people to ignore this. Seems like a jerky thing to do. God not only makes it look old, but in the American West, puts all the apatosaur and stegosaur and allosaur skeletons in the Morrison Formation, then puts the tyrannosaur and triceratops skeletons in the higher Lance Formation. In Alberta, all of the corythosaurs are put below the lambeosaurs. In all of the dinosaur-bearing formations, no mammals larger than a cat are present; in the mammal formations, all of which are above the dinosaur formations, no dinosaurs are seen. God's putting an awful lot of effort into this. I'd go so far as to say that it looks like either the scientists are right and the rocks are millions of years old, and God is not paying much attention to millions of years of giant reptiles followed by millions of years of unintelligent large mammals, or God is playing with humanity for another of those mysterious unfathomable reasons, and that suggestion is offensive to me. J. Spencer 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't you get it? The heaviest dinosaurs ended up in the middle after Steve Carell's flood, while all the small primitive animals went straight to the bottom. Human fossils all floated to the top, because they had invented swimmies. It's simple physics. ;) Dinoguy2 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious people can be hypocritical, they complain about scientific theory and fact saying ‘how can we Know what its fact?’ and yet there are arrogant enough to blindly believe in a fictional book that’s full of distorted history and mythology. It is therefore no more significant or more truthful than Lord of the Rings. How can they believe in one specific religion when there are thousands? How do they know that what some tribe believes about the rain god or the giant fish that regurgitated them haven’t got it write? They might think the idea of a giant dog flicking off his fleas which became humans is ridiculous but they believe it just as much as a large modern religeon does. Just because creationists are often members of the largest religion in the world doesn’t automatically mean they are correct. How can they say that what the Romans and Egyptians believed is mythology. We are not gods special children. They often reply with a quote from the bible saying ’Well Joe Bloggs said in chapter 3 that ….’ I do not take the bible seriously.Steveoc 86 08:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's refrain from making personal attacks, everyone. Remember that even when discussions become heated, there's no reason to resort to incivility. Please remain calm and do not lash out at other editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


OK, what the creationist crowd doesn't seem to realize is that radioactive decay releases ENERGY. A lot of it, when you add up all those molecules. That energy is what keeps our mantle molten, powering plate tectonics. It's why there is magma inside of volcanoes. And if all the heat scientists say has been released by radioactive decay over the last 4.5 billion years had instead been released in only 6000 years, then none of us would be here to argue about it right now because Earth would be a ball of MOLTEN LAVA. Okay? Get over it. Sheep81 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey look sorry J. for personally attacking your beliefs of this creation evolution thing and God. Your religon is between you and God, not me. Here I'll make you a deal, You don't say God is being a jerk or any of those things, and I won't say anything about your beliefs. Pianoloverizme 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to let theological differences be. J. Spencer 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Theologyguy 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so I'm not quite sure how this works. There is a claim on this page that some believe that parasaurolophus might have used his crest to mix chemicals similar to the bombardier beetle. There is a link that says this needs verification. There is a book written by Dr. Duane Gish called Italic textDinosaurs by DesignItalic text which posits this as a possible use. It was published by Master Books (Green Forest, AR) in 1992. The 14th printing (2004) has this information on page 82. Hope this helps.

That far back? It's good to have a ref for where that comes from, as unlikely a use at it would appear to be, particularly as its respiration is routed through the hollow tubes that pass through the crest. Bit of an inconvenient place for chemical mixing. J. Spencer 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To-Do

I'd be very grateful if someone who knows linguistics would cover "Pah-rah-saur-OL-o-phus" versus "Para-saur-oh-LOPH-us", and if someone would weed out the more trivial trivia in the pop culture section. I'm a bit unclear on how to cite such sections, since I assume to check them you simply watch the film or whatever and say, "gee, yeah, that's a Parasaurolophus. I know they were in the Treehouse of Horror installment where Homer went back in time, but that was a cameo. J. Spencer 03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved these from the article:
I don't see what the point of either sci-fi ref is, given that the Voth connection is a quick hologram and the Star Wars connection is borrowing the shape; neither are Parasaurolophus. I also thought the JP detail was a bit much. Not included but also cut out was something about a zord that I found out joins up to make a super-robot or something, another case of an homage to an image that's a lot more useful on the specific zord's page than here. J. Spencer 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Updated to-do: mostly image issues

  • Pronunciation guide (and comment on the two pronunciation variations)
  • Sourcing of the pop culture section if it ain't there, no sourcing necessary
  • The drawing of the different species' skulls
  • Redlinks
  • Probably want a scale drawing, as those always go over well (we had one)
  • I have some worry over the Sandia image at this point
  • General copyedit by someone other than primary editor J. Spencer 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) updated J. Spencer 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Did I miss this or who is the Walker which walkeri comes from?
From dinosaurnames.net:
p. walkeri (Parks, 1922) - "The specific name is given for Sir (Byron) Edmund Walker, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Ontario Museum." Walker (1848-1924) had urged the establishment of a provincial museum as early as 1888, but it was not until Sir Jame Whitney became premier that funds were voted. Walker was appointed chairman of the board of trustees (1912-1924) and it was largely through his efforts that the Royal Ontario Museum was built and opened in 1914. Later Walker donated his own valuable palaeontological collection and library to the University of Toronto in 1904. He began the collection years before during his youth and continued it as a lifelong hobby. During his career, Walker also became a university senator (in 1893), governor (in 1906), chairman of the University of Toronto board of Governors (in 1910) and chancellor (in 1923). The type skeleton of Parasaurolophus walkeri is still on public display at the Royal Ontario Museum in its dinosaur galleries. [Current status: valid taxon]. J. Spencer 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Now here's the trick - how do you ref to soemthing requiring a login?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's in Parks 1922, fortunately. J. Spencer 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Sandia image: I did not add the PD tag. It automatically appears when an editor adds an image that is a work of a U.S. government agency. The WMF does not apparently differentiate Sandia works from those of the rest of the government; if there are concerns, the automatic tagging should be changed at the WMF level. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting function. Okay. J. Spencer 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rest of the pop culture section (in case someone asks for it):
Parasaurolophus, with its distinctive crest, has been used in movies and television shows, although as a nonthreatening herbivore it has rarely been a "star". One exception to this is the character "Ducky" from The Land Before Time series. She is officially identified as a Parasaurolophus,"The Land Before Time DVD". Retrieved 2007-07-07. though she more closely resembles its relative Saurolophus. Other, background appearances of this genus include the Rite of Spring sequence of Fantasia, all three Jurassic Park films, Disney's Dinosaur, and Episode 6 of ITV's documentary series Prehistoric Park. It has also been a common component of dinosaur toy lines; toys of this dinosaur have been made for decades by multiple manufacturers, from Louis Marx and Company to MPC, Battat, and the Carnegie collection."Realm of Rubber Dinosaurs - Site Index". 2006-09-07. Retrieved 2007-07-07. J. Spencer 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


I've put out messages regarding the drawing and pronunciation, so it looks like all that's left are proofreading and two redlinks (Teresa Maryańska and Halszka Osmólska). J. Spencer 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC) updated 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this image not here? I found it on the German version while browsing the language links. It's Steveoc's. J. Spencer 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Parasaurolophuspic steveoc.jpg? It's on commons, but it can be used here, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Description section still needs work, I think. Some of it is in past tense (was), some of it in present tense (is), some of it is written in subjunctive (would have been). I fixed some of this, but there's more. Trouble is, I'm not sure which you'd prefer. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we're doing past tense on other FAs, so I tensed it. J. Spencer 15:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving it a final lookover - it's pretty good and I've not found too much and some of my changes are not unequivocal in impoving so feel free to revert. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to roll; what about everyone else? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's let it stew over the day, and see how it looks tonight; I don't have time right now. J. Spencer 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me, you have the best handle on the beasty :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, pride goes before a fall, and so does summer and whatever I'm carrying, too. Nominated. J. Spencer 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It has never been mentioned any of the times a pop-culture section has been added for some reason, but Parasaurolophus does actually have a considerable amount of screen time in The Lost World, as there is a sequence solely devoted to the capture of one, so they're not just background filler at least. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

interesting parasaurolophus article

There is a creationist article at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5180 titled "Was Leviathan a Parasaurolophus" which briefly discusses Gish's apparent suggestion (currently ref 34 in this Wikipedia entry) about the crest apparatus being used for fire-breathing, and which refers to an 1845 newspaper report apparently containing eye-witness accounts of a hadrosaur-like creature. Lambo4000 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow and all this time we overlooked the most obvious function of the crest... flamethrower!! Sheep81 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Their skulls (and epithelia and other soft tissue) were clearly made of stern material. J. Spencer 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful. Makes a guy want to rethink CC licensing ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Rejected Hypotheses" section ...

... has a bit of a logical fallacy. "Other hadrosaurids did just fine without (function of crest)." I think it's safe to say that every animal with an 'adaptation' has a relative who doesn't have one and does fine. Obviously selective pressure just isn't that strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR?

Shouldn't this article be put up for a Featured Article Review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.209.34 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of...? Don't leave us hanging, please! J. Spencer (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

P. tubicen synonym of walkeri?

If I read this correctly, it is: http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7269&Itemid=67 FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's controversial, but I found several recent papers that treat it as valid, including this one from last year. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It goes back and forth. It's a bit hard to get a handle on the situation when there are only a handful of good specimens scattered through several states and geologic formations. J. Spencer (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How long Parasarolophus actually roamed

Parasaurolophus didn't become extinct 73 mya, it lived to the end of the Cretaceous 65 mya according to cretaeceous sediments in Alberta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The only modern reference to a late Maastrichtian Parasaurolophus is its appearance, with a question mark, in a faunal list of the Hell Creek Formation (the New Mexican and Utahan formations involved used to be described as late Maastrichtian, but are now known to be older). As explained in this article, whatever this material is, it has not attracted the attention of anyone publishing specifically on Parasaurolophus, and can't be evaluated. J. Spencer (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Size comparison image

Isn't the head way too long in relation to the man? The guy is supposed to be 1.80, and the skull is way longer than him, yet it is supposed to be only 1.60. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. Comparing File:Human-parasaurolophus size comparison.svg with File:Human-parasaurolophus size comparison2.png, the silhouette of the Para looks like it was slightly scaled up in comparison to the human when it was converted from png to svg. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, looks better, but isn't it still too long? FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The scale bars in the image are way off. Which is especially bad considering the silhouette is a direct trace of Hartman's skeletal and the image size wasn't even changed! (I was able to superimpose the original without any resizing). Here's the image with Hartman's original scale bar: [2] It looks like, as often happens with bad scale charts, the author took a skeletal based on a specific specimen, slapped on a new scale bar to make it match the largest size estimates with no regard for possible proportional differences or pose. Always, always, always scale to a known element of the specimen you're aiming for, not a generalized total length estimate. Note that the article's estimate of 9.5 meters is about right if you measure the total length of the skull+spine with no regard for life posture, as is usually done. And, that said, I suppose larger, fragmentary specimens could have had larger skulls than 1.6m. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a fragmentary skull that may be larger, fwiw: [3] MMartyniuk (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
But the scale caption specifically states it's supposed to be P. walkeri, so maybe that part should be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd change it to P. tubicen which is the largest species. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad phrasing in lead

Copied from "Errors in the summary of featured article" on Talk:Main Page

Not an error so much as bad phrasing: Parasaurolophus is a genus of dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Period of what is now North America, about 75 million years ago. Where to start. In what is now...that lived. Or something. Ceoil 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. As it is currently written, there's the implication that different regions had different geological periods. Some more thought needs to go into it. GDallimore (Talk) 11:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Parasaurolophus crest interior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Parasaurolophus crest interior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Parasaurolophus tubicen vocalization.ogv Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Parasaurolophus tubicen vocalization.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Date

There has been a recent debate about whether to include Charonosaurus in the taxobox, in both species and most recent date. The argument given for not having it is that it's not a set in stone change, but that is exactly the point of having a "?" and potential extended date! There was a question mark after the species in the species section for the exact reason given to not have it there. And the addition to the date was potential record, not certain record.Capra walie (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree with Capra. The fossil range should definitely be extended with a ghost lineage leading to 66 mya, although adding the species to the taxon box is to soon. I suggest we add the info on the potential of Charonosaurus being sunk underneath the Classification section, with a note in the species list of the taxon box stating "and see text." and add this into a synonyms part of the taxon box as well. IJReid (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential Article Redo

This article is now edging even farther away from present FA standards, and I think we should do something about it. I would extremely appreciate it if people provided me with refs that are currently left out of the article, and listed them on either my talk page or under this section. The Dino project has been very quiet, but I think it is time for us to wake up. Parasaurolophus is a great dinosaur, and is very well known, but it needs to be spruced up soon, as I am thinking of nominating it for FA review. I will be creating a draft soon as one of my user subpages, and would like people to comments it as soon as it is ready. If my changes get positive feedback, I will incorporate them into the main space article, one at a time. If anyone else wants to help me on my draft, feel free to do so whenever, just voice yourself here first. Those of the project that think this action is unnecessary, voice your reasons for why you think the article could withstand a FA review and nominate it, I will not try to change your mind. Thanks for all those who take the time to find refs, give pointers, and support my rewrite of Parasaurolophus. IJReid (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the article is lacking? As for finding newer sources, I usually use Google scholar, and if a paper found there isn't free, I request it here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems to only scratch the surface of Parasaurolophus description, the lead does not provide close to a good overview, it should be reorganized to better match other FAs, it is outdated on some subjects (classification), and some sections could be expanded (paleobiology, classification, description). Compared to articles like Nigersaurus which have been brought to FA recently, this article would not survive a FA review. IJReid (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The draft is here. I have yet to complete it, but comments and help would be appreciated. IJReid (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as info is added, and none removed, I guess it is better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@User:IJReid: Your redo deleted at least 8 references that were still used in the article and introduced 4 that only consist of author last names and years. Please complete the 4 new references. DrKay (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The deleted references are not at a loss as many of them were older than newer ones including the same info. I have fixed the bad references. IJReid discuss 15:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I use all available references. If a newer reference states the same, I use the older one, or both. Can't hurt, just shows that the literature is well covered. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • IJReid, a new image of the Field Museum mount was added to the taxobox[5], and though it looks better up close, it seems to be less discernible at thumb size than the old one.[6] So I'm not sure which is better, and both are unsharp. We also have this photo[7], which is sharper than both, and could maybe be used if the contrast and lighting is tweaked, but the background is very "busy"... FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Theres also the possibility that we use one of the better images of the P. walkeri holotype: commons:Category:Parasaurolophus walkeri fossils which is the most complete specimen anyways. But if a skeletal mount is preferred I think that we should use the clearest image that also displays some of the material in a near-lateral view, which rules out the two blurry images from before. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we talked about that long ago too, but I'd think it's best for the first image to give the reader an idea of how the complete skeleton would look like, if such an image is available. Also, I think the Field Museum mount is based on the P. cyrtocristatus holotype, so both show holotypes, if that has specific value in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
From what I see, the current image (FMNH Parasaurolophus) shows the skeleton the best out of them all, but its too light and a little grainy. The next best would be the Utah Parasaurolophus, but it has some lighting issues, and a very busy background. Either image could probably use some editing, and *if* you can get the FMNH one to look better, I'd go with it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I am currently trying to upload my picture collection I have assembled during the past years. Today I uploaded pictures from the Utah museum, including two of Parasaurolophus mounts:[8],[9]. The first of these might me useable, but its basically the same as the one we already have. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool, the first one looks much better than the one we had already from Utah; it is higher res, isn't grainy, and the lighting and contrast makes it stand out much better from the background. I think it would be better than everything else we have, what do you think, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is definitely the best we have right now. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The hadrosaurid page still uses the old one, should it be changed for consistency? I must say I still prefer the old one to the one currently in the taxobox; I find the skeleton of the new one almost blends into the wall in the background due to the similar colors, the old one more clearly dominates the image, the new one perhaps misleadingly has a baby of another hadrosaur species also in the picture, and it features a pretty questionable reconstruction at bottom right. The old one isn't the best quality, but as a thumbnail when someone is just looking at the page, that doesn't really come across. The better of the two Utah ones is pretty good, but I do worry about the still incredibly busy background, with the exception of the quality I still like the old one best. Lusotitan 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Consistency in image selection across different articles probably isn't that important... But maybe some contrast work could be done to the good Utah image to make the skeleton stand more out from the background. But yes, in any case, the image that is most discernible at thumb-size is still the old Field Museum photo, it just looks awful up close. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I would restore the original one – as the taxonbox-image is also the preview image of the article, it might be of secondary importance how it looks close. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now added the old image back into the taxobox, and the new Utah image in the species section. I don't think it looks too bad at thumbnail size compared to the taxobox image, but now both are at least in the article, a swap can be done later if we want. And now we're here, though the rest of the article has grown since this section was started, the description section still seems very short for an FA... FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Zissoudisctrucker we got an even better photo of the Field Museum mount now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the newest candidate for taxobox image which was just added but reverted, I think it is less useful than the current one, since the skull, the most notable and recognisable feature of the animal, is shown slightly from the back rather than in profile. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Did it really live in the Maastrichtian?

Is there any proof that it lived to about 66 million years ago? Before it was changed it used to be 76.5 to about 74 million years ago but now it is changed to 66 million years ago instead of 74 million, and I don't know if there's any proof if it's confirmed or not (the article that was cited with the text that said the hadrosaur lived about 76.5-66 MYA is not mentioned in that article at all). Is there any evidence that mentions that it lived 66 MYA? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed it back to 74 million: there have been various IP editors going around inserting incorrect information by switching dates around. I originally reverted it under the assumption that this was yet another one of those situations.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible spelling error

I think there might be a spelling error in this article as this is the only page I can find to include the word "Myledalphus" (referring to a Cretaceous fish) but we have an article at "Myledaphus" about a Cretaceous fish. I know nothing about the subject area though, so I don't want to change it myself in case I'm wrong. If it is an error here, please also correct the list at Bipartitus (compiling that is how I discovered this). Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parasaurolophus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parasaurolophus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parasaurolophus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction Regarding Feeding Habits

In the article, the following sentance pertrains to its diety tendnacies: "As noted by Bob Bakker, lambeosaurines have narrower beaks than hadrosaurines, implying that Parasaurolophus and its relatives could feed more selectively than their broad-beaked, crestless counterparts". However, going to the Corythosaurus article (the genus being one such lambeosaurine), the following setance is in place: "Based on the climate of the Late Cretaceous, [Benson et al.] guessed that Corythosaurus would have been a selective feeder, eating only the juiciest fruits and youngest leaves". Does this mean that Parasaurolophus was more selective than an already selective group of hadrosaurs? Or is the current statement about the hadrosaurine in question misinformation? Mjmannella (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how this is a contradiction? One says lambeosaurines were selective, one gives an example of a selective lambeosaur. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

New Parasaurolophus paper

Bertozzo et al. [10] focus mainly on the pathologies present in the P. walkeri holotype, but also discuss the attachment of the nuchal ligament and the palaeoart history of Parasaurolophus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems a paragraph was added about it (though the source is badly formatted). And of course, this article could probably be expanded in general in plenty of areas, if we keep the FAR list in mind... FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parasaurolophus/Archive_1&oldid=1170608079"