Talk:Sellosaurus

Update the box for Sellosaurus. The type species of Sellosaurus is Sellosaurus gracilis von Huene, 1907-08. Efraasia is now considered to be a basal sauropodomorph and not a juvenile of Sellosaurus, according to a paper published by Adam Yates in 2003.

Generic identity to Plateosaurus

According to Yates 2003, the separation between Sellosaurus and Plateosaurus is not warranted, because S. shares practically all apomorphies of P. that can be determined on SMNS 5175, the type specimen. This was previously already suggested by Huene (1926).HMallison (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yates, A. 2003: The species taxonomy of the sauropodomorph dinosaurs from the Läwenstein Formation (Norian, Late Triassic) of Germany. Palaeontology 46(2):317-337.

Not much to this article anyway. I saw we merge them barring a more recent refutation of Yates. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No joy - Adam is very good at what he does. I had a nice chat over a beer and steak with him recently - nothing new to report. Btw, Moser 2003 ALSO said that the generic separation is questionable:

"dass sich die überwiegend zu Sellosaurus gestellten Funde aus dem Stubensandstein nach den Merkmalen ihres Sacrums und auch ihrer Größe nicht von Plateosaurus unterscheiden lassen. Damit ist die Eigenständigkeit dieser Gattung infrage gestellt."

(... that the finds from the Stubensandstein (Löwenstein Formation) mainly referred to Sellosaurus can not be distinguished from Plateosaurus based on the characters of the sacrum and also their size. Therefore, the autonomy of this genus is questionable).

I'd say, though, that we should keep this a separate article, simply because Sellosaurus is a very well known taxon among experts. If it is only mentioned somewhere way down in a long (I hope so) article on Plateosaurus, that would not be sufficient. Also, Yates (2003) does note that the merger is more a matter of lacking evidence than 100% certainty. Besides, generic separation is a matter of feel anyways. HMallison (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is usually standard to redirect sunk genera, and if done here, you could make Sellosaurus redirect to the specific part of the Plateosaurus article where it is covered (maybe the taxonomy section), then it won't "disappear" in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. It's pointless to have two articles on the same subject under different names, just because both names are familiar. That's the entire point of redirects. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In a dinosaur book from 1994 by David Lambert I have, this skull of Sellosaurus[1] is shown in Plateosaurus' entry. Not sure if that is anything to go by, considering that this happened in the same book: http://svpow.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/archbishop-in-kids-book-scandal/ FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

other errors

Come to think of it, aside from the fact that S. is Plateosaurus, probably, there's a bunch of stuff that is at best very questionable, at worst flat out wrong. I know that The Dinosauria and other standard volumes say this stuff, but then, they are based on really badly outdated analyses, as is the nature of compedia. S. is NOT 7 m long, NOT 2.1m tall, did NOT reach anything more than 500 kg, and the relationship to Plateosaurus was never considered to be 'far', but only unclear in detail, so the article is misleading. Also, we need a few good pics - I guess the holotype will do (upcoming own photos). And, while we are at it, Efraasia, as much as I like the idea of honouring Fraas, needs a serious re-assessment, not as a species, but in relation to other material. I doubt it will become invalid, but some Sellosaurus stuff may end up in E., which may change the diagnosis of Plateosaurus (Sellosaurus) gracilis. HMallison (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this section, this wrongly posed restoration is not used anymore, but is it salvageable apart from the posture? [2] I was thinking of modifying the legs so it could still be used in the Plateosaurus article maybe. Something like this? [3] Does appear a bit awkward for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, this one is not easy, because I have never seen material from Sellosaurus's front half that is not badly deformed. I would guess that the shoulder area is much to broad (as in practically all quadrupedal reconstructions). I'll go through my (100 GB of) photos tomorrow and see what my SMNS collection has to offer. Aside from that it looks good.HMallison (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That drawing is not mine, by the way, but made by a user who has now left Wikipedia. I noticed that many restorations of dinosaurs in general show the arm-shoulder link as an overlapping line over the arm (like here [4]), instead of a human like deltoid muscle, as in that drawing I just made quickly. Do we have any idea what is more correect? FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my second-favorite pet peeve: the croc-armed dinosaurs :) Somehow everybody misses the fact that the scapulae and coracoids of dinosaurs do not look like those of crocs. If you want to, we can do better together: let's do a 3D reconstruction based on my digital models ;) I'll do the CAD work, you do the drawing. btw, please mail me at geologyhenry_AT_googlemail.com Other email is still dead.HMallison (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your favourite pet peeve then? A new reconstruction sounds cool, I've sent a mail! FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

my fav is the wrong thigh in dinosaurs. People write that the caudofemoralis longus was bulging - then draw a mammalian thigh! Hello????HMallison (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)