Talk:Tarchia

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.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Tyrannosaurid attack

Isn't there a Tarchia skull that bears (partly-healed?) marks of a tyrannosaurid attack? That would be a good addition to the article I would think, but we might need to find a cite. Albertonykus (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be PIN 3142/250 as well.--MWAK (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong images

I'm afraid specimen PIN 3142/250, skull casts of which have been widely exhibited under the name of Tarchia, has in 2014 been referred to Saichania by Arbour. The nice osteoderm image too has become doubtful as the specimen has not been referred to Tarchia.--MWAK (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Is this[1] the same one? FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I surmise this is PIN 3142/250 itself. In Arbour's analysis Tarchia = Minotaurasaurus and the standard image of Tarchia has been an amalgam of "Dyoplosaurus" giganteus, itself a nomen dubium, and PIN 3142/250, which is either Saichania (the hypothesis preferred by her) or a third (fourth, fifth?), as yet unnamed taxon. Maybe GSP can have a go at it ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we merge Minotaurasaurus into this, the image problem will be solved... Is it premature? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's a bit early for that. The identity is in essence the conclusion by a single researcher, based on limited fossil material. If it's clear the scientific community agrees, we can merge but that will take a few years. Also it's always tricky when good material is referred to a poorly known taxon. Allosaurus and Stegosaurus come to mind :o). There is of course no objection against using the Minotaurasaurus images, as long as we make the situation understandable to the reader.--MWAK (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an update

This article is badly out of date. There are more images here of Minotaurasaurus than of Tarchia, and not coincidentally there are more images of Tarchia in the Saichania article, than of Saichania! So, that needs fixing too. Those images should be moved here. There are also new skulls referable to Tarchia teresae that are not mentioned in this article. Azul iguana (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are very welcome to update as you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]