Talk:Teratophoneus

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Teratophoneus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the king of gore and the monstrous murderer lived in Utah 80 and 75 million years ago respectively?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/November.

Wikipedia

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.

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.

Restoration

I'm not sure the old life restoration[1] was wrong. Yes, the snout is upturned, unlike the skeletal restoration here, which has a more convex profile, but since those bones are not even preserved, I'd think either way goes. Not sure why it is convex in the new restoration either, the closest relative Lythronax has an almost concave profile. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the lower jaw is curved in the restoration but the upper and lower edges are almost parallel in the skull restoration. Also, the horn is to steep of an angle and, from the way it looks, the area of the restoration above and behind the orbit is the wrong shape in according to the skull. The lower edge of the maxilla is also not curved enough in the restoration. Iainstein (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right about that, I only looked at the snout. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, as I said before, the horn is wrong too. And I think the snout is wrong too. Such curve of the nasal is seen only albertosaurines as far as I know (within Tyrannosauridae), so due to its position, it's very unlikely. It looks like NobuTamura made it based on the fig. comparing it with Albertosaurus so it isn't surprising... Rnnsh (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrimal horns vary quite a lot from individual to individual in other species (see Allosaurus and even Tyrannosaurus, where they are sometimes present, sometimes not), so that at least shouldn't be too much of a deal breaker. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the restoration quite a bit. The snout rugosities and horn are bigger than the skeleton shows, since these were probably extended by keratin. FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some further tweaks. When I overlaid the known portions of the skull, the posterior part did not fir inside the restoration at all and there was no place for neck attachment sites. Comparing the file history makes it obvious how incorrect the original was. This is a really bulldog-faced tyrannosaur, not the slender, long-snouted, almost Alioramus-looking animal of the original! The lower jaw is still far too slender at the posterior end but I'm not sure how to fix this... MMartyniuk (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One way could be to paint over the lower margin of the jaw (perhaps with the clone tool), and draw a new line further down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that this image actually depicts Teratophoneus?[2] FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, it was done before images of the skull were published.. might be close enough to tweak? MMartyniuk (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it was made back when such remains from the formation were referred to as gorgosaurs or some such. Similar to what happend to what is now Bistahieversor. The image[3] we had of that skull was labelled as an "albertosaurine" for years, before the new genus was named. I guess tweaking this one would be easier than the image we already fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of it is against a white bg at least! I'll give it a go now... MMartyniuk (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! And this one even has a few feathers... FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, how's that look? MMartyniuk (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I guess we can put it back int oa couple of articles! FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the image had been made with the idea that P. cyrtocristatus is a female of P. walkeri in mind? Or is that outdated? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated, they're not even from the same time period/formation. Maybe it could represent female P. tubicen, but all recent papers I know of treat it as a distinct morph. See for example the new paper on the baby cyrtocristatus. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, new specimens[4] show the snout wasn't convex after all, and that the original, more generic restorations were more accurate than the "fixed" ones... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Teratophoneus NT.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]