This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dinoguy2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Dinoguy2/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --JAranda | watz sup05:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the classification of New World vultures with Ciconiiformes. this is not general practice outside the USA, nor is it the current Wikipedia standard
I created the Platyhystrix, Leptictidium nasutum, and Halitherium articles.
I'll allow anyone to edit the above list if there is any more articles that need to be worked on. If there is no more articles that may need to be worked on, add (none) to the list. I hope this helps you!
...By the way, I will also provide you with a list of innacuracies in WWM:
We discussed about WWM in Talk:Hynerpeton. You said it was not a scientific source. Is Hynerpeton classified in any group? In articles refering to the early tetrapod Ichthyostega, they call the animal an "amphibian". Is this true? Is Hynerpeton just a missing link? GBA21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Amphibian" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of tetrapod that's not an amniote, but most of these are not true amphibians. Hynerpeton is not a member of any particular class or family (in Linnean classification this is called a "plesion"), and it is more primitive than true amphibians (the class that includes frogs and salamanders). I guess calling it "just a missing link" is not that far off, actually.Dinoguy200:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Temnospondyls are true amphibians also, like Eryops. I'm also having a feeling if BBC would create a special on Mesozoic mammals, they would call mammals, like Eomaia and Morganucodonrodents, like calling Hynerpeton an amphibian, when it was not a true amphibian. They may resemble rodents, but they are not closely related to them. GBA21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right about that. They certainly would call things like docodonts "mammals", even though they are not true mammals in the cladistic sense. And yet, they don't call dromaeosaurs birds. Odd.Dinoguy222:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nitpicking alert! There are several different phylogenetic definitions of Mammalia (BTW, cladistics, the method to test phylogenetic hypotheses, has nothing to do with nomenclature). One is a crown-group definition, along the lines of "the most recent common ancestor of all living mammals, and all its descendants". Under this definition docodonts are indeed not mammals. Then there's a definition along the lines of "the most recent common ancestor of Sinoconodon and all living mammals, and all its descendants". Under this definition docodonts are mammals.
Both definitions (and then some, I think) are currently in use. I fear we'll have to wait for one of them getting registered under the PhyloCode.
Oh, and "plesion" is not "Linnean classification". It is Patterson & Rosen classification. Very few people have adopted this concept.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 9:35 CEST | 2006/5/12
Rank-Juggling
Sheesh, Benton sure uses a lot of ranks. How many and which ones do you think we should generally include in dinosaur and pterosaur taxaboxes?
John.Conway00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the discussions on one of the taxobox entries - all those ranks are confusing and unnecessary. I'm all for using only the main ranks (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) and the Sub- and Super- prefixes. Anything else should be unranked ("norank" in the taxobox code).
So for dinos and pteros, use Class Repitilia, orders Pterosauria, Saurischia, Ornithiscia. Suborders Pterodactyloidea, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Thyreophora, Cerapoda. Not sure what to do about Ramphorhynchoids. Either use the paraphyletic suborder or leave them suborderless I guess. Dinoguy201:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and there were at least a few people advocating this for wiki as well (see Talk:Sauropsida). I personally think that Reptilia should be used, since it's already universal across extant reptile pages and since it's far and away the more well-known and understood name. It's also essentially the same clade and, as a name, has a few years priority over Sauropsida. Pretty much for the same reasons I'm advocating Reptilia/Aves over Archosauria. (Benton also puts Oviraptorosauria in Aves, but I think we should keep that one where it is for now...)Dinoguy214:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that's sort of the reason I'd prefer Sauropsida, people think they know what reptile means (insert bakkerian arguments here). I always feel silly describing pterosaurs as "flying reptiles". John.Conway17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I think we should unilaterally start using Class Pterosauria and see if anybody calls us on it... Anyway, I wouldn't mind Sauropsida since it is more technically correct, I just didn't want to start an edit war with anyone who works on turtles, snakes, etc, since I strongly feel we should have standardized taxonomy over all pages. If you want to try changing the extant reptile pages to Sauropsida, I won't object, but, I bet others might. If you get their support, I'll back Sauropsida too. Dinoguy222:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree--I think having a standard classification is important. Why seperate fossil animals from living ones? Reptiles used to be thought of as slow, sluggish, etc, but I can almost assure you dinosaurs (and by extension other dino-like fossil reptiles) haven't been thought of that way since Jurassic Park. Why use a new, unfamiliar name in place of a widely known name just to accomodate a few decades-old misconceptions? Or, as an alternative, if it's that important to distinguish Reptilia from "reptiles", why not just use an apomorphy based Aves? Nobody's gonna think T.rex was sluggish if it was a bird... ;)Dinoguy223:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Vertebrate Palaeontology and Zoology are seperate in terms of scientific culture, subject matter, and naturally enough, approaches to classification. If our job really is to reflect scientific consensus, then maybe we should drop the ranks. Otherwise, the standard textbook for Vertebrate Palaeontology uses Sauropsida. I'm not too worried about the sluggish dinosaurs thing here. I just don't think it conveys useful information to refer to dinosaurs and pterosaurs as "reptiles" - the word means different things in general and scientific usage.
My philosophy is, the entries in wikipedia should be written with your average 8th grader in mind. Do ranks and Reptilia and what have you contain any information useful to a paleontologist? No, but what paleontologist uses Wikipedia as a reference source? IMHO this thing should conform to the standards of a high school text book, or college text book at best (hence Benton). I do understand other people's milage may vary here. I won't complain if nayone starts changing Reptilia to Sauropsida, and you do make a good point about Zoology and Paleontology being (regretably, imho) very different fields. But maybe something should be taken up with Wikiproject TOL about using a seperate set of taxoboxes all together for fossil species, just to make that difference clear.Dinoguy214:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Eh, but neither ranks nor "Reptilia" add any information that is valuable to an 8th-grader! They only mislead – like how some people (Benton included) count families as a measure of diversity even though families are too subjective to be countable in the first place.
Simply drop all ranks. Nobody needs them. The linguists have never had ranks. For example look how Northern Sotho language is classified. Dropping ranks and paraphyletic taxa would have the added benefit of annihilating the question of whose classification to use. :-)
Using Sauropsida instead of "Reptilia" is a good move!
I can't see how separate taxoboxes for extant and extinct organisms could have any benefit. There is one Tree of Life, not two.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:28 CEST | 2006/5/9
I disagree that ranks should be dropped entirely, in all cases. I actually agree with Benton on the point that classification and phylogeny are two seperate and useful fields. classification has no basis in concrete facts, it is entirely a human construct to organize things. That doesn't mean it's not useful! Phylogeny is a tool to test real-life relationships, and can be used to inform classification, but standing on its own it is very confusing to anyone but somebody who is already very well versed in it, and it does not really "classify" anything, just gives names. I'm in favor of using both, as I've done on my new Avicephala article.Dinoguy212:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not just print the tree itself? I can't find any information in the classification in the Avicephala article (a good article, BTW! I just removed two typos) that isn't repeated in the tree pictured below the classification.
(Except for "Order" Avicephala and "Suborder" Simiosauria. IMHO you should really remove these ranks – because Senter didn't give these names any ranks. You've done original "research".)
You're right that phylogenetic nomenclature (when I'll find the time, maybe in summer, I'll register and start that article) does not classify. It doesn't want to. And that's a good thing: Instead of hacking the tree apart and stuffing the pieces into preformed boxes of fixed sizes, it leaves the tree intact and ties labels to defined places on it. Thus, it annihilates the artificial problem of "how to translate a tree into a classification".
I can't see what's so confusing about phylogenetic nomenclature, except maybe if you're well versed in Linnaean nomenclature and don't know PN yet. If you start from scratch PN is much easier to understand.
Anyway. I'll probably get an opportunity to talk to Benton personally at the 2nd ISPN meeting in two months. :-)
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 1:23 CEST | 2006/5/10
I understand PN pretty well, and I agree that it is much more useful than LN. I just also think LN is useful too. The fact that classification was done at all before evolution was discovered, attests to its usefulness apart from understanding relationships. I look at it like any other type of classification, for example, classification of geological time. Does applying the rank "period" or "era" reflect anything real or testable about these entities? No, but from them you can glean a general idea of their relative length, and how a name like "Cretaceous" relates to a name like "Oligocene", without having to do extensive research on them. Similarly, someone completely unfamilliar with dinosaurs, who comes across the name "Microraptoria" (just an example), will know nothing about this clade unless they do research into appropriate material. However, an entomologist who comes across the subfamily Microraptorinae will instantly know its approximate nember of sub-groups and how it might realte in size and content to other groups mentioned in that source. To understand evolutionary relationships, he will still have to consult a cladogram of course, but the rank serves simply as an arbitrary and handy tool to aid comprehension for the non-expert. I think phylogenetics is far, far more important scientifically than classification (which is not even really science, just "stamp collecting" as someone once said), but I don't know why many people see this as an either/or situation. Why not use both?Dinoguy202:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
(New column started to avoid squeezing the text too much.)
Geological time is not comparable to the Tree of Life. The latter is tree-shaped, it branches all the time. The former is a straight unbranched line. Clearly different approaches are needed to talk about them.
It is of course completely true that reading the name Microraptoria won't tell you anything about that clade (and even its definition won't tell you more than, like, one species that is included and one that is excluded).
However, an entomologist who comes across "Microraptorinae" will assume it is a subfamily. Accordingly, he will assume it has a thousand species, rather than 3 or 4 or 5. I'm sure there are insect subfamilies with several thousand – there's a beetle family with 17,000 species (as of a few years ago…). The concept of a subfamily, or even a subgenus, with just 5 species is quite alien to most entomologists. Likewise the concept of a subfamily with so little morphological diversity (…however you might want to measure that…) is not what an entomologist has in mind. Therefore all the textbook statements that "an insect order is roughly equivalent to a vertebrate class" and the like. (Of course it's not. This would require that insect orders, as well as vertebrate classes, were equivalent to each other. Now how is Protoceratopsidae equivalent to Hominidae.)
In sum, the rank serves as an arbitrary and handy tool to positively mislead both laypeople and experts alike. There are lots of cases in the literature where people counted genera or families and believed they were measuring biodiversity in a scientific way. Ranks are not just not science.
It is not an either-or situation. In fact, the PhyloCode does not forbid the use of ranks (Article 3). They just need to shut up and sit in the corner, lest they mislead anyone into thinking they were somehow real. :-)
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:00 CEST | 2006/5/12
They just need to shut up and sit in the corner I hate to say it, but it seems to me that it's this sort of attitude towards traditional taxonomy (and by extension taxonomists who use it) that will prevent the PhyloCode from becoming widely adopted outside a few specific fields (like vert paleo, in which it's no contest ;) ). And if PhyloCode does not forbid the use of ranks (and even if it did, it's not even active yet), the idea that all ranks should be purged from articles in an encyclopedia is completely unfounded.
Sorry: within phylogenetic nomenclature ranks are prevented from having influence on names. That's what I meant by "shut up and sit in the corner". IMHO Wikipedia should mention things like "commonly regarded as a class" and "classified as a phylum by some, as a subphylum by others" in the text of articles to ease comparisons with the literature. In taxoboxes, however, ranks are unnecessary (as shown by the linguistics articles of Wikipedia), and leaving them off has the added benefit of being NPOV.
Accordingly, he will assume it has a thousand species I'd question the validity of his degree if he thought a vertebrate subfamily contained a thousand species ;).
Well, then I was exaggerating, but the point still holds. Extant bird subfamilies commonly contain dozens of species.
In sum, the rank serves as an arbitrary and handy tool to positively mislead both laypeople and experts alike. Mislead in what way? Linnean classification does not pretend to reflect any real or quantifyable evolutionary relationship. It's book keeping. If all ranks corresponded to each other based on some quantifiable criteria, like number of species, etc, it would be science. The reason insect subfamilies differ from vertebrate families is for purely practical reasons (the huge diversity of insects vs the paltry diversity of vertebrates means that, if insect orders and vert orders contained the same number of species, they'd be utterly useless to one field or the other).Dinoguy222:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right that Linnean nomenclature doesn't pretend ranks were somehow real. But in spite of this, it looks so much like doing it that lots of people subconsciously treat them as real. For example, take all the biodiversity studies from Jablonski to Benton. They count families or genera, as if they were countable. They are not countable, because they are not comparable. Neither the authors nor the peer-reviewers of such studies seem to notice this essential basic fact – even though at least Benton writes in his books that ranks are not real. And this happens even though said studies commonly treat, for example, all marine animals at once. Surely you agree that the statement "in today's oceans there are 1000 families" is entirely subjective?
In other words, it's not even bookkeeping. :-)
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 17:28 CEST | 2006/5/14
I disagree. In context, this statement could say a great deal about evolutionary diversity. If they said, in "today's ocean there are 10,000 species", these species could easily all be very closely related or extremely diverese. You can't tell from the statement. But, if they say "there are 1000 familis", this gives you a reasonable impression of relative diversity. If they'd said "1000 families in 8 phyla", you'd know even more about that diversity.Dinoguy215:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you would not. You would only know about the subjective interpretations of diversity of one researcher at one point in their career. Just assume some basic splitting/lumping – and suddenly 1000 families in 8 phyla is the same thing as 600 families in 4 phyla or 1400 families in 10 phyla. Real-life example: Arthropoda in the widest sense is classified by some as one phylum, by others as five or six. Again: it would be great if it were bookkeeping, but it isn't.
Now... if you knew "there are 10,000 species in today's oceans", then you would at least know something halfway quantifiable. While it's not trivial, something around the species or subspecies level can usually be counted in a reproducible way. (Perhaps LITUs would be best for that purpose.) My point is that Jablonski, Benton, and so on don't even try to count species, but instead mistakenly write that higher ranks are "a useful proxy" for that purpose and use this as an a priori assumption. The ranks have misled them.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:29 CEST | 2006/5/14
To be fair, if they had said "1000 clades" instead of "1000 families", and not counted species, they would be making just as big a mistake. The fact that these researchers carried out a poor survey is tangiential to the real issue here. Also, I really do think some standard should be applied to define the ranks for the reasons you state, though they should probably vary from group to group. I'd favor something to do with major apomorphies, since apomorphy vs content based definitions are a major distinction between Linnean and most cladistic classifications.Dinoguy221:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nobody would say "1000 clades" because clades are so obviously not countable (except LITUs…). My point is, and meanwhile we seem to agree here, is that "1000 families" is as useless a statement as "1000 clades".
Such standards would have to be totally subjective decisions along the lines of "whose classification do we adopt". The most recent most authoritative classifications, like APG II for angiosperms or… the new one for eukaryotes, move away from ranks (the former contains many unranked taxa, the latter lacks formal ranks altogether, despite not using or mentioning phylogenetic nomenclature).
Definitions in Linnean nomenclature are something totally different. They consist of types and ranks. Rosaceae is defined as the family that contains Rosa. (Where the family ends is yours to decide. "Family" is not defined.) What are usually called "definitions" in Linnean taxonomy are actually diagnoses – a list of characters by which the taxon can be recognized, subject to change as the contents or the assumed phylogeny of the taxon changes. Phylogenetic definitions, on the other hand – and this includes apomorphy-based definitions – are precise delimitations of a taxon. Once you apply a phylogenetically defined name to a tree, it is objective where the taxon ends.
And… which apomorphies, if any, are "major"? This subjective question is among the most important reasons for why Linnean classifications differ from each other, especially for why splitting and lumping are so fashionable.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 12:11 CEST | 2006/5/15
(resetting indent) What are usually called "definitions" in Linnean taxonomy are actually diagnoses – a list of characters by which the taxon can be recognized, subject to change as the contents or the assumed phylogeny of the taxon changes. Phylogenetic definitions, on the other hand – and this includes apomorphy-based definitions – are precise delimitations of a taxon. So why can't classifications use diagnoses and phylogenies use definitions? On the one hand, the ranked name would jump around the tree with changing knowledge, on the other species would jump in and out of a set point on the tree. I would be like the dual system of node-based and stem-based taxa we have now. You imply that stability of name is better than stability of apomorphy content, while it's really just a different way of looking at things. which apomorphies, if any, are "major"? That should be up to researchers in specific fields to decide and reach consensus on. In a perfect world, they'd come up with something like "perforated acetabulum as in Iguanodon" for Superorder Dinosauria, and the ICZN would recognize this definition as official. A subsequent (hypothetical) major apomorphy would be a member of that clade which lost or reversed the feature used to define it, which might even suffice as a marker for a semi-paraphyletic reset of rank. Incidentally, I really only support ranks for apomorphy-based groups, as this offers a better selection of subjective features to base ranks on if such a system were developed, it would nicely "parallel" phylogeny as most phylogeny doesn't use apomorphy, and it better reflects the traditional use of Linnean classification while at the smae time is easily adapted to evolutionary biology by adding a species specifier. If more widely-used Linnean taxa were defined cladistically based on apomorphies, in fact, I don't think i'd have such a problem abandoning ranks to a larger extent. But the fact that things like docodonts often aren't mammals and things like microraptorians often aren't birds, simply because of a definitional technicality, stick in my craw ;) At least leave traditional linnean names like Mammalia and Aves for apomorphies, and make up new names for the new system of taxonomy. Dinoguy212:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So... I gather you actually want phylogenetic definitions, but you prefer apomorphy-based ones over all other types? If this is what you want, you are dropping all of Linnaean nomenclature except the ranks. In other words, you are advocating phylogenetic nomenclature, with the restriction that you only want apomorphy-based definitions.
Right?
On the one hand, the ranked name would jump around the tree with changing knowledge, on the other species would jump in and out of a set point on the tree. Isn't that the same?
I would be like the dual system of node-based and stem-based taxa we have now. Agh! This is not a dual system! It's just that some names have node-based definitions, some names have stem-based definitions, and some names have apomorphy-based definitions! There are no fundamental differences between there. No name will be able to have more than one definition under the PhyloCode. See here what the PhyloCode says about different types of definitions.
You imply that stability of name is better than stability of apomorphy content No, I don't. I don't have any objections (in principle) against apomorphy-based definitions, in which both types of stability are the same.
That should be up to researchers in specific fields to decide and reach consensus on. My question was rhetorical. Objectively, there's no way to declare any apomorphy "major"; subjectively, I can hardly imagine scientists could ever reach a consensus on this kind of thing, subjective as it is.
In a perfect world, they'd come up with something like "perforated acetabulum as in Iguanodon" for Superorder Dinosauria, and the ICZN would recognize this definition as official. This cannot happen for two reasons: firstly, the ICZN does not regulate names above family-group ranks, and secondly, it does not recognize any phylogenetic definition. The definition you give is a classic apomorphy-based phylogenetic definition.
Incidentally, I really only support ranks for apomorphy-based groups You can do this within the PhyloCode. No problem.
If more widely-used Linnean taxa were defined cladistically based on apomorphies Not "cladistically", but "phylogenetically". Cladistics is merely the method to find a tree; phylogenetic nomenclature is to give phylogenetic definitions to clade names. This is a very important distinction. Phylogenetic nomenclature can be applied to any phylogenetic tree, not only to cladograms ( = the outcomes of cladistic analyses); cladistics is entirely unconcerned with nomenclature – it is science and not nomenclature.
But the fact that things like docodonts often aren't mammals and things like microraptorians often aren't birds, simply because of a definitional technicality, stick in my craw ;) Then choose another definition as long as the PhyloCode isn't implemented yet, and lobby for the definitions you prefer to become established under the PhyloCode! It's still possible. If you can't come to the congress in a month, join the mailing list (extremely low traffic, joining instructions on the PhyloCode main page).
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:54 CEST | 2006/5/25
I do advocate these things, but most of the PhyloCode people I've talked too seem to not only dislike, but take offense at the idea of apomorphy-based definitions (let alone ranks--say "Linneaus" to a vertebrate paleontologist and prepare to be crucified on the spot ;) ). It seems that modifying the existing system to include more phylogenetically-based definitions at super-familial levels would be much simpler than abandoning the whole thing and setting up a new system, let alone getting the burn-it-to-the-ground proponents of the new system to allow anything resembling pre-phylogenetic taxonomy into PhyloCode.Dinoguy213:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my personal opinion is that most names should not get apomorphy-based definitions(*), but this is a discussion within the PhyloCode, not about it. I also don't like ranks, but if they are used within the PhyloCode they are much more harmless than otherwise!
I can't see how replacing the type-and-rank definitions of Linnaean nomenclature with phylogenetic ones, plus somehow defining "super-familial levels", could be easier than just dropping it and starting afresh. Have you ever considered the additional advantages that come with starting afresh? The feasibility of mandatory registration, for example? :-)
(*)The problem is with missing data: even when the place of a fossil in the phylogeny is precisely known, this does not guarantee that we can tell whether or not it belongs to a taxon with an apomorphy-based-defined name, while it does guarantee that with node- and branch-based ones. However, Tetrapoda and Diapsida (as the examples that pop up in my mind) should IMNSHO get apomorphy-based definitions anyway because anything else would disrupt just about all continuity with the literature and because it is possible to halfway objectively choose an apomorphy in these cases (…unlike Mammalia).
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 18:37 CEST | 2006/5/27
The problem with starting afresh is that literally every taxon in existance will need to be re-defined and registered. This will obviously involve a good deal of debate over how to define various taxa. This is simple for dinosaurs, which constitute only a few hundred taxa, but what about the millions of invertebrate taxa? The process of starting afresh could take centuries, with periods of confusion intermittent. That's assuming a majority of biologists in various fields even support PhyloCode, and in my admittedly limited experience, it's mainly reptile workers. You'd end up with a system where reptile workers and vert paleontologists use one system, and the rest of the world uses another. Not to mention the possible conflicts between family-level and genus-level names, which would be based on potentially different definitions and priorities under different systems. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just because people don't like ranks.Dinoguy219:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
At the (very productive) meeting 3 weeks ago it was decided that species names will be left alone – they will continue to be governed by the rank-based codes for the foreseeable future. So there's no need to define and register the millions of species names. There will merely be a recommendation that authors mention the species concept they have in mind when they describe a new species. The PhyloCode will then simply ignore the genus name (unless it is already defined and registered as a clade name).
It's true that there's a heavy bias towards vertebrate paleontologists and angiosperm neontologists. It's also true that not one entomologist was present at either meeting. Still, there are malacologists, polychaete workers, and mycologists, for example. The use of phylogenetic nomenclature is growing; slowly, but still.
We don't just dislike the mandatory ranks for being meaningless. We also dislike them for limiting the number of clades we are allowed to name and for forcing (!) us to use paraphyletic and redundant (monotypic) taxa.
Please elaborate on the "possible conflicts between family-level and genus-level names".
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:16 CEST | 2006/7/18
We don't just dislike the mandatory ranks for being meaningless. We also dislike them for limiting the number of clades we are allowed to name and for forcing (!) us to use paraphyletic and redundant (monotypic) taxa. My problem with PT is that nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. You can do PT in parallel without "abolishing" LT in the process, and all the anti-LT rhetoric flying around from hardcore PT types comes off as very insulting and arrogant (I bet this contributes to PT's fairly slow acceptance!). I've said it before and i'll say it again--PT is the best way to describe evolutionary relationships in minute technical detail. But it sucks as classification and should not be confused with classification, which is an art, not a science, like the Dewey Decimal system.
One example of a possible conflict--PC goes into effect, and the clade Velociraptoridae is named for Velociraptor+Dromaeosaurus. Under PhyloCode, Velociraptoridae now has priority over Dromaeosauridae, wheras the ICZN mandates that Dromaeosauridae must be the family name for the family which contains Dromaeosaurus. Obvioulsy this won't happen for such a well-known group, but mistakes or sabotage by unethical researchers favoring their names over competitors, when you're dealing with all clades for all forms of life (millions of them!), are beyond inevitable.Dinoguy215:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this discussion and would like to add my opinion. I feel strongly that cladistics plays an important role for non scientists in that it communicates the concept of evolution. Reptilia may be commonly used, and work to some degree as a desription of characteristics, but the classification Sauropsida is part of the explanation of why birds are dinosaurs. And Theropsida is part of the explanation of why human ancestors could be sail-backed animals.
Proponents of ID have made the evidence of therapod to bird transition a point of contention. When we have the chance, we should communicate in terms that reject the ID arguments, and stress that the way we classify living things is an expression of the way life evolved.
As for changing terms when people are used to older concepts, I think eventually the idea that Pluto is not a planet will dominate.
You're right, of course, but I have a problem with using classification to make a point. Phylocode itself reccomends against this in its advocacy of definitions reflecting traditional content. Phylocode reccomends against, say, defining Dinosauria as "Triceratops + Passer", because this forces birds to be dinosaurs, when the evidence should be allowed to speak for itself. I feel the same way about using one system in place of another simply because it makes debates against ID fanatics so much easier, which I know from a lot of experience that it does, but only because most ID proponents are hoplessly ignorant of how evolution works, and think that nodes or ranks in classification are somehow real. If you wanted to make debunking ID really really easy, we should abolish all classification. No more names, no more nodes, just some kind of diagram showing how life is a spectrum or gradiant from one form to another to another. When you get down to the level of subspecies, population, etc., even cladistics is completely arbitrary and obscures the true nature of evolution.Dinoguy221:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Helping Hand:
I'm thanking everyone who helped me majorly in getting Dinosaur to the main page, especially on New Year's Day! It was not a one man job & I really appreciate the help you guys have done. Happy New Year! Spawn Man02:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Missing dinosaurs
To answer your query on Dracontes' page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing may be just what you're looking for. I purge the blues every so often, so it's a good way to see how we're progressing (very well by the look of things!). And you're right about Archosauria. I tend to just copy and paste the taxobox from the nearest clade, so if my articles use Archosauria it's just because the other ones do. Not that that's an excuse, but it shows we need to standardise across all the articles. When the debate ends, I recommend calling in a bot to do the required changes, if there are a large number of them. Soo22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you SOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!
Thank you so much for footnoting in the Dinosaur article. I can do them, but I've been trying to get another user to do it as he has no idea how. I've been warring with him for a while & he's making the article worse. Any way, I don't want to drag you into it, so thank you for footnoting, even though I can do it myself, it was a big help. I'll send a barnstar your way soon... Spawn Man22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Any comments?
Fedor says "I think the current content of the article strikes the balance quite nicely, really, without obfuscating the fact that, strictly speaking, birds are dinosaurs." I agree. But part of how we got there was my adding a sourced quote saying what is now this paragraph:
There is an almost universal consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor are related, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Modern birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.
And other adding and insisting on a paragraph that now reads:
However, birds are morphologically distinct from their reptilian ancestors, and referring to birds as "avian dinosaurs" and to all other dinosaurs as "non-avian dinosaurs" is clumsy. Birds are still birds, at least in popular usage and among ornithologists. It is also technically correct to refer to birds as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor (paraphyletic taxa). Paleontologists mostly use cladistics, which classifies birds as dinosaurs, to construct their taxonomies, but many other scientists do not. As a result, this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur", and "bird" as a synonym for "avian dinosaur".
It has always bothered me that the problem of the inbetween category (missing link category) of so-called "feathered dinosours" [sic] (meaning feathered non-avian dinosaurs) is inadequately addresed.
You said:
in common usage a bird is an animal with feathers and wings. Therefore things like Velociraptor and Oviraptor (maybe even T.rex) are really birds, not dinosaurs.
Maybe something along those lines would be a useful addition to the dinosaur article. Care to either make suggestions or be bold and make additions? WAS 4.25020:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we should go about something like this. It's really an issue of common usage vs. scientific usage. Maybe a subsection on the definition of what is/is not a dinosaur, where we could also discuss animals commonly (incorrectly) thought of as dinsaurs like plesiosaurs and pterosaurs. I'll get started on this after work, maybe others can help add/edit from there.Dinoguy220:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I never asked you to mop up
First, thanks for all the help with the dinosaur article. Second, I'm sorry you feel hostile towards me just because we differ on footnote style useage in a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article.
Embedded references are easier for a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article. For a settled article or rarely edited article puting it all at the bottom is a nice FINISHING touch. But if it will NEVER be finished, if it's a target for every newbie; it becomes an unjustifyable pain in the butt to keep it all one put-it-at-the-botton referencing style. I have NEVER reverted a change from in line to at the bottom, so "mop up" or don't, I don't care. But I don't have to jump through anyone's stylistic-preferences hoop in order to CONTRIBUTE (I do my thing, you do yours; some are good at one thing others good at other stuff; you know .. teamwork?). WAS 4.25016:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the point you're overlooking in that quote from Wetman is "it is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page." I guess whether you want to listen to the advice of others or just ignore it is up to you, but after a few seconds looking through the Dinosaur talk section, I turned up several posts complaining about the sloppiness of two different notaion systems for the same article. For what it's worth, the only reason I think footnotes are preferable is that not all references in Dinosaur are to internet sources. The most important references in any science article, as you know, are citations of primary literature. Harvard style is another option, but nobody seems to want to go through the entire article and replace footnotes with Harvard style citations to every print and internet source (simply placing a link at the end of a quote is not proper style, an author and date must be listed). Using a combination of footnoes, Harvard notes, and linked sources is so sloppy I would nominate the article be revoked of its featured status. Take all this as you will, but I would prefer people take a little extra time for internal consistancy rather than mess up a well put together entry.Dinoguy218:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue of attaining featured status is different from maintaining the article. I stayed away from the article while others polished it into shape for featured status as I don't give hoot about featured status or looking pretty, but I also do care about the fact that these are important to other people. So I stayed away. Now the featured thing is in the past and contributors can strive to freeze it in place or open it up to a new round of everyone contributing what they can and we'll clean it up at some future date to arrive again at a prettied up version once again. This is my preference. You wish to carefully maintain a featured article spic and span appearance and stiffle contributions that will have to be cleaned up later. These competing stategies are to be found all over Wikipedia. As I am free to make my choices, so are you. Experience is the best teacher. I will not interfere with you striving to keep the article in pristine shape. I will stay away (mostly) from the article (again) and not be disruptive. Only one of the two mentioned stategies can be followed at any one time on any one article without causing emotionl grief; so have at it and don't think this is an emotional thing for me as it is not. I'm sure you will do a good job improving the article, as did Spawn Man. I'm sure you will find it increasingly annoying to keep the sea plowed, as did Spawn Man. Sometimes it makes more sense not to pick up every bit of dirt as it hits the floor, but to let it accumulate then deal with it all at once at periodic intervals. I'd like to quote from myslf, a paragraph in my talk page archive at [1]:
About repeating the source in the article and at the bottom: The BEST way is using a referencing system as the best (e.g RECENTLY featured articles) articles in wikipedia do. The worst way omits sources altogether. Putting the source in only the text is not as good because it is useful to put them altogether in one place; sometimes one source is used for more than one fact, and it's less likely to be deleted in a source section in the bottom. Putting the source only at the bottom doesn't let someone connect a specific fact to a specific source for the purpose of verification.Putting the source in both places is the lazy man's (my) solution and not as good as using one of the referencing systems available at wikipedia.
unenlagia did not descend from flying ancestors. there is more evidence linking them as the ancestors of flying descendants than the descendants of flying ancestors. novas and puerta's paper did talk about the pelvis, but the novel idea of their paper was the orientation of the glenoid cavity. therapoda pelvises have already been established as having similiarities with bird pelvises. 69.225.23.317:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is debatable. Two recent cladistic analysis (Mackoviky's description of Buitreraptor and Norell's description of Tsaagan) both find Unenlagia to form a clade with Rahonavis exclusive of other dromaeosaurids and birds. Almost all researchers consider it a strong possibility that Rahonavis flew. Therefore, either Rahonavis evolved flight independantly of birds or Unenlagia is secondarily flightless. It's possible, however, that your scenario is correct, but this would probably render dromaeosauridae a paraphyletic assemblage of early birds and their immediate ancestors. The Tsaagan paper mentions a detailed upcoming re-study of dromaeosaurid relationships--I'd wait for that before reccomending any changes to the articles here. Dinoguy218:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus rex
Hi Dinoguy - saw your note on User talk:72.64.76.161 dated 18 Jan; just to let you know that 72.64.76.161 repeated his/her vandalism on 22 Jan. I've reverted it, but suspect this won't be the last time given the user's past history. I'd support any action you deem should be taken - MPF09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
After deleting it from Ornithomimidae I also searched around and found no reference to it. Thinknig it might be a new species I overlooked (since I usually keep on top of new theropods) I searched the dinosaur Mailing List Archives--nothing. User John.Conway is more an expert than I am and he agrees-there's o such dinosaur. I voted for deletion on the discussion page.--Dinoguy2The Thagomizer20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What Wiki Should Require
"Proof that all editors have at least completed High School, so we can avoid the butchering of the English language."
Matt, do you know whether class aves could be said to be part of class sauropsida according to Benton's taxonomy? I can't decide. John.Conway08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK he uses a clean break making Sauropsida consciously paraphyletic, but I'm mainly going by the figures and supplements available on his web site. The actual text may say something else.Dinoguy213:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He does not mark it with an asterisk, as he claims to do with paraphyletic groups, and indeed does with Agnatha. But then this may just be an oversight (…though carried on from the 2nd edition, at least).
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:04 CEST | 2006/5/12
I would reccomend yes, but currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs lists T.rex as an exception under article titles. Now, I understand why Dilong paradoxus is there (there's already an article titled just Dilong), but seeing as how the T.rex article discusses species of Tyrannosaurus other than t.rex, I think using Tyrannosaurus would be preferable. Might want to take this up on the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page first though.Dinoguy203:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Page Blanking
On 10-Feb, you blanked Nemegtosauridae with the summary "rm inappropriate redirect". Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe different content should go there, please create a stub. Thanks! -- JLaTondre01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Bird rv
Hi Dinoguy - saw you'd reverted some uncited stuff at bird; following links, I found more that you might want to check out at furcula and Longisquama. A look at the cited refs on the Longisquama page shows one (the first) to be a decidedly odd, probably POV website, and a quick google search suggests that the presence of a furcula in Longisquama is dubious. I don't know the subject well enough to edit safely, could you check it out please? - MPF16:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've been working to clarify and add citations to the Longisquama page (User:Kazvorpal, responsible for most of the changes on bird, seems highly predisposed to using dubious and generalized newspaper and web sources in articles). I agree that the presence of a furcula is highly dubious, but I can't find a published source that I can read enough of to determine if this has been published, so I'd rather not change that in the article, since published sources there claim the furcula is real. I've added a few links and cites to critiques just in case.Dinoguy216:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Some say the supposed furcula is an interclavicle. While this idea is so logical that it should probably go into the Wikipedia articles anyway, there are no citable references on this, IIRC.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:19 CEST | 2006/5/9
Dino article formatting
I was wondering if you had perused the information I have added to many of the dinosaur articles here (see for instance Acrocanthosaurus). Spawn Man has a lot of issues with my edits (see my talk page). Was wondering what you thought, as you seem to be another very frequent dinosaur editor. I am open to change if a lot of people disagree with me. I will not stop italicizing genus or species names though. They are italicized anywhere and everywhere they appear. That is just science. I'd rather just stop editing altogether than see incorrect information proliferate.
Sheep8104:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is becoming a bit dormant of late, I've decided to get it reactivated. I've started putting the following templates all over the show, & I'd appreciate if someone would try putting them on too. Remember, they only go on Dinosaur orientated artcle's TALK pages. Not the articles themselves.
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
So, finally, while I work on the project with a designer, in order to get more people, thus more pages, I would appreciate if you didn't move or shift (or stuff up for that matter) any of the work I'll be doing, like adding templates, protocols to the project page, etc etc. I'm hoping to get it up to the standard of The military history project. So, tell your friends to join up, or spam unknowing people & continue to do great articles. I no time, we'll have an awesome, professional project page! Spawn Man03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:
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
What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the talk page of dinosaur related articles, so everytime you edit an article, placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:
1)Does everyone like the picture?
2)Is the wording adequate?
3)Any other queries/problems?
As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:
This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the user talk page or user page of members of the Dinosaur wikiproject, so placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:
1)Does everyone like the picture?
2)Is the wording adequate?
3)Any other queries/problems?
I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... Spawn Man00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, I changed the template you put on your user page to be the new template above.
As per step three, I'm informing you that... A new userbox has been created!! Please give comments and feedback (not including the picture, which may be due to change).
I started fixing the info in the paleoboxes, but I only got through the first three (Ammosaurus, Anchisaurus, and Bactrosaurus). This is largely because I rewrote the entire Ammosaurus article from scratch and now I need to go to sleep. It's also because I just went ahead and fixed the template myself... it's still crap, but less steamy now. Anyway good luck doing the rest, I will help out if I have time tomorrow. Hopefully he doesn't add too many more. Sheep8111:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - If you ever need any pdf files of dinosaur papers, I have a ton of recent ones and many more easily accessible. Older papers are harder because I have to convert them to PDF from the hard copies. But just ask and I'll see what I can do. G'nite.
Im reply to your post on Sheepy's talk: Gosh Dinoguy, stop being such a whiner, (in good jest of course my friend). Plus, how does he get the title of "an editor I respect" when he has under 500 edits? No one appreciates me... Honestly...... P.S. You say his information is outdated? Didn't Sheepy say his primary source was a book from the 1920's? I don't care how many papers it's had based off it, that's out dated by my count.... P.P.S. Why the heck did you rewrite Ammosaurus from scrath sheepy? that's mean, it seems like your targeting my articles to rewrite....... I'll get you eventually.... :) Spawn Man02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, Sheepy, remember to write for the masses, not for dino nerds like ourselves......
I just got back and found big ugly redundant "paleo-boxes" stuck on articles. I don't think they're a good idea at all. The information in them should be in the article, if known. John.Conway16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
New Task bar
I've successfully created an open list of tasks on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs main page for those who would actually like to know what to do with their time on the project. Add tasks as you wish, no too long though! Add your name to tasks you wish to be part of & that's as complicated as it gets... Thanks, Spawn Man23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother u mate, but you are a dino man can u check out my article and improve if possible? If its ok can I submit future articles to u late? Thankyou Enlil Ninlil05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Please help!!!!
I know I haven't spoken to you in a while, but I really need your help. One of my subpages (User:Spawn Man/Reviews) has been picked out by a big time editor & is now up for deletion here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews. I know it may sound like I only come around when I need something, but this is really important to me. I only did this as a last resort. Please vote to keep the page & I'll do anything, eat your shoes, clean your toilets for a year, even wear one of those t shirts that say I'm stupid! I just want my page which I've spent so much time on to be left alone. Thanks, Spawn Man01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. I hope that my working with the project dinos has some sway with you?
Thanks for your help, if it doesnt annoy you I don an article on a Therapsid reptile and was wondering if u could do the same. Enlil Ninlil07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles
Just wondering would you be interested in collaborating on this project. It includes fossil and living forms except Dinosaurs. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If there are others working on fossil amphibians i'd like to pitch in. The whole tetrapods vs amphibians vs reptiliomorphs thing is kind of a mess I'd be interested in cleaning up.Dinoguy201:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's late Jurassic. User:Elmo12456 has been going around adding the wrong caegories to dozens of paleo articles, and I've already had to revert his edits to Archaeopteryx several times.Dinoguy220:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard of the 2002 discussion about Archie's holotype (the feather vs the London skeleton)? I have referenced the Bühler/Bock paper that kicked it off on Archaeopteryx and read IZCN Opinion 607, which argued about Archaeopteryx vs Griphowhatever for the London specimen, but not whether the skeleton and the feather is the holotype. There circulates a Net rumour of some ICZN opinion in 1964 that was supposed to designate London as (neo)type, but there is no reference. There is no reference in 2001-2005. I have read the Bühler/Bock paper and agree that Meyer consistently talks about the feather in his Archie descriptions and just mentions that he "has heard" of the newlyfound London skeleton. Dysmorodrepanis21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but the whole sentence – the last sentence of the paper – is like "oh, and there's a recently discovered skeleton which could be called Archaeopteryx". The name sticks to the London specimen, not to the isolated feather. The feather is a referred specimen. Check the Dinosaur Mailing List archives for more precise information.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:14 CEST | 2006/5/9
"Paraves"
A big hello and many thanks for starting Mancalla and Chendytes! It may well be that we'll one day sort of butt head - figuratively, since I have tasked myself with getting the extinct birds set up nicely, working back in time from the present, while you seem to do the same with the lineage of their ancestors and relatives in the opposite temporal sequence. So the taxa in Fossil Birds are of interest to both of us, especially as the Late Quaternary prehistorics list is essentially done. You're welcome to start any article you like, and especially help with the taxa I listes as "unresolved or basal". I have not found a consistent and comprehensive taxonomy and while I tried to stick to known fact and the current state of knowledge, but some taxa may be nomina dubia or have been moved elsewhere; I know why I set up the list as I did, but the references i used usually refer to specific genera or species and therefore do not belong in a simple but comprehensive list. I (mainly) want to restrict myself to getting the lists up and up-to-date rather than creating articles to the taxa. I have pondered whether it would be wise to list, as a hidden comment, the species of the genera in the fossil birds list; that would definitely help with editing their proper articles, and with setting the time frame of existence in the list, but the list is already very long. Please take no offense with me killing the Waimanu species in the list; as it stands, prehistoric genera don't have a species listing (that would make it entirely too long).
Oh, and speaking of Waimanu: if you want to give the prehistoric penguins in general a shot, let it fly! I fear the day I finally decide nobody's gonna do it and have to do it myself until all those -dyptes have my head spinning like a Sorvall centrifuge rotor... (indeed, the prehistory of penguins should be worthy of a full article)
Dysmorodrepanis21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see somebody else worknig on prehistoric birds! I'll help where I can, though my knowledge of everything but Mesozoic birds is very limited, so I'll bow to your judgement on most issues. The main area I've been working on lately has just been trying to integrate extinct birds from extant orders into the current articles, which is sometimes a little messy with all the redlinks. See Penguin... as it stands, it covers Sphenisciformes down to spheniscidae, but if some other penguin family is identified, we're in trouble, or at least in for potentially unpopular re-writing and re-structuring. If you have any suggestions for this type of thing, let me know.Dinoguy221:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your concern on the "feathered dinosaur" classification - suffice to say that I would do it the same way as you proposed, only I was confused by the avian taxa that were already categorized as feathered dinos. I removed the "bird" classifications from the Epidendrosaurus and Alvarezsauridae assuming that's OK with you? If there are remaining uncertainties or equivocal taxa, let me know - I have taken Fossil birds under my wings, so to speak, from an early draft that was both inexact and very inclusive (basically uncritically listing everything with feathers, hence the "proto-birds" section). Most of the confusion stems from cleaning up the mess the transitional taxa originally were.
I also added/expanded explanatory notes to Category:Prehistoric birds and Category:Feathered dinosaurs, because Fossil birds was listed under the last category and IMHO it definitely should not! Dysmorodrepanis17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The bird classification on Epidendro and the alvarezsaurs was mainly due to uncertainty--alvarezsaurs were thought to be avain for a lnog time and a few scientists still think they are. Epidendro is very close to the base of aves, so which side of the line it falls on changes with every analysis at the moment. Things like Shenzouraptor and Yanornis (definately more derived than Archaeopteryx) and Archie itself (which is avian by definition) should definately be excluded.Dinoguy222:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Dinosaurs
Hi Dinoguy!
There's currently less than 100 dinosaurs left on the Missing dinosaur page. We've come a long way! I was thinking that since there's just under 100 dinosaurs left, and since there are 25 of us signed on for the project, if we each wrote about four articles, we'd be done! Well, not "done", obviously, as many of the articles are in need of expansion. But then we could focus on expansion and other things.
It's just an idea, of course, and you're of course not obligated and can do whatever you like; I just figured I'd mention the idea, and see if you were interested. No harm, right?
Thanks for the effort, guys! Fossil Birds does benefit from it, too. If I happen across some early birds on the main dinosaur list that are not marked as such, I will do so (and have done so in some cases).Dysmorodrepanis19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Apology
I would like to apologize for not checking the sources thoroughly before nominating Trigonosaurus for deletion. I have come to rely on google as a reliable source for checking if an article is real or a hoax. Guess google does not get new updates so quickly after all.
No problem. Google is usually reliable, and actually I googled Trigonosaurus and did find a reference for it, so I was probably too hasty in declaring only literature valid :) Dinoguy217:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Dimorphodon
Hello Dinoguy2,
About the supposed bipedal stance of Dimorphodon, I read that in a book and since your sources disproved it I suppose it has become outdated. But could it still be added as an 'debunked theory', could it not? Jerkov09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose, but it really applies to all pterosaurs, not just Dimorphodon. There might still be one or two people who think they were bipedal (maybe David Peters?), and if there's a source for it it could even go back in as a possible non-debunked theory.Dinoguy212:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, are you aware of the copyright issue brought up w.r.t this image? It is FP standard to my mind, so it would be really good to have clarification on the copyright status.
I found this image on the stock exchange site, and I've been told the copyright status may vary between individual images on that site. Since no specific copyright info was provided for this one, I think it's kind of in copyright limbo :\ Dinoguy213:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dinoguy!
Hi Dinoguy!
Since the first stage of the project, creating all these dinosaurs, is at last winding down, I'd like to take a moment and award you this barnstar
No doubt we still have a lot of work ahead of us (categorizing, taxoboxing, revising, tagging, reverting vandalism, etc), but you've brought a lot to the project, and I wanted to take a moment to honor your tireless efforts on our project. --Firsfron02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dracorex, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Apparently, the DYK reads: ...that Dracorex hogwartsia was a dinosaur named for its resemblance to the Hungarian Horntail, a dragon in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series?
Every time I upload an image to Wikipedia (or at least most of them) it gets removed! Could you at least tell me what's wrong with the picture I put in the deinonychus article, so I can fix it? Scorpionman20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Current workers in vertebrate palaeontology rarely use the Linnaean rank system (using instead phylogenetic taxonomy especially the PhyloCode). The 'ranking' in regards to Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, Protosuchia, Mesoeucrocodylia, Notosuchia, Ziphosuchia, Metasuchia, Neosuchia and Thalattosuchia is arbituray and inconsistent throughout much of the literature. As there is still confusion in some of the literature on which is included within which creating an 'order' to replace Mesosuchia is probably premature, but saying that Mesoeucrocodylia was erected to replace Mesosuchia as it is paraphyletic (includes Eusuchia). Thats why I chose it, but the plethora of taxon names in crocodylomorph systematics may mean that the traditional order system shouldn't be used in Wikipedia (use of unranked names instead). As palaeontological taxonomy is your 'pet project' i'll let you have a think about that. Mark t young12:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Todd marshall's Iguanodon family
the more I looked at it, the more I liked it, so I fired off a nice email just now requesting a low res image to use (was feeling pretty optimistic after Peter Trusler gave the OK.) Cas Liber13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Mesosaurus
Hi there, Dinoguy2.
After I made the Mesosaurus article I discovered you had previously made it redirect to Mesosaur. Should that redirect be reinstated or can the article as I've made it remain? It features a lot more info than it did originally, so in my view it can stay, but I'd like to hear your thoughts because you redirected it to Mesosaur earlier. Jerkov16:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You are completely right about the anatomy, Dinoguy. Those sketches were mostly drawn from "gut feeling" or how do you say this. The Dilophosaurus sketch in particular was drawn in couple of minutes whithout any anatomical description or fragment pictures, I still remember that. In fact the only times I really carefully looked at fragments was when I drew the Berlin specimen of Archaeopterix and a Iguanodon skeleton in the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels. And I was like 13 or 14 years old, so scientific work ethic wasn't developed :).
So I absolutely don't mind that you removed the sketch from the taxobox. Perhaps I'll consider making a few new anatomically correct sketches, maybe of Stygimoloch, we'll see. Cheers, Tbc221:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to draw a Pachycephalosaurus. It was quite a small and quick sketch because I have other priorities. Would you like to comment it on body proportions? If the spikes are too small or too big, there must be another Pachycephalosaurid that looks more like the sketch than the 'regular' Pachycephalosaurus :), so it can be re-uploaded with another name. There is also a lower contrast version: Image:Sketch_pachycephalosaurus2.jpg Cheers, Tbc217:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Photo:
On the Velociraptor article, it has been requested that this article be removed in the article's FAC. However, I think it is a highly needed picture. Is there any way you could photoshop out the glass exhibit line going through the picture & lighten it up significantly? It would save the picture & get velociraptor featured... Thanks, Spawn Man23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC). P.S. I'd do it, but I don't have photoshop..
Hey guys! Thanks for working on the photo. I've been away most of this week and will be pretty consistantly for the next month, so I won't be able to devote too much time to Wiki for a while, unfortunately. Glad to see Velociraptor as a FAC!Dinoguy221:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, also, jsut for the record I think the shot is pretty terrible to begin with. The article does really need a shot of the fighting dinosaurs, and I support keeping my image there until a better one can be found, but... a better one should really be found.Dinoguy221:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Dinoguy. Sorry you won't be around much for the next month, but everyone needs a wikibreak now and then. You (and your edits) will definitely be missed. Hope you enjoy your time off. Re:the photo: if a better image can be found, by all means. Have a great holiday! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been arguing that the Gliding page should be more general, and the aviation stuff be given it's own page, but the guys that wrote it don't agree. I need some reinforcements! John.Conway11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Verification Requests
I could be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that all sources should be verifiable with outside sources. This is the intent of a request for verification. Adding a simple external source can serve to achieve this end and makes our encyclopedia increasingly valid. Best, Kukini02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard any recent (post-1985) news on its status? Some avian paleo papers I've read suggest that it might be a nomen nudum due to inadequacy of publication (somewhat along the lines of "Archaeoraptor"). While reviewing Fossil birds once more, I came across it and reading Olson's 1985 synopsis, I moved it to the wretched "proto-birds" where it belongs (with Epidendrosaurus and Chatterjee's Folly). olson says that no good case for an avian status had been made by 1985, but the article seems to be more definite. Dysmorodrepanis06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)
No kidding? Mine was somewhat reversed to yours... I came up with the name first, then got a (now old) email address under it... --Dinoguy1000Talk03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
though jp3 might say t rex would loose it is easy to tell the would not meet but if they did tyrannosaurus would win because why did the name spinosaurus king of the dinosaurs(tyrannosaurus rex meens that) if they thought it was stronger? because t rex was and still is the most fiersome dinosaur to ever walk the earth!!
It's been a long time coming, but I would like to apologise for our arguement on the Struthiomimus talk page this September. I was being childish & although I was under a lot of outside stress to do with my mother (sickness), I realise I was way out of line. For this I give my sincerest apologies. Friends? Spawn Man07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)... P.S. I like the section on horrible writing that you have on your talk page... Crickey that's bad writing!
No hard feelings man. And you'll have to thank Firsfron for suggesting I expand that section (see above post). I might have to start a collection of bad wiki edits :) Dinoguy202:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Check out this big headed article for your section:
Although this isn't bad writing per say, it's one funny & bigheaded read for you section maybe?? From the David Koretz article which will be deleted soon... (Picked out the best bits...)
Funny section 1
Age 7 Koretz starts his first business, selling shells gathered during visits to his grandfather (left) in Florida. The old man offers to become his partner and supply him with more shells, but Koretz decides to collect all the shells himself when he visits again, to avoid having to share the profits.
Age 13 Koretz is already reading up to seven business books a week.
Age 14 Koretz's mom realizes that he is different from other children when he spends his summer vacation writing a business plan. During his freshman year at Brighton High he hounds local legend and future mentor Tom Golisano, founder of Paychex. Hoping to get rid of the boy, Golisano invites him to a day full of business meetings. Koretz is thrilled.
What a big head! Anyway, thought someone might like it & sicne you have a funny passage section, I thought you might want it... :) Spawn Man05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Also found this beauty:
Funny section 2
Due to the concern of the public I will add, "This is a guide and a quick explanation of Fatalis". I fail to see the wrongness of this, it is just an expanatory view on the Fatalis and ways to beat it. If anyone is strongly concerned please use the mytalk part of this site first, do not try to delete it. I am happy to hear opinions.
Fatalis is one of the two dragons that appear in the game Monster Hunter, and Monster Hunter Freedom, and one of the many that appear in Monster Hunter 2. While being one of the only two dragons in Monster Hunter and Monster Hunter Freedom it is the final boss in the game on online (and offline for Freedom), and can only be reached when playing the game online (Also known as "The Town"), and also by beating the game.
Some pros like to Lance the Fatalis, which can be done. It is a more difficult way but usually an effective way at that. The best lance to use is of course the BDS or Black Dragon Spear, which is the best lance in the game. Unconfirmed reports have said that they have used weaker lances.
Swords, Great Swords, Hammers, and Dual Swords
Again unconfirmed reports have said players have used Hammers, Swords, Dual Swords, and Great Swords to kill the Fatalis. This is more a feat than using a lance due to the fact that hammers have the power but lack distance which results in almost certain death
How to kill Fatalis
1. Just Lance it. 'nuff said.
2. Invent your own way to kill it.
OMG! You have to read this one... I might even use this to start up my own section... This is hilarious!! And the sad thing is, I think this person went through highschool!
"He is the one of new school crew member STM ( graffiti crew ).The crew was the first hardcore old school crew in Tokyo and Japan as well.It was all start it in 1993 wen Anser ( the head )and his school frends Ame, Steve made a change for all in the city of Tokyo.STM has all so know as( beat up crew ) later in the 1995 artist like Belx2 joind the crew and and be came one of mad crews .In 2000 Anser moved to back to Amsterdam and Ame and Steve moved early to back to Paris and start it all over a chapter in Amsterdam and Paris.Belx2 was the head till 2004 and now Qp is the head of STM crew since 2004."
I know you're extremely busy, but would it be possible for you to take a quick glance at the Dinosaur image review page and review the entries for Mononykus and Eoraptor? You're our resident theropod expert, and... (I know, I know, Eoraptor possibly/probably isn't a proper theropod) I feel like these artists spent a lot of time honing these images, and deserve a "proper" review from the theropod guru. I know you are limited to just 15 minutes of editing a day, but if you get a chance...? Firsfron of Ronchester06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixingPseudolagosuchus earlier today, Dinoguy. Actually, when I wrote the article, I was going by the Dinosauromorpha page of J.Sweet's site, which says "Pseudolagosuchus is something of a dinosauromorph enigma. It is not yet well known, and has been considered as a "lagosuchid" (hence the name), "staurikosaurid", and possibly even very early theropod. Recent sources tend to put it as the sister taxon to Dinosauria." I of course do not object to the change in categories, but wanted to explain why I had originally stuck it in the dinosaurs cat in the first place. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dinoguy - Noasaurus is next on my to-do list, but I can't find a reconstruction online that shows how the erstwhile toe claw might actually appear on the hands. Can you describe it or send me a link? Thanks! Debivort04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a preference between lower teeth point outward or the drawing as is? It's easy to change, so whichever you think makes a better reconstruction, I'll do. Debivort18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has recently created an article for Xiaosauridae, a "nomen nudum group of dinosaurs" (sic). I'm not sure how a group of nomina nuda could constitute a valid taxon, and "Xiaosauridae" returns no non-wiki google hits. There's a reference to Don Lessem, but I don't get any hits on Lessem having worked with Xiaosaurus, either. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester04:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've checked Science on-line and the article is not there yet (will probably appear tomorrow). The original release seems to have been posted on the spanish website [3] then removed? ArthurWeasley21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
the full reference in Royal Soc Proc Bio Sciences format it:
Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T. & Hinchliffe, J. R. 2005 Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence. Journal of Morphology 266, 125-166.
unfortunatly putting up a URL would infringe my ATHENS user agreement, and I would probably get sacked from uni
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
