Talk:List of dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star List of dinosaurs is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Featured list

Could this page be a featured list? It is comprehensive, useful and stable, and now is over two-thirds blue. What does everyone think? Soo 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. The only thing I'm not sure of is, logistically, how we can handle the requirements for references and annotations listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Also, we need to really patrol the list and make sure any non-dinosaurs are marked as such. Maybe only providing cites for the ones once considered dinosaurs would work?Dinoguy2 18:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Footnoting every item is probably a bit much, but if most them fall under one source (like Olshevsky's list), then explaining that under a scope section (see the featured list of North American birds) and adding footnotes for the rest might work. A short taxonomy section (a summary of the classification article) would also be good, and the genera need to be italicized. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely need to be italicized. However, nomina nuda should be unitalicized and probably put in quotes. Sheep81 01:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Huge project. I'll see what I can do to help.--Firsfron 02:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Italicization done. Also standardized them all to genus, so for example [[Avalonia (dinosaur)]] and [[Guanlong wucaii]] became ''[[Avalonia (dinosaur)|Avalonia]]'' and ''[[Guanlong wucaii|Guanlong]]''. Though it looks the two I randomly chose as examples both have problems... Avalonia is a redirect to Camelotia, which doesn't even mention Avalonia; and the other article is actually at Guanlong. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This was already discussed atWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs: many of the pages which readers will get directed to need to mention why they've been redirected. You should read the full page of the Dinosaur Wikiproject, because there were comments and ideas by several users that you would otherwise have missed, and which have been informally adopted.--Firsfron 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read it, but discussion of specific problems belongs here. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

I compared this list to Olshevsky's. There are 1068 genera names on Olshevsky's list (counting Calamospondylus, Gigantosaurus, Palaeosaurus, Procerosaurus, Protorosaurus, Titanosaurus, and Ultrasaurus only once each), and 1090 on ours (after I added the four Olshevsky had that we didn't: Colossosaurus, Mononychus, Palaeosaurus, and Talenkauen). The 22 genera on our list that are missing from Olshevsky's are: Arkansaurus, Changdusaurus, Chaoyangosaurus, Chondrosteus, Dachongosaurus, Dsungaripterus, Eolosaurus, Ferganocephale, Futalognkosaurus, Juravenator, Koreasaurus, Mathiassaurus, Nouerosaurus, Nurosaurus, Parhabdodon, Richardoestesia, Sarcosuchus, Sauraechinodon, Shuosaurus, Tenchisaurus, Yanornis, and Yaxartosaurus.

What should we do from here? His list is the closest thing to being canonical, so it's a good source. And if we use Olshevsky as the article's primary reference, it makes footnoting easier. We can just explain in the main article that the DGL is the primary reference, and footnote the exceptions. Any thoughts, particularly on where to draw the line when it comes to including mispellings?

-Pat | 68.84.34.154 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see...
  • Juravenator, just announced today
  • Sarcosuchus is a crocodylomorph
  • Dsungariptarus is a pterosaur
  • Chaoyangosaurus is probably a misspelling of Chaoyangsaurus
  • Koreasaurus, rings a bell, but only shows up in google on a few other lists of dinosaurs. might be an old nomen nuda or something?
  • Chondrosteus is a mis-spell of Chondrosteosaurus [1]
  • "Changdusaurus" is an unpublished nomen nudum. Possibly leave it, but use quotes instead of italics.
  • Arkensaurus (clever, guys...) was a long-time nomen nudum that's now apparently official [2]
  • Dachongosaurus is another NN
  • Eolosaurus is a misspelling of Aeolosaurus
  • Ferganocephale, dunno its status, this says it's published but dubious [3]
  • Futalognkosaurus, guess what, NN.
  • Ricardoestesia vs. Richardoestesia, is a battle you do not want to get into. I lost track of which one is the official spelling a long time ago and I don't care to wade through 8,000 DML posts to find the answer ;)
  • Mathiassaurus probably a mis-spell, the only google hits are to this page and its clones.
  • Nouerosaurus, alternate sp. of Nurosaurus.
  • Nouerosaurus, NN, so neither spelling is yet official.
  • Parhabdodon, mis-spell of Pararhabdodon
  • Sauraechinodon, old (as in 1861) nn for Echinodon.
  • Shuosaurus, probably mis-sp of Shunosaurus
  • Tenchisaurus, old nomen nudum [4]
  • Yanornis is an avian
  • Yaxartosaurus, nn or mis-spell for JaxartosaurusDinoguy2 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good list. I only bothered with the first half a dozen :). But is a cite to [5] or the DMH acceptable? Should we restrict ourselves to more formal citations, and move names to a talk page if we can't dig up a proper cite? On who's authority should we classify a genera as nomen dubium or a synonym? If we use Olshevsky and he conflicts with the current article (for instance, he doesn't agree that Anatosaurus is a synonym of Edmontosaurus) should we leave it that way or change it? What about newly published information that hasn't made it to his list?

-Pat | 68.84.34.154 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean for those cites to make it into the article, just posted if that's where I found out something was an nn, etc. I think we should use Olshevsky as a starting point, but as long as something is published, put it on the list (i.e. if he hasn't had a chance to update with new species yet, we can still put that new species on here.) So we might as well use his authority for synonyms, etc (he lists Anatosaurus as a JSS, but not Suchomimus, so he seems to reflect a sort of majority among paleontologists anyway). On a side note, I think we shuold include Nomen nuda as long as they have not been subsequently published under a different name. For example, keep "Brontoraptor" (not published yet) but do not include "Elvisaurus" (later published as Cryolophosaurus).Dinoguy2 14:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll add a quick link or "missing reference" footnote to the 22, and we can add better cites when we have a chance. I was thinking of the same distinction with n.n. It does exclude Elvisaurus (which is an interesting example because the press always seems to mention it when the cover the dino, giving it a bit more weight than the average n.n.), but it gives this article a clearer line of authority. In cases like that, we can just mention it in the article and create a redirect (both in place for Crolophosaurus). -Pat | 68.84.34.154 17:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete non-dinosaurs?

I vote we delete Dsungaripterus and several other taxa that are not dinosaurs from the list. We don't need to list everything that has ever been called a dinosaur by anyone, that would include every fossil animal. My opinion. Sheep81 04:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: How about we only leave the ones that have been scientifically classified as dinosaurs at one point? This would allow Aachenosaurus, Teratosaurus, and Reveultosaurus to stay but get rid of Dsungaripterus and Yanornis which have always been a pterosaur and bird, respectively. Sheep81 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should take Yanornis off the list, since it was part of the Archaeoraptor hoax, and since clearly for some time, the fossils were considered dinosaurian[[6]].--Firsfron 07:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I otherwise support the move. I just want us to be careful about what we remove. --Firsfron 08:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Helps reduce the number of unreferenced entries, too. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 05:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check Fossil Birds before removing avian taxa and if not listed there, add it. Thanks in advance! Oh, and Jeholornis redirects to Shenzhouraptor; should be mentioned in article (IONO what/if new info has been forthcoming on their possible synonymy) Dysmorodrepanis 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I have been up to

As I go down through the list, I try to keep in mind that Olshevksy often inserts his own ideas into his list and they are not always from primary literature. In adding the notations beside many of the names on this list, I have been mostly using Olshevsky's list, but cross-referencing it with my copy of The Dinosauria (the closest thing to a comprehensive primary reference there is right now). If George has something listed as a synonym or non-dinosaurian, but The Dinosauria has it listed as an independent taxon or even a nomen dubium of a particular group, then I go with The Dinosauria. I have also avoided adding nomen dubium tags to the names because that is largely subjective, and while there is general agreement that something like Albisaurus is worthless scrap, there is disagreement with many others, like Hadrosaurus. I have also been placing quotes around unpublished nomina nuda because they are not supposed to be italicized like a published name according to the ICZN. Also, the intro section says that nomina nuda are deleted from the list once a formal name is published, so I have been doing that. But if that policy changes, it is not hard to add them back. Hope that clarifies things if it was unclear. Sheep81 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a quick ref to that effect on the main page. Please double check and see if I got the intent right. -Pat 68.84.34.154 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me... good lord there are a lot of friggin dinosaur names!!! Sheep81 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing dinosaurs

I've only looked over the beginning of the list: letters A, B, and C. I happened to spot three others as well. I don't want to add them in unless we agree to list them. Most are known only from footprints, but that doesn't stop some reputable sources from listing them.

What do you think? And, my apologies. I didn't finish scanning our list for missing items, since I want to make sure before I do that the effort is worth it. No point in searching out dinos we're never going to add to the list. :)

I estimate I might find another 30 or so. --Firsfron 09:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A-ha. All of these are footprint taxa (ichnotaxa). They aren't real genera, just names for certain types of dinosaur footprints. These are basically categorized by shape. Rarely can footprints actually be traced to a specific genus of dinosaur... often just to family and sometimes just to suborder. I don't even think footprints are covered by the ICZN, although I'm not sure.
I don't recommend putting them on this list, although someone might want to make a list of dinosaur footprints (not me though... heh). The current trackway article is horrendously incomplete. Sheep81 10:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There's no way to know for sure what kind of dinosaur made any of those tracks, so listing tack names would just confuse things.Dinoguy2 14:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The last name on the list, Sauropodus, is not an ichnotaxa, as the link provided states. I'm tentatively adding it to the list.--Firsfron 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, that's just a misinformed journalist's mistake there, thinking the term "sauropod" was the actual name of the animal. But, if it got published, then that indeed counts as a nomen nudum, unfortunately. I'm a little surprised it's not in George's list, actually, since he is the one that posted it to the DML in the first place. Any other non-ichnotaxa that you found? Sheep81 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm also surprised it's not on the list, since he did seem to know about it at one time. Maybe he knows something about it that we don't? Does electronic publishing of a mistaken name count as a published name? Was it actually published in print? Or it's also possible the name is synonomous with something else... I didn't go thru the rest of the lists until I was sure we'd be adding any. You've done a lot of work on this list, Sheep, and there's no point in adding a lot of junk after it's been de-junked. I will compare the lists I've found with our current list. Aside from the many, many ichnotaxa, which you do not want on the list, there probably won't be too many more. I think.--Firsfron 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and ichnotaxa are covered in the policies of the ICZN. Here, in part, is the ICZN's policy on ichnotaxa: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNJun2003general%20articles.htm--Firsfron 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Good to know! Sheep81 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I needed that too! Thanks! BTW [7] is the actual link that works. Now, to another taxon... Yandangornis. I have it on the Fossil Birds list, but from what I've seen it's one odd critter. Oviraptorosaurid? Avian? What's your take? I can't put my finger on it, but it does not really seem "properly" avian to me... a near-toothless guy with a pre-pygostylian tail, 85 MYABP?
BTW: Jeholornis -> Shenzhouraptor is still accepted synonymy, right (contra Zhou & Zhang 2006 [8])? Dysmorodrepanis 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think J. and S. are still widely considered synonyms, yes. As for Yandangornis, it could go either way. My bet is that it's either some Avimimid-type thing or a basal bird (or maybe something related to Omnivoropteryx?). The tail does seem pretty long, from what I remember, which might rule it out as an oviraptoriform (all of which, even the primitive ones, have short tails).Dinoguy2 12:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with accepting Y. as a basal bird is that it would imply that a lineage of very primitive birds had persisted for some 40 MYA. The tail is too long for an oviraptorosaurid, true, but it is far too long and unfused for a Santonian bird. I'll put it under "Proto-birds" where it can sleep in peace with Rahonavis. BTW I found this [9] reconstruction of Confuciusornis in flight, which is quite nice (apart from the somewhat short neck maybe) as it shows the funny remiges/rectices ratios to good advantage. Dysmorodrepanis 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It is only a few ma later than other late-surviving long-tailed birds like Shenzhouraptor (and if you agree with the BCF hypothesis after Paul etc., long-tailed birds survived right to the K/T as deinonychosaurs). I agree with its placement under Proto-birds for the time being. Thei mage is very good, looks like a Frederik Spindler, who has contributed quite a few drawings to various dinosaur articles. He might be persuaded to contribute more if you drop him an email.Dinoguy2 18:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalianraptor

Here's where we run into problems, I guess, using list of dinosaurs published online as a basis for this list. Dalianraptor, as far as I can tell, is considered in the only two papers out on it, (right in the titles, in fact) to be a bird very closely related to Jeholornis. It has never been suggested to be a non-avian, EXCEPT on George Olshevsky's list, where it's listed as "possible bird". Where he got the idea that it's non-avian i don't know, but it's not a published source. What to do?Dinoguy2 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If we know nobody has published the possibility that it might be a dinosaur, then it should not be on the list. Sheep81 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect all synonyms?

Great list. But I have a teeny teeny gripe. Do all the synonyms need to redirect to the valid name? Sometimes, as for example, when you go to Zanclodon, you are redirected to the valid name, in this case, Megalosaurus, where there is often no mention of the redirected name. Case in point; the article on Megalosaurus doesn't mention the name Zanclodon. I think this is often a pity, because these synonyms often have an interesting history, and they sometimes are reclassified as valid names. Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus, for example. Dynamosaurus, Trachodon, Scolosaurus, Palaeoscincus, and others, have an interesting history, and may play a significant part in scientific history and popular culture. There is a precedent: Brontosaurus has its own article, not only because a few consider Brontosaurus to be a valid genus, but because the name has significance in its own right. Obviously, you can't give every synonym a separate article, but maybe the more scientifically and culturally significant ones? What are the current rules on the subject?--Gazzster 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The alternative name should redirect to the main article, but the main article should mention the synonym. On the basis of "path of least surprise", the other name should ideally be mentioned in the first sentence of the main article, or at least the first paragraph, e.g. "Dinosaurus (formerly known as Monkeysaurus) is a dinosaur genus from...". The article can elaborate on the point later if there's enough material to make that worthwhile. Soo 10:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems ultra-logical and should answer all needs. - Ballista 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I dunno about putting it in the first paragraph... some species have dozens of synonyms. Sheep81 03:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good point - could overload the first para and make reading impossible. We could have a separate heading Synonyms? - Ballista 06:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure it's bolded somewhere. Apply a little initiative. Soo 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good--Gazzster 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

Why is Archaeopteryx given the note of "actually a bird (by definition)"? Why is this "by definition" in any way differently than any other bird in this list? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of non-avian dinosaurs. Anything definately avian should be removed. I'd also replace "actually a bird" with "actually an avian bird" or "actually an avian" since the definition of "bird" varies much more widely than the definition of Aves. Any birds on this list should be there because they were at one time considered non-avian dinosaurs in the scientific literature.23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Dinoguy2

[edit] OMG!!!! A Red Link!!!!!

OmgOmgOmg!!!! A red link has befallen our perfect list! Cedrorestes , needs to be created people! I have no expertise on the dino... Spawn Man 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On it, mate! 'Tis red no longer. But someone might want to clean up the format, or add info they know. The only source I have found on the Internet is DINOGENERA, which has the briefest description. Cheers, all!--Gazzster 01:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added some details, a taxobox, categories, a reference, a stub tag, and an external link. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've also added a short article for Othnielosaurus, which was also red. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good on ya! The list carries on in glorious perfection!--Gazzster 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a whole slew of new dinos were described recently, adding a whole bunch of red links. Mostly thatnks to that new ceratopsian/ornithiscian volume I guess.
The addition of Mantellisaurus and discussions of Iguanodon species on the DML makes me realize how badly Iguanodon needs aome work done on it. It only lists one species, and meanwhile species of it are being broken off into their own *genera* left and right!Dinoguy2 13:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the Mantellisaurus article needs serious work, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I found another red link! Argh! However, I ccan to the rescue & created the article Dashanpusaurus!!! Yay! You may worship me now... ;) Spawn Man 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice article. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomina nuda

I disagree with the deletion of nomina nuda from the list once a (different) valid name is formally published. I think we should strive to be comprehensive. The number of additional names would be relatively small (~40 I think) and would, in my opinion, make the list even more useful. Please discuss. Mgiganteus1 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're using George Olshevsky's list as a basis for this list. Back in March (or so) user:Sheep81 removed several hundred genera that were not on the Olshevsky list, including several nomina nuda which have since been formally described under new generic names. It was a lot of work, and I'm not sure the benefits of adding back in many names will be a benefit to this list, as a lot of this might cause confusion, if we are not careful. I am cautiously open to the idea, but would like to get other WP:Dinosaur members' input.
If such a plan were to be implimented, the names added in would need to be properly cited, as this is a Featured List, and it needs to conform to the policies listed at WP:FA. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The list has exactly 40 fewer names now than it did before Sheep81 trimmed it down a bit. I think confusion can be avoided if it is clearly indicated that a given name is a nomen nudum which has been superseded by a valid name (with a link to that name). I of course agree that all entries must be cited. If I have more time I'll post a list of the missing names so that sources can be found for them. Mgiganteus1 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the list:

Mgiganteus1 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I cross-checked the names with Olshevsky's list and found that only seven of the above do not appear there (Changdusaurus, Chaoyangosaurus, Dsungaripterus, Ferganosaurus, Koreasaurus, Mathiassaurus, and Sarcosuchus). So there would be no problem with citing the other 34 names. Mgiganteus1 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should hold nomen nuda to pretty strict standards for the purpose of the list. Like, they need to have been published in an official capacity, not nicknames bandied about in popular media, etc. If we can stick to that, I think including them would be ok.Dinoguy2 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I'll add the missing nomina nuda that appear in Olshevsky's list (shown above). Mgiganteus1 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the missing nomina nuda to the list. Mgiganteus1 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After discussing this issue with some people on a bulletin board, I'm starting to think that listing nomina nuda may not be a great idea. Technically, all nominan uda are available names, that is, if somebody wants to name a dinosaur Elvisaurus or Ovoraptor, that's perfectly ok, since those names were never technically applied to any animal. Including articles on nomena nuda, or including them on lists, gives the impression that these names are linked to the specimens they are describing, which is not the case, and this confusion could have serious implications (just look what happened when that paleontologist referred his new sauropod bone to Ultrasaurus, which was a nomen nudum at the time, so he ended up publishing it by accident, taking away the name Jensen had intended to use). Not to mention the whole Archaeoraptor debacle. In short, it's probabvly a bad idea to list nomina nuda or even have articles on unpublished genera.Dinoguy2 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many sites have pages on unpublished genera. DinoRuss is one example. It just needs to be made clear in the article that the genus is informal. Wikipedia already has a category for nomina nuda. While it's true the names are still available, this only concerns Wikipedia as far as clarity. As other sites include lists of dinosaurs with nomina nuda, I think it would be strange if we did not include them: Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as any other site. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing to consider with the nomina nuda, this from Jaime Headden:
  • "Additionally, some other names (Catosaurus, Gavinosaurus, Elvisaurus, etc.) listed in popular media and applied after publication of the original name, are NOT available because at the time, the form of the names were either as nicknames (specifically prohibited from competing in taxonomy, as in "Ichabodcraniosaurus" or Baryonyx's original monicker, "Claws"). The authors did not publish these as competing names, and thus cannot be considered formal, especially since the media they were in was published after the ICZN modified their standards of availability, which excluded newspapers (the forum in which the names were made "available"). This would then indicate that while Osborn's names [such as Ovoraptor, which wasn't a nomen nudum until published with Osborn's manuscript in a book released by the AMNH that counts under ICZN publication rules] are available but are nomina nuda, the Naish/Martill/etc. names are NOT nomina nuda."
Which is why, as I said above, we really need the citations for these. Currently things like "Elvisaurus" are on the list. If we include "Elvisaurus", we should also include nicknames like "Dave" and "Sue". Just figuring out what names do/do not count as nomina nuda seems like a pretty big research project.Dinoguy2 03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Aren't these all cited? Uncited genera like "Elvisaurus" appear on theDinosaur Genera List. It was my understanding that names like "Elvisaurus" were informal, but included the entire genus (and have been included in generic lists), while names like "Dave" and "Sue" were specific fossils, which certainly don't belong on a list of genera. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Every single name is cited as far as I am aware. Mgiganteus1 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"Uncited genera like "Elvisaurus" appear on the Dinosaur Genera List." They shouldn't. If it wasn't published, it's not a nomen nudum (which means published but not described properly). As for Sue vs. Elvisaurus, as Cryolophosaurus itself is only known from a signle specimen I'm not sure a practical distinction can be drawn. Is there a full cite for Homes, 1993, to see what capacity "Elvisaurus" was used in?Dinoguy2 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
(De-indent)Actually, the name "Elvisaurus" was published, albeit informally, and for the genus, according to George Olshevsky: So, although the name Elvisaurus has no formal nomenclatural standing, it is a published name with an etymology and real material associated with it, and therefore satisfies my criteria for inclusion in the Dinosaur Genera List. Accordingly, as name #850 we add Elvisaurus Currie & Mastin, 1998 [nomen nudum] [13]. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, we need to make clear that we're using Olshevsky's criterion for a published name, and not the criteria of the ICZN. I checked around about the source, and apparently "Elvisaurus" was clearly intended as a joke on the nickname "Elvis" that had appeared previously. Also "Catosaurus," published in a newspaper, was a joke on the comments of how cat-like Eotyrannus was supposed to be, while "Gavinosaurus" and "Lengosaurus" were mentioned in a popular magazine article as "runners up" in the naming process (which means they would count as nomina nuda if popular articles are recognized publication sources by the ICZN, but they're not. Olshevsky does include magazine and newspaper articles for his list). This is a similar situation to Ovoraptor, which was a runner-up name. But, again, that was published in a source considered valid by the ICZN.
One possible comprimise here could be to include a seperate list or designation for informally-named taxa, but you'd have to figure out where to draw the line, to avoid including things like "Sue" and "Claws" and "Elvis", which are also informally "published name with an etymology"--all words have an etymology, Olshevsky seems to use "etymology" to mean "sounds Greek". Dinoguy2 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty clear we were using Olshevsky's criteria because we were using the list he compiled (with the help of others, obviously), and it's clearly stated near the top of the list that we're using his list. I agree there are some odd things about the list (for example, he did not include "Sauropodus", a nomen nudum, despite writing about the name at one point on the DML). I'm not sure a separate list for nomina nuda would clear things up because in a few cases, the status of a few of these animals is unclear. Also, it would be really great if people searching for their favorite dinosaur on this list would be able to find it quickly and easily. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would still suggest against using nomina nuda in the synonym section of taxoboxes, however, since that heavily implies that the name is unavailable, in the off chance that some scientists is Googling around to check on a name they want to use. ;) Dinoguy2 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree; the taxoboxes are really just to give a brief overview, and certainly aren't designed for the lengthy types of explanations nomina nuda often require. Furthermore, as you say, the names are still technically available. I don't know how Mgiganteus feels. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that nomina nuda shouldn't be included in the taxobox. However, they should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the text, otherwise the redirects might be confusing for the reader. Mgiganteus1 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_dinosaurs_26c6.html"