Talk:Stegosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	Stegosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 27, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

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.

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Stegosaurus was featured in a "WikiWorld" cartoon: (click image to the right for full size version.)

"Brute-face"??? When did the Native Americans (note punctuation!) get to meet one???

Contents 1 Taxomony 2 length? 3 Tooth? 4 When lived? 5 Elevated tail 6 'Thagomizer' 7 'Roof Lizard' 8 Plate Arrangement 9 Layout 10 awkward construction 11 To Do List 12 Derivation 13 Ref 14 Suggestion on paragraphs 15 How many have been found? 16 Description: Paragraph 2: Native American Name 17 Description: Paragraph 3: Limbs: 18 Call 19 Mating 20 Taxonomy of Stegosaurus armatus; S. longispinus 21 Stegosaurus laticeps, the earliest name for Stegosaurus stenops

[edit] Taxomony

Somebody should check the taxonomy - what class are stegosaurs considered to have belonged to? Is Ornithischia the class? Or Dinosauria? Or the rather more boring Reptilia...? -- Oliver P. 03:18 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've changed it to the standard taxonomy. Reptilia isn't a very good class, since it is clearly paraphyletic, and there is some move away from it. Diplodocus lists Archosauria, which is a very cool alternative. On the other hand, the class system for vertebrates is so horribly entrenched that it will be some time before any changes to it become at all standard. Judging by the mangling of Magnoliophyta, we have a lot of conservative taxonomists here, who might want to keep the standard system, though I personally would rather not. Alas, stupid taxoboxes make things so simple when they are and so complicated otherwise. -- Josh Grosse

Thanks for the explanation. Since it's been about fifteen years since the waning of my dinosaur obsession, I've become a little out of touch... -- Oliver P. 04:16 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] length?

how long were they? Kingturtle 03:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• GEEZ! i asked this question a year ago, and it still remains unanswered in the article! Kingturtle 08:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because you didn't add it :p. Let's see: the lego sculpture is 14 ft long, and there are a couple references to 14 m, but I have no idea what their source is. I added a more traditional answer to the article. 68.81.231.127 17:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I was wondering were does the 12m lengths come from? Walking with Dinos said it, but I havn't herd of any evidence for it. They could have been confused with a Dacentrurus hip thats something like 1.5 m wide. Reading the article it says that the tail spikes reach 3 feet in length. Scaling a Gregory Paul skeletal drawing of Stegosaurs Stenops to have 3 feet spikes (excluding added horn) gives a measurement close to this; is that were it came from. If there is evidence, then witch species is it? Thanks. steveoc_86 1:55 19 November 2006

[edit] Tooth?

the (picture) of a tooth or a plate. It looks more like a plate to me. Does anybody know? --βjweþþ (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a tooth; the picture crops the long root off. None of the plates have such serrations along the edge. CFLeon 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When lived?

In this article there are no information when stegosaurus lived. (sorted)Cas Liber 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elevated tail

At some point, I think in the 1980s, it was determined that the stegosaurus's tail did not drag on the ground, as was commonly depicted, but rather was elevated. Does anyone have any definitive info about when and how this discovery was made? — mjb 07:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometime after the 'Dinosaur Renaissance' of the mid-'70s. Robert Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies is probably the earliest major work (1978). CFLeon 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Thagomizer'

The 'thagozmizer' is mentioned twice, including in the Introduction (which is really unnecessary detail). It probably actually belongs in the Popular Culture section, since the origin is a popular comic panel. CFLeon 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necissarily, the term has been adopted by professionals. It's just this side of legit.Dinoguy2 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My main complaint was in the duplication, actually. However, scientists or dinosaur enthusiasts using the term informally does not make the term official, especially when going through the wiki history, it looks like one or two users trying to popularize a term. I've deleted the duplicate entries; a detail like this does not belong in the introduction, and the later sentence just was too clumsy without a major rewrite. In return, I've added a section in Popular Culture that explains the origin of the term and preserves the joke. I think this is a reasonable compromise. It's just a joke, although certainly many words have been adopted with less reason and currently there isn't a better name for the body part. Please, if you can find any sort of professional publication using the 'thagomizer' term, let us know.

Sounds like a reasonable comprimise to me. Dinoguy2 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Roof Lizard'

Perhaps a comment should be made that when Marsh coined the name, the plates were thought to lie flat & overlapping on the back like the shingles on a roof, making the name more apt than it seems nowadays. CFLeon 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I seem to remember an illustration of this floating around, which would be public domain by now and pretty interesting to use in the article.Dinoguy2 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(done, just need the illustration now)

[edit] Plate Arrangement

One of the major subjects mentioned in books and articles about Stegosaurus is the plate arrangement. The arguement has been a major one in the history of how dinosaurs are reconstructed and the entry should have a bit more detail on this point. There are basically 4 possible plate arrangemnets:

• 1) The plates laid flat along the back, like armor. This was the initial thought by Marsh and why he gave the name 'Roof Lizard'. As more and complete plates were found their form showed that they laid on edge, not along the flat and this arrangement was unlikely.
• 2) The plates were in a paired double row along the back. This is probably the most common arrangement in pictures, especially earlier ones (until the 'Dinosaur Renaissance' in the '70s). (The Stegosaurus in the 1933 King Kong has this arrangement.) However, no two plates the same size and shape have ever been found with the same animal.
• 3) Two rows of alternating plates. By the early '60s, this seems to have become the prevailent idea, mainly because the one Stegosaurus fossil with plates still articulated indicates this arrangement. An objection to it is that this situation is unknown amongst other reptiles and it is difficult to understand how such a disparity could evolve.
• 4) A single row of plates. One of the original ideas, dropped at some point fairly early on (apparently because it was poorly understood how the plates actually were embeded in the skin, and it was thought that they would overlap too much in this arrangement. It was revived, somewhat modified, in the '80s by an artist (Stephen Czerkas), based on iguana dorsal spines and is currently thought to be the most likely (at least the last I've heard.)

(main sources for the above are:

• Edwin Colbert; Dinosaurs, Their Discovery & Their World (1962)
• Stephen Czerkas; "A Reevaluation of the Plate Arrangement on Stegosaurus stenops" in Dinosaurs Past & Present, vol 2 (1987)

CFLeon 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a few minor issues, this should be included in the main article, as it gives a very good summary of the alternative hypotheses over time. I'd just (p)oint out that, as far as I know, number 3, not 4, is currently the most widely accepted view (I remember this being supported by articulated specimens, but I don't have a cite).Dinoguy2 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Does anyone else have loads of white space on their browser, now? Do we need the paleobox? - Ballista 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

-I know, I was trying to get the box with the green drawing next to the contents box but got tired and went to bed (I am in Australia). I find this a common problem if your page has lots of sections and the first bit is short - blame the content box...Cas Liber 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] awkward construction

"most specimens never exceeded. . ." They never did, or most didn't.

(OK, fixed)Cas Liber 09:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Do List

OK folks, please add tasks here (there isn't much on the collaboration page).

1. - expand on 2nd brain. Incl refs.
2. - expand on short forelimbs and gait
3. - old images of Stegosaurus are off-copyright (?) as they are over 100 years old - historical versions of plates to be added.
4. - I am trying to look into species status. Carpenter seems to hold S. ungulatus as valid currently though will probably sink into S. armatus once that is reviewed.
5. - (for some Colorado folk) - photos of formation/strata/rocks where Stego fossils found.
6. - Should we be trying to do away with the bulleting, in 'Popular culture'? - Ballista 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think so. We can just make it:

   *several paragraphs

   *instead of a bulleted list.

   *the FAC reviewers mentioned this on Psittacosaurus.

   *--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• [[1]] - this image is over 100 years old. It says the library (check home webpage) has copyright - is this true? Cas Liber 13:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have asked Ken Carpenter for stuff. I note the nice image in the taxobox disappeared so there is an OKish one of a skeleton. Would be nice to get a restoration. Cas Liber 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What did happen to the taxobox image? It was a green life restoration, as I recall; one is definitely needed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am presuming it was a copyright issue. Fingers crossed...Cas Liber 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On commons there's this funky sculpture from some Jurassic Park in Poland (must see it when I visit the rels next.......) which is vibrant and pretty cool looking. I reckon if a really good drawing/painting comes along (like the green one we had but with copyright given), then the sculpute can go down to pop cult bit and where to see... Cas Liber 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic. I went to Commons and chose out this exact same photo for use on this page. When I hit "save page", it gave me an edit conflict message. Turns out you had just added the same photo, and in the same place (taxobox). I think it looks quite nice; it's a suitable replacement for our missing green Stego image, IMO. I didn't see anything else on Commons that's really appropriate: most of the other "Stegosaurus" there are actually other genera, and the rest appear to be those old public-domain prints, which are fine in a history section, but I'd prefer not to have them in the taxobox, if at all possible. I agree this one is very vibrant and life-like.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivation

Hi Cas, Dinoguy, Dudo, Firsfron, Sheep, Spawn or anyone else with the specific info. - Does anyone have the original citation for the naming of this dinosaur? It occurs to me that 'plate lizard' might be a more appropriate anglicisation (depending upon the original paper, of course). - Ballista 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The original paper was Marsh OC (1877). A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the Rocky Mountains. American Journal of Science 3 (14): 513–514. Hope this helps!--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - probably would help, if I knew how to get hold of it! Any ideas? - Ballista 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You could ask on the Dinosaur Mailing List? Someone there might have it...--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my Greek-English Lexicon, στεγη="roof of a house, or a covered room or tent". The very similar neuter noun στεγος can also mean "funeral urn"..Cas Liber 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cas, you are right (as usual), and that agress with Liddell & Scott - however, I was thinking of roofing tiles, like the bony plates on Stego's back. However, looking more closely, one meaning of the verb 'stego' is to fend off or ward off (an attack), which is also a very likely contender - we need that original tract, to sort this. - Ballista 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't notice that. Quite clever really and much more apt. Would be interesting to see what he originally wrote. I'll post a request on the dino mailing list :) Cas Liber 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that, when it was discovered, it was thought that the plates laid flat along the animal's back, hence "roof" lizard. An early reconstruction i can't locate for the life of me depicts it almost as a giant pangolin.Dinoguy2 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope your posting succeeds, Cas. Yes, Dinoguy, thanks for the reminder, that was an accepted theory at the time and the 'roof' name certainly fits with that. Let's hope the article turns up. - Ballista 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Found the image in question. I was mistaken--the pangolin thing was a later interpretation. The original description contains a skeletal restoration that has an essentially modern plate arrangement.Dinoguy2 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The pangolin comparison is a good analogy; I hadn't heard that one before and Marsh never used it as far as I know, but it's evident that that was his original idea when he coined the name. Realize that 14 years elapsed from his naming the first bits found to the paper with the reconstruction. By 1891, with more material, he had changed his thinking and his skeletal restoration shows this. (This is, as far as known, the first illustration of Stegosaurus as a whole animal, as opposed to individual bones or teeth. It however shows a single row of plates, which you earlier have claimed is obsolete.) The actual 'pangolin' ILLUSTRATION is slightly more recent, about 1895 if I remember correctly (I'll check when I get home tonight). So the 'pangolin thing' isn't a later interpretation, it was the first, although apparently the only picture dates from when the idea had become obsolete. The picture is question is reproduced in both Colbert's Dinosaurs (1962) and Dinosaurs Past and Present vol 2, given above. Marsh's article is pretty easy to find, my local college library has a copy. CFLeon 08:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The illustration in question dates from 1899. The artist was Frank Bond, surpervised by Dr. W. C. Knight (U of Wyoming), according to Colbert 1962, p 155. The picture is reproduced as Colbert's Plate 68. CFLeon 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your local college is cool - I was in University of NSW (Sydney's 2nd biggest uni) and the stuff there was pretty scant. Got a scanner?Cas Liber 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Diracodon valid? If some eminent palaeontologists (in particular Bakker) considfer Diracodon to be a valid genus, shouldn't a separate entry be written for Diracodon?--Gazzster 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be makin' a page yet. Will look into it. I thik it is a nomen dubium. cheers Cas Liber 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, most paleontologists think Diracodon = Stegosaurus. I'm not sure what Bakker's current stand is, but he's a notoriously overzealous splitter (see his numerous new genera for specimens of Allosaurus, his continuing use of Brontosaurus, etc.) and so shouldn't be considered representative of paleontology in general on this point. It would also be pretty confusing to the general reader, as all the famous specimens and reconstructions of Stegosaurus would need to be moved. In my opinion, not worht it for an hypothesis which is not widely accepted, if anyone still accepts it at all.Dinoguy2 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

• DEBUFFRENIL V, FARLOW JO, DERICQLES A (1986). "GROWTH AND FUNCTION OF STEGOSAURUS PLATES - EVIDENCE FROM BONE-HISTOLOGY". PALEOBIOLOGY 12 (4): 459-473. --Stone 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• The evolution and function of thyreophoran dinosaur scutes: implications for plate function in stegosaurs

Russell P. Main, Armand de Ricqlès, John R. Horner, Kevin Padian DOI: 10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0291:TEAFOT]2.0.CO;2 --Stone 09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion on paragraphs

Thought I'd make a plan here rather than do it straight off as there have been so many edits recently:

Under subheading 'skull', move first para into description and second para can slot into next subject on '2nd brain'

I am mindful of other commnets of it being too listy so thought this was a good idea - the first para is mainly anatomical anyway. thoughts?Cas Liber 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the more I looked at it the more it jumped out at me....Cas Liber 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many have been found?

The intro paragraphs say Stegosaurus is known from "numerous" remains. It would be an interesting add to the article to mention how many specimens are thought to have been found. Tempshill 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is already covered in the Stegosaurus#Discovery_and_species section: around 30 Stegosaurus armatus, around 50 Stegosaurus stenops, 1 Stegosaurus longispinus, and the six dubious fossils mentioned in the nomen dubium subsection. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I changed "numerous remains" to "about 81 remains" in the intro, since I think it's better to avoid vagueness. Tempshill 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description: Paragraph 2: Native American Name

Article says nickname was "though mother". Makes no sense to me. Is this a typo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.77.117 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Description: Paragraph 3: Limbs:

Reference to "all eight limbs" having lilypads. No other accounting of more than four limbs plus head and tail. No explanation of lilypads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.77.117 (talk • contribs).

Both examples were simple vandalism and both were reverted. Scottmsg 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call

'Stegosaurs are known to make a distinct "desu" sounding call.' I am by no means an expert, but I am 99.9% certain that we could not know the noise a stegosaurus made, if any. Can anyone confirm? Kombucha 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That was probably a nonsense edit. It has since been removed from the article. Thanks for pointing out, though. (I can't find any information to back up that claim, either.) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mating

http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=63

Sorry, but someone had to link it. Relax, it's not NSFW. Seriously, though, It does seem like it's kinda in the way - any thoughts? --Falos 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute link! Anyway, mating positions are speculative at best and don't belong in this article (because there's no paper I know of which mentions it). Could be why they're extinct. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy of Stegosaurus armatus; S. longispinus

Galton and Upchurch (2004) have synonymized Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. sulcatus, and S. duplex with S. armatus. The authors also consider S. affinis to be a nomen dubium and follow the synonymy of Diracodon laticeps with S. stenops. The placement of Stegosaurus longispinus in Stegosaurus is also followed. Add this reference below to the Stegosaurus page:

P. M. Galton and P. Upchurch. 2004. Stegosauria. In D. B. Weishampel, H. Osmólska, and P. Dodson (eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 343-362.

done! ArthurWeasley 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus laticeps, the earliest name for Stegosaurus stenops

Change Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 to Stegosaurus laticeps (Marsh, 1881), now placed in its own subgenus within Stegosaurus, Diracodon Marsh, 1881. This recommendation is proposed on the grounds that Stegosaurus laticeps has been used as a valid name since 1899 by Ostrom & McIntosh (1966) and Bakker (1986). For this reason, there will no petition to have the ICZN suppress Stegosaurus laticeps in conservation of S. stenops.

Bakker, R.T. 1986. The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction. William Morrow, New York. 481 pp.

Ostrom, J.H., and J.S. McIntosh. 1966. Marsh’s Dinosaurs: The Collections From Como Bluff. Yale University Press, New Haven. 388 pp. 72.194.116.63 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 16.18 21 March 2007