Talk:Deinonychus/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lead

  • Seven references, especially seeing as most of them are probably sourced in the article, is overdoing it. (Be mindful of not creating empty refs, though) Y Done
  • It generally fails to give a good sumary of the article (e.g., no proper description). Y Done

[edit] Description

  • Would be a better idea to give the most general measurements first, and the most specific last. Y Done
  • "Based on" used twice in three sentences. Y Done
  • Consider either switching that "which" for "that" or adding a comma before it. Y Done
  • Is there no proper term for these "hands"? I've never been a fan of the "so-called"–type of quotes. (This has been debated elsewhere and there is no easy solution. further, italicizing hands looks really funny too as it is such a common word. I will investigate in some popular books)
    • Okay, just asking.
I've substituted manus/forefeet/forelimbs/talons where they seemed appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As you like, I was actually happy knowing that there was apparently no generally accepted term. Circeus 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article seems to contradict itself as to whether the claws could slash or not. Consider not mentioning the claws' possible uses/movements at all in this section. Y Done
  • Maybe specifically mention the claws are on the inside of the legs? (or however the proper formulation is <_<;;;; (again, I know how I'd do it in medicine, also would I talk of a non-mammal having a big toe ="right where the big toe would go...")
I've changed the wording so that the sentence reads: The first digit was shortest and the second one longest. Each hind foot bore a sickle-shaped claw on this second digit, which was probably used during predation...Is the description of the claw on the second digit enough, do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is quite confusing. Consider splitting it. Y Done

[edit] Classification

  • Consider mentioning that Deinonychus predates Velociraptor (their relative temporal placement is not very clear here). Y Done but maybe not strongly enough
  • The repetition of "Late Cretaceous" gets tedious, but I don't think it can be avoided easily.
I've combined two sentences so LK gets one less mention in that section. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sub-epochs could be used instead. That holds true for many dinos; I fare rather well with doing that in fossil birds. Using sub-epochs also provides much interesting information for discussion of evolurion of higher-level taxa. As a rule-of-thumb, the average Neornithes species seems to exist for a few Ma before either transformation of cladogenesis have turned it into something else - that is, bird species usually persist a bit less than one sub-epoch. Don't know anything anything about how it was in non-avian dinos. Dysmorodrepanis 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And sub-epoch ale have such cool names! Circeus 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "Late Cretaceous" appears only twice in this article now. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That last statement should probably be sourced.
Sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe the "Implications" section could be merged here, as it discusses more the classification than the discovery itself (and, as a plus, would make the section longer than a paragraph).
Well, that suggestion worries me a bit, Circeus. That sub-section was apparently written for the discovery and naming section, and its emphasis is on that subject. The two opening sentences read The description in 1969 by Ostrom of Deinonychus has been described as the most important single discovery of dinosaur paleontology in the mid 20th century.[17] The discovery of this clearly active, agile predator... The following paragraph begins with discoveries, too. If you insist it must be merged, then it will have to be merged, of course. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, just seemed a good idea at the time. Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why isn't the reclassification as Velociraptor mentioned here, as opposed to all the way down in "popular culture"?
Because it seemed redundant and a little like undue weight to mention the same discredited theory in two different sections, and since the most noticeable impact has been to the animal's depiction in media, that is where it was stuck. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Feels odd considering the attention given to these questions in other dino FAs. Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of discovery

  • discovered by a team led by paleontologist
    • That stringing of "by" is painful. Y Done - (juggled a bit)
  • Why is there a comma before "in the Cloverly formation"? (removed anyway)
  • Consider "called" instead of "named"? Y Done
  • did not finish this work. → "never finished [...]" Y Done
  • Interestingly, Brown had another skeleton from a small Cloverly theropod, of a smaller animal with seemingly oversized teeth. This he informally named "Megadontosaurus".
    • Drop "interestingly" Y Done
    • had another skeleton from a small Cloverly theropod, of a smaller animal with → "brought back from the Cloverly Formation the skeleton of a smaller theropod" Y Done - much better
    • teeth. This he → "teeth that he [...]"....well, a semi-colon? Y Done
  • the material → "this material" Y Done
  • Brown's small carnivore → "Brown's "Daptosaurus"", since 2 different skeletons have just been mentioned. Y Done
  • published his findings
    • Is that referring to Brown? I'm expecting "their". Consider reformulating. (I have - revert to original or something in betwenn if you don't think it flows)
      • Went with just "their findings." I'd have suggested it directly, but it just wasn't clear what was meant.
  • representing between them at least three individuals. → WORDY "from at least three individuals." Y Done
  • Drop "only" Y Done
  • The cataloguing bit and following paragraph would gain from a source
  • (and most complete) → Does that mean that the original specimen is the most complete known?

[edit] Possible egg

  • The entire beginning is not actually about the eggs. Consider renaming the section. Y Done - (alternative is two smaller subsections, though I think these would be too stubby)
    • "Further findings" is alright.
  • The significance of the gastralia is at best unclear. (I'll come back to that one)
  • errr... Link Egg (biology). Y Done
  • Either disambig incubation or switch to link "brooded" to avian incubation Y Done

[edit] Implications

  • See above about merging suggestion (although that create a lone subsection, that header could then go without too much trouble). "Impact" might be a slightly better title.
  • Maybe this image and the first feathered one can be combined with {{double image stack}}? (not sure I'd agree with that, I generally like a left-right alternation but I am not too fussed and can cope with a column)
    • I'm suggesting it not to place them on the same side (although I personally prefer images nto on the left at the beginning of section, I don,t inflict it on other articles unless there's conflict). I'm suggesting it because that way we get both images in the same section without risking to damage the layout (floats are such irky things). The template is also useful when two images have to be in a small section (e.g., for comaprison). See Banksia#May Gibb's "Banksia men" for an example of the latter).
      • Hmmm..I hadn't seen that used before (and on one of the banksia articles too...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace that semicolon with a period. Y Done
  • Consider linking Dinosaur Renaissance, since the discovery is linked to it. Y Done
  • Thirty years later, this idea is almost universally accepted. In fact, Deinonychus and other dromaeosaurids are so birdlike that there has been debate whether they are in fact true birds.
    • Either source and expand on this, or delete it. It makes for a very poor (and IMO overly sensationalistic) transition to the next paragraph.
      • My first thought was to delete the second sentence, so I did. How does it work now?
        • Looks alright to me.
  • Move the two Latin names to after "structures" Y Done
  • Comma before "which" Y Done - (I tried juggling with this but it seems the best way...)

[edit] habitat

  • Idea: remove the "habitat" header and add a paragraph or two summarizing the following sections. This both removes the single-paragraph section and lack of text between two headers.
  • was found → "inhabitated" or something such. It was actually found in Montana rocks . Y Done
  • Comma before "in which" Y Done
  • Instead of saying "larger" and "smaller" (unless they were larger/smaller than Deinonychus, that is), name one, and say the other was smaller/larger Y Done
  • the fish Lepisosteus.
    • I find it interesting that the genus is actually extant. Consider saying "gar genus" or naming a specific species. Also, Goniopholisis not monospecific, so "the crocodile" is probably incorrect. Y Done -also, for the record, gar scales are incredibly common fossils
      • *files that under "you never know how useful it might turn out to be" factlets*

[edit] Predatory behavior

  • the taphonomy of the tenontosaur sites → (?) "the taphonomy of tenontosaur sites" Y Done
  • if the smaller animal dies → "is killed" Y Done
  • individual variation, sexual variation, or age-related variation. → "individual, sexual or age-related variation." Y Done
  • Ostrom has speculated → "Ostrom originally speculated" Y Done
    • BTW, wasn't that speculation widely reported in popular descriptions of the species?
  • also confirm → "confirmed" Y Done
  • also show → "also showed" Y Done
  • a possible indication of difference in behavior between young and adults.
    • Wait, this logically is not in and of itself an "indication" as much as a likely cause of different behaviors, right?
      • Good point; it indicates to observers of the bones that there were different behaviors, but such a different structure could also cause different behaviors in the animals.
        • I guess I'm just interpreting "indicate" differently. I'd use it for the results of different behavior, not its cause.

[edit] Speed

  • a surprisingly low .48. → This is not "surprising" of itself, only in relation to prior speculation (from what is in the article, anyway). Y Done
  • Move that ref to the end of the paragraph. Y Done
  • The metatarsus of smaller individuals, while still short, are longer than those in larger individuals. Reopened
    • Wait, isn't that a contradiction and they are relatively longer? If not, that should cleared out.
    • Tried an alternate formulation.
  • Use proper dashes or parentheses,not these two dashes. (n- and m-dashes are available right below the edit window) Y Done
  • The entire second paragraph sounds vaguely out of place. Maybe it is too detailed?

[edit] Reproduction (Eggs)

  • This section does not discuss the actual reproduction of Deinonychus.
    • that's what we need - hot dino sexx! Changed the heading to "Eggs"; let's see how we like it.
      • This is where I snigger uncontrollably. But yeah, I guess I was too distracted by the (at the time) other "Eggs" header to suggest one myself...
  • Why isn't "gastralia" italicized?
    • Made it a redlink; these bones are found in many things, and there's been a lot of discussion about their functions, so someone should make an article.
      • You're missing the point. I'm asking because they are italicized under "Further findings"!
I've remove the italics, and explained what they were without the "scare quotes". We generally haven't used italics on anatomical terms, even if they originally came from Latin, because they're not italicized in the literature that way, and I specifically asked on the last article that they be removed so that all the articles are standard. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the [...]eggs [...] that it
    • Are there one or several? Y Done
  • There doesn't seem to any good reason to use a dash. Use a period instead. Y Done

[edit] Popular culture

  • See above under "Classification"
  • I'd like to see a source specifically addressing the Jurassic Park stuff, even if in a more indirect way.
I'm still looking for a reliable source for this; the only websites I could find are absolute crap. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
See [1] and [2]. The latter is a published paper. I googled "jurassic park movie science velociraptor". Circeus 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I no longer have Jurassic Park (the novel), but didn't Grant flat-out tell Tim that Deinonychus had been reclassified as a species of Velociraptor? J. Spencer 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the links that Circeus provides above will work, sadly: the first does not even mention Deinonychus, and the second seems like "reader submissions", complete with grammar errors ("the creature would dislocate it's own knees...", "very little of which found it's way back into our coffers...", etc), no italics on generic names, and the only mention of Deinonychus is that the movie Velociraptor were the same size. I haven't read the JP book in years. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the depiction of Velociraptor as an endothermic animal is reported as an "error", too! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also the possibility that this is a dinosaur urban legend. From my reading of the Velociraptor article and the cites it uses, Crichton accepted Deinonychus antirrhopus as a species of Velociraptor, but named the island's raptors as V. mongoliensis (albeit too large). From Bakker's recollections in Raptor Red, which I just checked, when Spielberg was filming, he wanted an even larger raptor and ordered a scale-up that really wasn't "based" on any particular species. Is there a special feature on the DVD or anything that talks about this? The official JP website rapidly becomes tedious with various website tricks. J. Spencer 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)