Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →

Contents

Archived talk

To preserve the intelligibility of conversation here I have once again moved older discussions on this page to the archive (Archive 5 linked just above). Killdevil 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Feathered dinosaurs section

Killdevil -> I somewhat shrunk this section because I find it is becoming rather long and messy: it looks like a list of unrelated news events which have been independently added each time a fresh research news was available. In my opinion this section should be rewritten in a more concise way and the detailed information should be found on separate pages such as Feathered dinosaurs or Dinosaur-bird connection. (Currently, whole paragraphs are duplicated with some inconsistencies). So in short: I did not delete information but moved it to more specialized pages. --Ollivier 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Snippets in contention

Some bits of text I have some problems with:

"Dinosaurs were an extremely varied group of animals; according to a 2006 study, 982 dinosaur species have been identified so far, and 1,844 species are believed to have existed."

I checked the refs and altered the numbers and ranks accordingly because in the state above it doesn't make much sense regarding my knowledge of the subject.

"The first direct evidence of herding behavior was the 1878 discovery of 31 Iguanodon dinosaurs which perished together in Bernissart, Belgium, after they fell into a deep, flooded ravine and drowned."

I was under the impression that the skeletons accumulated over time. IIRC there were at least two levels of skeletons in the Bernissart coal mine. After a bit of searching I found this pertinent article:

  • Johan Yans, Jean Dejax, Denise Pons, Christian Dupuis, Philippe Taquet. Palaeontological and geodynamical implications of the palynological dating of the wealden facies sediments of Bernissart (Mons Basin, Belgium). C. R. Palevol 4 (2005) 135–150.

The meat of it is in French so I'll have to work a bit disentangling the relevant bits of text. I can tell one thing for sure: It wasn't a ravine where the Iguanodon fell but one of the many sinkholes existing in the area at the time. Come to think of it, it stands to reason it should be so, as usually a ravine has a way out: downstream.

"Also among the earliest dinosaurs was the primitive Lagosuchus"

I'm pretty sure Lagosuchus isn't a dinosaur, though a dinosauriform, and not even a particularly well defined genus. Barring the likely chance "dinosaur" is being used a shorthand for anything ornithodiran more closely related to Dinosauria I'd propose Marasuchus for the place and that it'd be stated that it is a close relative of dinosaurs.

Oh and let it be know that the edit made on the article by User:193.136.225.26 is mine and that it is related with this post. I like to preview a lot and I do have to go to the men's room on occasion ;P Dracontes 10:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Killdevil 05:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Large dinosaurs would presumably have had to deal with similar issues; their body size suggest they lost heat relatively slowly to the surrounding air, and so could have been what are called inertial homeotherms, animals that are warmer than their environments through sheer size rather than through special adaptations like those of birds or mammals. However, so far this theory fails to account for the vast number of dog- and goat-sized dinosaur species which made up the bulk of the ecosystem during the Mesozoic period.

It also fails to account for how the animals in question, sauropods, would regulate their temperature before they got to that size in the first place, IMHO, as they did start quite small. Dracontes 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Feathered Dinosaus: Ceratosauria or Tetanurae?!

Both of these groups are theropods. Both are classed as their own distinct lineages. Yet both contained feathered representatives. And it is almost (though not entirely) certain that feathers evolved only once. What gives?. Do the feathered creatures fall under one clade or the other?. - 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer. I expected this page to have higher web traffic. Anybody reading this, please leave at-least a comment. - 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss a new discovery? (Serious question, not sarcasm.) As far as I know, no ceratosaurians have been discovered with feathers. Carnotaurus is the only ceratosaurian I know of that has preserved integument, and it seems to have had scales. With that limited evidence, it would appear that only the coelurosaurs had feathers.
But even if it turns out ceratosaurians had feathers too, Coelurosauria and Ceratosauria are sister clades, so it would just push back the origin of feathers to their common ancestor. Some have suggested that feathers arose at the base of Theropoda, or Saurischia, or Dinosauria, or even earlier.
Cephal-odd 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but last I heard Alvarezsaurs were classed as ceratosaurs. - 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I could be wrong; that was a long time ago, on an old book. I would have to check the Ceratosaur clade once more. - 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, alvarezsaurs are not considered ceratosaurs anymore. Either they appear as birds in cladistic analyses, or as more basal theropods, but always within Coelurosauria (sometimes close to ornithomimids). --Ollivier 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can't remember any other potentially feathered ceratosaurs. I guess that answers my question. - 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a mistake in my last post; the sister clade of Ceratosauria is Tetanurae, not Coelurosauria. But all the known feathered dinosaurs appear to be coelurosaurs, even the forms like Sinosauropteryx that only have fuzz-like proto-feathers.
Cephal-odd 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Alvarezsaurus was thought to be a ceratosaur before intermediates like Patagonkus showed that it was a more primitive relative of Mononykus, which at the time was thought to be an avian (and still might be by a few people). There's lots of reason to think that ceratosaurs did not have feathers. I personally doubt that any non-coelurosaur did, or that even all coelurosaurs necessarily did.Dinoguy2 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Erect gait; warm-blooded dinosaurs

Re erect limbs (under "Other shared anatomical features"), reptiles with sprawling limbs can move about as fast as similar-sized mammals with erect limbs. The main advantage of erect limbs is that they eliminate Carrier's Constraint (new article needed), so that the animal can breathe efficiently while moving. This gives animals with erect limbs greater stamina than animals with sprawling limbs.

Re dino metabolism, a lot of the bone structure and soft tissue evidence is ambiguous and / or disputed. For example some of the bone structre features are found in a few cold-bloded reptiles and not in some mammals. And the specialist paleontology sites are full of debates about whether some fossilised features represent e.g. 4-chambered hearts or just artefacts of the fossilisation process.

In my opinion the best arguments for "warm-blooded" dinos (i.e. metabolic rate comparable to that of mammals of similar size) are:

  • limb posture
  • Antarctic dinos
  • dino growth rates

Sprawling limbs are efficient for a creature that spens most of its time flopped on its belly and only moves for a few seconds at a time, because they minimise the costs of getting up and lying down but make the animal subject to Carrier's Constraint. Erect limbs are the opposite - they avoid Carrier's Constraint, but increase the costs of of getting up and lying down (in mammals, which mostly have very flexible backbones, they also pump the lungs when running; but most dinos had short rigid backbones, like birds, so would not have enjoyed this additional advantage) - so erect limbs are a disadvantage for a sluggish animal and an advantage for an active animal. In addition, dinos were fundamentally bipeds, and bipedalism makes getting up even more laborious as it removes the option to get up one end at a time (as cows do). So I think erect limbs + bipedalism indicates an active lifestyle and high metabolic rate.

Dino fossils have been found in areas which were within the Antarctic Circle during the Mesozoic and show signs of having had regular frosts. Cold-blooded reptiles can only survive frost by burrowing and hibernating, but the fossil dinos were fairly large by modern standards and we've found no evidence of burrowing dinos. So it appears dinos could generate adequate heat in these conditions, which indicates a high metabolic rate.

Studies of T Rex' lifecycle (e.g. http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1067, http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/CH12.html, http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0505/0505_feature.html, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15347508&query_hl=1) indicate that it grew in 3 stages: (a) slow growth up to 1 ton weight at about age 10; (b) rapid growth to 5-7 tons at about age 16, an average increase of a ton per year(!); (c) negligible growth after that. Stage (b) indicates a fast metabolism - compare with crocs, which take 15 years to reach sexual maturity and a lot longer to reach full size. I've seen no growth timescales for sauropods, but I've seen many arguments that they would have had to grow fast (at least at some stage), as their eggs range in size between a large melon and a basketball and most sauropods reached 30 to over 100 tons at maturity depending on species.

I've also just seen a paper (http://palaeo-electronica.org/1999_2/gigan/discus.htm) which argues that oxygen isotope ratios in the bones of adult T Rex and Giganotosaurus indicate a rapid metabolism but that this was achieved by inertial homeothermy (because distal bones show "cooler" isotope ratios). So it would be interesting to see whether there have been similar studies on smaller dinos (e.g. Velociraptor, ornithomimids). And of course inertial homeothermy would not have worked for juvenile dinos.

Wkipedia ought also to reference http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php?title=A_Reply_to_Ruben_on_Theropod_Physiology&printable=yes. This paper summarises and criticses Ruben's argument that dinos lacked respiratory conchae (aka nasal turbinates), which since its publication in 1996 has been one of the most-quoted reasons for believing that dinos were ectothermic.

Philcha 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dino growth lifecyle

Just found http://www.physorg.com/news73665780.html, in which the researchers say that their lifecycle data on Albertosaurs does not suggest super-fast growth in the teenage years.

BTW I also wrote the last post ("Erect gait; metabolism"), but forgot to sign it.

Philcha 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Diagnostic traits of dinos

The article wrongly says "Dinosaur synapomorphies include: ... reduced number of digits on the pes (foot) to three main toes ...". I've just Googled for "dinosaur foot pes toes digits" and got several pages which contradict this, including "Ceratopsians usually have a blunt 4-toed pes and 5-digit manus" (http://palaios.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/full/17/4/327). The same search revealed pages which suggested that theropods and ornithopods independently evolved 3-toed feet. Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" says that staurikosaurs and herrerasaurs were 4-toed (1st page of ch 3). The prosauropod Anchisaurus appears to have had 5 fingers and 5 toes (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/330Sauropodomorpha/330.100.html#Anchisaurus)

I've even found (via Google for "dinosaur foot pes toes digits") pages that suggest that the perforate acetabulum (the holy of holies - groan!) was not a dino synapomorphy but the product of convergent evolution - e.g. http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/340Theropoda/340.100.html#Herrerasauridae, http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/330Sauropodomorpha/330.100.html (comments on Saturnalia - a good name for something that throws doubt on a central dogma).

The only list of synapomorphies I can find that does not rely on perforated acetabulum is http://dml.cmnh.org/2000May/msg00268.html - can anyone do better?

Looks like basal dino cladistics is in turmoil and this section will need regular checking against new discoveries.

Philcha 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are basically right; however, remember that the fact that some groups have more than three toes doesn't necessarily imply that the possession of three toes wouldn't be a synapomorphy. That only becomes clear once the larger picture is taken into account. Likewise the fact that Saturnalia has a semi-perforate acetabulum can only be significant within a full cladistic analysis. Nevertheless I get the distinct impression the terms "apomorphy" and "synapomorphy" have been confused.--MWAK 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
MWAK, I agree that "the fact that some groups have more than three toes doesn't necessarily imply that the possession of three toes wouldn't be a synapomorphy", as having more toes could be a secondary characteristic. But the most basal dinos we know of (staurikosaurs and herrerasaurs) were 4-toed, and that shows that in the present state of our knowledge having only 3 functional toes is not a synapomorphy.
The semi-perforate acetabulum of Saturnalia could also have been a secondary characteristic. But "secondary characteristic" is a non-parsimonious explanation with no supporting evidence in this case, and it's safer to admit that Saturnalia has confused a situation that used to be regarded as clear. Until further research clarifies the situation Wikipedia should not claim that a fully perforated acetabulum is a synapomorphy.
Philcha 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The toes are of course listed by mistake, presumably because they from an apomorphy. Also we should be careful not to return to the discarded concept of the "key synapomorphy". So it would be best to give a complete recently published list. The Dinosauria comes to mind. It would of course be even nicer to have a separate article desribing the full development in the last twenty years. :o)--MWAK 07:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

some phrases that don't make sense to me

I'm writing here rather than fixing them because I'm not sure what they're trying to say, so could only remove.

  • "Not including modern birds like the bee hummingbird, the smallest dinosaurs..." seems to be saying that the bee hummingbird is a dinosaur. I'd guess the phrase before the comma should be removed, but maybe there's a reason to reference the bee hummingbird?
  • "Dinosaurs (including birds) are archosaurs..." seems to say that birds are dinosaurs. Is this a reference to ornithischians? If so, define the term first and then use it. As a casual reader, I see birds and think of modern birds which are not dinosaurs or archosaurs as far as I know.
  • "Most reptiles (including birds) are diapsids..." seems to say that birds are reptiles. Again, is this a reference to ornithischians? Or perhaps modern birds are also diapsids?

Ingrid 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So, I followed a few more links and find out that birds are archosaurs. Does this mean that they are considered dinosaurs? Or is the point that dinosaurs and birds are both archosaurs? Ingrid 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To quote this article:
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.
So, yes: birds are "avian dinosaurs". -- ALoan (Talk) 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And archosaurs and diapsids and reptiles. And ornithischians have nothing to do with it.--MWAK 12:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Should there not be a short sentence explaining that birds are archosaurs and are therefore considered to be modern dinosaurs? For those people who don't already know this fact it would certainly avoid some confusion...--Greebo cat 16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because they are not considered dinosaurs because they are archosaurs; they are considered dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs :o). --MWAK 08:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Two stupid sentences

While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions, they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny. See the referenced article for specific examples and further context.

The first sentence says that religious views on dinosaurs don't agree with scientific views (using clumsy and vague weasel language, too), and the second says "see main article". Both are entirely redundant. If nothing substantial can be written in this section, I suggest just moving the link to the "See also" section. Fredrik Johansson 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this section is totally OK. It is important subject to be mentioned in article plus it give reader brief explanation of what is ref article about. And, you forgot to site first sentence;) TestPilot 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
See the archives for an extremely lengthy discusson of how to handle mentions of religious positions in this article.Dinoguy2 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the section's existence. What I'm saying is that the two quoted sentences are poorly worded and redundant. Let's break it down:

  • Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those held by scientists. - this is fine.
  • While many mainstream scientists respect these views as faith positions - this is irrelevant. The topic is what some religious people think of dinosaurs, not what scientists think of faith. But there is really no information at all in this sentence, just vague weasel language. Who are these "many scientists"? What about those who think differently? There are probably "many scientists" who don't respect faith these faith positions.
  • they argue that religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs do not withstand serious scientific scrutiny - implied by the first sentence; hence redundant
  • See the referenced article for specific examples and further context. - already implied by "main article" link. Either Wikipedia should put "see article for more information" after every link, or it doesn't need to be done anywhere. I'm for the latter.

In this case, no text is better than poor text. If someone can expand the section with non-vacuum language, that is of course better, but then do it. Fredrik Johansson 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite it then, and we'll see if it's any better. John.Conway 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I see why this article is protected.--71.194.243.97 05:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, you should read the archives ::) Dinoguy2 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship protest!

Why there is no mention of the "Jesus horse" phrase? It is a matter of fact that America has powerful sectarian groups that want to demote dinos to fit their seventh day flat earth agenda. The article should have a section explaining religio-political controversy about dinos and mention the Jesus horse. It is unacceptable to censor wikipedia articles just to hide american stupidity! 195.70.48.242 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably trolling, but there is an article on religious perspectives on dinosaurs. Also, the phrase doesn't appear to be very common, or notable. John.Conway 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the whole "Jesus horse" thing from an SNL skit? Probably only worth a mention on a pop culture section of the dinos and religion article, if anything.Dinoguy2 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Only boys like dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs have become a part of world culture and remain consistently popular, especially among young boys. This was changed from children to young boys. My problem is that there are many young girls that enjoy learning about dinosaurs and i fail to see the reason for the change. If any evidence can be provided that this edit was justified then by all means, change it back but as it is-i've left it at children. Greebo cat 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Greebo cat's position on this, it's popular with "children". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed , but I think it's even better without the especially..., everyone likes dinosaurs (and I'm not just being facetious, I think it's true). John.Conway 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Changed to adults and children alike-unless someone else has a better idea as to how to put it? Would welcome suggestions...Greebo cat 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad someone has their "thinking hat" on; I just smacked myslef in the head with a "D'oh! Why didn't I think of that?" Good move! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially does not mean only.--Emcee2k 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but especially does imply that more of the specified group have an interest in the subject than other groups which is unsourceable (if that's a word!) and unlikely to be true. A huge number of adults are interested in paleontology which is demonstrated by the popularity of the dinosaur article and it's wide range of editors so i think it's best left as it is at the moment-as long as that's the general concensus? (don't want to be seen as a little wiki hitler or anything!) Greebo cat 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Extinction of dinosaurs

This should be almost entirely removed, as there's a more complete page about the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event:

  • The "dinosaurs" page is pretty long anyway, so there's no room here for a through analysis of the extinction.
  • The K-T extinction is complex - other groups died out or suffered heavy losses at the same time, but some groups survived very well.
  • At present the "dinosaurs" page gives too much prominence to the Alvarez impact hypothesis - it's a good theory, but by no means the only one.

Philcha 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As per my answer below, this section should also stay. This is only an overview & may alter the article seriously if it is removed. Spawn Man 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why were the latest dinosaurs all so large?

The "dinosaurs" page should try to explain why the late Maastrichtian fossils were all pretty large - the smallest appear to have been Troodon and pachycephalosaurus. This is relevant to the extinction mystery - no purely land animals bigger than cat survived. If there had been small predatory dinosaurs in the late Maastrichtian, I'd have expected some of them to have survived by eating invertebrates and small mammals. Philcha 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While there were many large dinosaurs during the Maastrichtian, there were small ones, too. Small dinosaurs from that stage include: Struthiosaurus (7-8 ft long), Adasaurus (8 ft), Noasaurus (8 ft), Microhadrosaurus (8-9 ft), Anserimimus (12 ft), Ornithomimus (12 ft), Gallimimus (13-20 ft), Quilmesaurus (16-20 ft), Dryptosaurus (20 ft), Indosuchus (20 ft), and one of the smallest sauropods, Magyarosaurus (20 ft). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the birds. Most small animals seemed to have survived, on sea, land, and air (the small pterosaurs had all diappeared gradually for millions of years before the K/T, only azhdarchs were left at the end), while most big things died.Dinoguy2 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, guys, but the examples you quote are only "small" relative to other dinosaurs, but much larger than the purely land animals that survived the K-T extinction. The questions behind my question were - I should have made them explicit - : (A) Were there any cat-sized or smaller dinosaurs, especially at the very end of Cretaceous? (B) If none, why not? (C) If there were, why did they not survive the K-T extinction? Their food chain would have been detritus-based rather than photosynthesis-based, and they would have required less food to maintain a viable population.Philcha 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The smallest non-avian dinosaurs probably -were- no smaller than cat-sized; I've not heard of any. It may be an inherent part of their physiology - perhaps the way they evolved their endothermy, the average dinosaur simply could not evolve to be any smaller than cat-sized - too low of a mass may not have enabled them to keep their body warm enough for their physiology to function properly. The birds got around this restriction, got smaller, and survived the KT extinction. Most likely there were small non-avian dinosaurs which didn't fossilize well; smaller and more fragile creatures don't fossilize as well as critters with giant bones/teeth/shells. Its also quite possible that by that point in time, the dinosaurs had evolved away from being small at all; it may have been competition from mammals, birds, small reptiles, ect. made it difficult or impossible for dinosaurs to evolve to be terribly small due to competition. According to our current knowledge, even the smallest dinosaurs were no bigger than cat-sized, and that's on the upper size limit of what survived - luck of the draw may have eliminated the last non-avian dinosaurs. Or maybe their endothermic physiology didn't allow for them to survive the impact in some way. Maybe the reason all modern animals sleep is that only creatures which could sleep survived the KT impact, hibernating through it, and that those which could not perished. Maybe dinosaurs had to eat too much food. Its not as if extinction is entirely nonrandom; an event like a meteorite impact can cause harsh competition, and it is possible that the few dinosaurs which WERE small enough to survive simply got outcompeted and went extinct. Or maybe someday we'll find tiny dinosaurs hiding in some swamp; some cryptozoologists think it actually is that way. Titanium Dragon 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "cat size", but the smallest known dinosaurs were under 2ft long, most of it tail--much smaller in overall mass than an average cat. See Smallest Theropods in the article Dinosaur size. As you correctly point out, many of the smallest dinosaurs probably never fossilized. The smallest currently known, 6in-1ft scansoriopterygids, lived in trees and so are especially unlikely to encounter the right conditions for fossilization. Dinoguy2 16:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"(A) Were there any cat-sized or smaller dinosaurs, especially at the very end of Cretaceous?" Yes, again, birds. The problem with taking birds out of the equation is that small dinosaurs, for the most part, belonged to one group--the coelurosaurs. The coelurosaurs of the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous became the birds of the late cretaceous, just as the ornithopods of the LJ/EK became the hadrosaurs of the LK. So, the answer to question C is that "they did survive the extinction". It's no coincidence, IMO, that the one group to survive--neornithes--were all shorebirds at the time. Seagulls are among the most abundant and generalist birds alive today. The neornithes of the LK were probably the same way, which is why they survived and all the other bird group of the time (troodontids, dromaeosaurids, enantiornithes, ichthyornithes, hesperornithes, etc.) died out. The former two groups were already "living fossils" of the early Cretaceous as it was. Non-avian dinosaurs as a whole were relegated mostly to the island continent of North America, and were basically the marsupials of their time when the extinction occurred. Dinoguy2 16:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion so far appears to confirm my original point - the earliest dinosaurs and some Jurassic dinos (e.g. Compsognathus) were about the size of chickens, but all known Cretaceous dinos were larger than sheep. This is important for analysis of the K-T extinction, where no purely terrestrial animal larger than a cat survived (crocs and champsosaurs were larger, but were by this time semi-aquatic ambush predators). What features of dinos or of late-Cretaceous ecosystems prevented the existence of cat-sized or smaller dinos? Dinos' large size apparently was their death warrant, so it's possibly a more important issue than e.g. warm-bloodedness. The only explanation I've seen (pieced to gether from Bakker's "Dinosaur Heresies" and Pauls' "Predatory Dinosaurs") is that dino anatomy (short, rigid spines; poor sideways mobility of the rear limbs) made them less well adapted than mammals for small terrestrial vertebrate niches, since all terrain is rough from the point of view of small animals; but it's not very convincing, since most birds are small and many flourish on uneven ground and in the undergrowth.Philcha 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There were plenty of dinosaurs smaller than a sheep in the Cretaceous period. Mass is a far better qualifier than length, since tails made up such a large percentage of the body length. Velociraptor, for example, would have massed around 15 kilos at most. - Dotdotdotdash 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of the well-known small dinosaurs are Cretaceous, actually (Microraptor, several hypsilophodonts, true Echinodon, Caenagnathasia, etc.), and in the Campanian-Maastrichtian we have noasaurids, "Microcephale", and several alvarezsaurids (which were in the single-digit kilo range). In Argentina, we have dinky Saltasaurus and Neuquensaurus, which weren't cases of insular dwarfism. Supermassive sauropods appear to be clustered in the Late Jurassic and the timeframe around the Early Cretaceous-Late Cretaceous boundary. Many North American lineages seem larger, but that may be a predator-prey arms race: tyrannosaurids got bigger, so prey got bigger, so tyrannosaurids got bigger... Also, tyrannosaurid growth strategy seems to have eliminated the medium predator niche for other genera. The biggest issue (no pun intended) is that there are taphonomic biases against preservation of terrestrial small animal remains (most small prehistoric mammal genera are largely based on teeth), and search biases against collecting and studying them unless they're obviously interesting, like being in nests. J. Spencer 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Warm-blooded?

The "warm-bloodedness section should be almost entirely removed, as there's a more complete page about the Warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs. Philcha 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the main article is more comprehensive. However, the section here on Dinosaur is only an overview of what the article says. Also, the section was one that helped get Dinosaur to FA status, & its dleetion may cause it to be removed & even stripped of its title as a FA. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
While it would normally be a valid concern related to overall article size, keep in mind that this is a parent-article with many children. In this case it's actually reasonable and proper to give significant coverage to important sub-topics, along with links to the relevant Main Article. Dinosaur is indeed an FA, and any changes should be carefully considered in terms of how they will affect that. Article stability is a very desireable goal once this level is achieved :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I must agree. This article is linked to from around 3,500 other articles; it's a high-profile area, and the article needs to be complete and cover all major topics, even if there's an article which covers the topic more in depth. Also, one of the reasons it was made a Featured Article is because many editors felt the content was consistent, complete, and well-balanced. Moving out entire sections just doesn't make a lot of sense at this point. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of the subheadings in this article also have larger, more in-depth articles attributed to them. So, at what point do you stop cutting out content because it can be found elsewhere on wikipedia? I think the section is entirely necessary and adds a great deal to the article. After all, when you ask for information about dinosaurs, surely you expect to get a comprehensive account of all aspects of the subject? (obviously without going into unecessary detail but still, there's a fine line between too much and not enough...) Greebo cat 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Dinosaurs and man coexisted

I believe there is a large amount of evidence pointing to dinosaurs and man coexisting. I think this information should be included in the Wikipedia article:

- Trained scientists reported seeing a dinosaur.[1]

- 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang accrording to the Chinese publication, China Today (see: Lai Kuan and Jian Qun, ‘Dinosaurs: Alive and Well and Living in Northwest China?’, China Today, Vol. XLII No. 2, February 1993, p. 59.) [2]

- An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph that pointed to dinosaurs and man existing [3][4]

- The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." [5]

- The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, appears to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [6]

- On May 13, 1572 a dinosaur may have been killed by a peasant farmer in Italy (pg 41 "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor ISBN 0-89636-264-7) [7]

- It has been stated that dinosaurs are in the Bible. [8][9][10]

- There is other evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. 136.183.154.15 02:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the sources you cite would be considered reliable for purposes of a science article. If you can find similar info from an actual scientific journal or scholarly publication, that would be considered a reliable source. Thanks for taking an interest in the article, but we really can't include unsubstantiated assertions in an encyclopedia. If you have other questions about reliable sources, you might review WP:CITE, WP:VER, and WP:SOURCE. These policies explain the issues involved in detail. Doc Tropics 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The World Book Encyclopedia was cited an it is a credible source. I would also point out that that trained scientists have reported seeing a dinosaur. Thirdly, the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina is a widely known and notable piece of artwork and I can assure you that the photo was not altered. Here is another source which could be checked: "The Illustrated London News of February 9, 1856 (p. 166) reported that workmen digging a railway tunnel in France last century disturbed a huge winged creature at Culmont, in Haute Marne, while blasting rock for the tunnel. The creature was described as livid black, with a long neck and sharp teeth. It looked like a bat, and its skin was thick and oily. It died soon after. Its wingspan was measured at 3.22 metres (10 feet 7 inches). A naturalist ‘immediately recognised it as belonging to the genus Pterodactylus anas’, and it matched the remains of known pterodactyl fossils." [11] How would one get an old copy of the Illustrated London News? 136.183.154.15 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The World Book Encyclo. reference is in relation to Dragons, not Dinosaurs, and the specific source you cited for it was actually creationscience.com, not the World Book itself. In fact, reviewing your refs in detail, they are all from answersingenisis.com, creationscience.com, creationism.org, and similar Creationist websites. As I said before, none of these would be considered reliable references for this article. Doc Tropics 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The World Book Encylopedia says that dinosaurs are strangely like dinosaurs. Second, we don't have to cite the creationist sources we can site the original sources like World Book, China Today, and the book by the biologist Roy P. Mackal (Roy P. Mackal, A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe, E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1987). Lastly, I still haven't received a valid objection why the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina can't be used. Are you saying this famous piece of artwork was altered by the creationist website? 136.183.154.15 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


I believe that at this point your questions have been given a satisfactory answer; indeed, they have been given all the answer they deserve. Since you will doubtless not ever be persuaded by reason, there is little point in continuing the discussion. I will put this as simply as I can, in order to avoid any possible confusion:

What you have proposed is utter nonsense. It will not be included in the article. Doc Tropics 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, if we use the non-creationist sources like China Today, World Book Enycyclopedia, and a famous piece of art these should be considered reliable sources. Could you please explain why the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina can't be used? There are no controversies that this famous piece of art was forged. 136.183.154.18 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
All of these seem to be more relevant to the Cryptozoology article than to the dinosaur one as it also involves prehistoric animals which are not necessary dinosaur such as the above mentioned pterodactyl (a pterosaur) and the Loch Ness monster (that most cryptozoologist described as a possible plesiosaur). At most, we could just add a sentence that there are claims that dinosaurs have survived the K-T extinction and link to the crytozoology article. ArthurWeasley 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's already a link to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. Honestly, there's no reason to link to multiple rejected theories on dinosaurs; one is quite enough. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I also found some other info which might prove useful: "Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.”1 (Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10). [12]136.183.154.18 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ken! You aren't supposed to edit when you are blocked. Guettarda 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • NOTE: User:136.183.154.18 has been blocked as an account of previously blocked User:kdbuffalo. Similar edits initiated from this IP range can reasonably be deleted-on-sight. Doc Tropics 10:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you'll never believe this. Here's his Illustrated London News cite:

"Very Like a Whale"- A discovery of great scientific importance has just been made at Culmont (Haute Marne). Some men employed in cutting a tunnel which is to unite the St. Dizier and Nancy railways, had just thrown down an enourmous block of stone by means of gunpowder and were in the act of breaking it to pieces, when from a cavity within it they suddenly saw emerge a living being of monstrous form. This creature, which belongs to a class of animals hitherto considered extinct, has a very long neck, and a mouth filled with sharp teeth. It stands on four long legs, which are united together by two membranes, doubtless intended to support the animal in the air, and are and are armed with four claws terminated by long and crooked talons. Its membranous wings, when spread out, measure from tip to tip 3 metres 2 centimetres (nearly 10 feet 7 inches). Its colour is a livid black; its skin is naked, thick, and oily,; its intestines only contained a colourless liquid like clear water. On reaching the light this monster gave some signs of life, by shaking its wings, but soon after expired, uttering a hoarse cry. This strange creature, to which may be given the name of living fossil, was brought to Gray, where a naturalist, well versed in study of palaeontology, immediately recognised it as belonging to the genus Pterodactylus anas, many fossil remains of which have been found among the strata which geologists have designated by the name of lias. The rock in which this monster was discovered belongs precisely to that formation the deposit of which is so old that geologists date it more than a million of years back. The cavity in which the animal was lodged forms an exact hollow mould of its body, which indicates it was completely enveloped with the sedimentry deposit -Presse Grayloise

...That last sentence speaks for itself, no? Are we realliy supposed to believe that it was entombe ofr millions of years, but CAME BACK TO LIFE ON EXCAVATION?!!?!? BWAHAHAHA! - Adam Cuerden, currently logged off.

I saw that movie. It sucked (personal opinion only, no cite). Reign of Fire. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You beat me to the punchline, Killer Chihuahua. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Weel, this is the 1856 Reign of Fire (the modern one is a remake, except this one, like the original Amnityville Horror is claimed to be true. Where do they getting this stuff, then? Charles Fort? Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who thought this was a total crock! Doc Tropics 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Creationists are doomed if they keep in relying on stories like this. Here's an actual explanation for the hoax: [13]. In the original version, the pterodactyl crumbled to dust conveniently leaving no evidence. Note that there is no such species as Pterodactylus anas and anas is the latin for duck, which translates to 'canard' in french (in english this means 'an unfounded, false, or fabricated report or story') ArthurWeasley 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, i think that whoever 'ken' is should be unblocked and allowed to go on with his crusade-i live for reading this kind of pap. He's making me laugh anyway-even if he is blocking up the talk page with unscientific, ridiculously sourced creationist rubbish. Yay for crazy people... Greebo cat 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, what his assertions lack in factual data, they make up for with their entertainment value. Doc Tropics 19:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hip-problem

Isn't it a bit weird that meat-eating dinosars were descendants to birds, when they belonged to the order Saurischia? Perhaps they evolved a bird-hip when they evolved into birds? It's always disturbed me. Were dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx and Microraptor bird-hipped or lizard-hipped?! And how the fuck could anyone write that dinosaurs and humans coexisted?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.181.53.36 (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

"Ornithischia" and "Saurischia" are just names, don't lose sleep over them. And yes, Archaeopteryx and Microraptor and other dromaeosaur-type dinosaurs evolved a backwards-pointing pubis just like the "ornithischians". Actually if I recall correctly the situation in birds and closely-related theropods is a bit different than in your so-called "bird-hipped" dinosaurs - the little feathery guys actually turned their pubic bones backwards, while the big herbivores just made theirs short and grew a big backwards-pointing projection on them. Kotengu 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a better name for Ornithischia would be Pseudoornithischia, "false bird hips". Don't get me started on on Theropoda vs. Ornithopoda...Dinoguy2 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image?

We seem to have lost "Image:Eoraptor.jpg" in the "Evolution of dinosaurs" section; does anyone know what happened? Should this link be removed/replaced? If the image was deleted for some reason, a replacement would be useful, but finding and licensing images is not one of my strong points. Perhaps someone could help with this?  : ) Doc Tropics 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was presumably deleted because it didn't contain enough information about where it came from. I replaced the image a few days ago with a new one, a result of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review page, where new dinosaur images are requested and reviewed. Feel free to make requests. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Earliest Dinosaur

Every time I read something that has to do with Early Dinosaurs, people talk about Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus and even Coelophysis, but I've never heard anyone talk about Staurikosaurus. WHY?!. It lived far earlier than any of those other creatures, and I've only ever heard it stated as the earliest dinosaur in websites that deal specifically with it, not in websites that talk about the earliest dinosaurs. In-fact, where most sources state that Dinosaurs evolved in the Late Triassic, it is stated with staurikosaurus that it was a Middle Triassic dinosaur!. So why is there never any mention of it, yet there is mention of the others?!. And for the record, there have been recent discoveries about even earlier dinosaurs (prosauropods from Madagascar). And, though there is no discovered evidence for it and I am not a proffessional, I suspect that Dinosaurs actually evolved sometime in the Early Triassic. - 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Staurikosaurus lived "way earlier" than Hererrasaurus, but you have a point. There is evidence for Anisian dinosaurs, and some folks think dinosaur origins go back even further. Still, our current article does state early dinosaurs have been found in the Middle Triassic. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... that article is incorrect. It lists Staurikosaurus as Middle Triassic (Carnian). It is Carnian, but Carnian is the Late Triasssic, same time period as Eo and Herrera. There's a new, possibly earlier dinosaur just announced, but it won't be published 'till next year. Dinoguy2 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Actually, there are several possible earlier dinosaurs: an "undescribed coelophysoid from the Ladinian" and an "undescribed herrerasaurid from the Anisian"[14] Not sure whatever happened to the undescribed saurpodomorph from Madagascar, though, that they indicated was earlier than anything else... Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That material turned out to be nondinosaurian, I believe. Dotdotdotdash 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrections needed

If nobody objects or offers alternative suggestions within a week, I'll edit the "dinosaur" page to:

  • Retitle "Dinosaur synapomorphies" to "Distinguishing characteristics" - "synapomorphies" is too technical for the general public and so is the article on "synapomorphy" - but I'll link to the "synapomorphy" article.
  • Remove the totally incorrect inclusion of 3-toed foot under "synapomorphies" / "Distinguishing characteristics" - see my discussion in Oct 2006 with MWAK.
  • Under "Synapomorphies" / "Distinguishing characteristics", point out that Saturnalia casts doubt on whether perforated acetabulum is a synapomorphy - see my discussion in Oct 2006 with MWAK.
  • Under "Other shared anatomical features" correct the mistaken assertion that upright limbs are more efficient. They're not (Bakker reports his test of this in The Dinosaur Heresies), their advantage is that they avoid Carrier's Constraint and thus provide greater stamina.Philcha 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't "dumb down" articles for the sake of the general public. Articles which contain difficult terms are to use wikilinks. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to "dumb down" anything - if you've seen some of my edits (e.g. Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, Extinction event, Warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs) you'll notice that I aim to make readers think. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I've always thought that an encyclopedia's main job is to give non-specialists an introduction to a subject and encourage them to read further. I have no problem with the use of "synapomorphy" in a technical discussion, and I think the introduction and short explanation of "synapomorphy" in the first paragraph of the section is excellent. But using it in a section heading is going to deter some readers, who might otherwise have read further and become interested enough to read about classification techniques.Philcha 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that synapomorphy is a highly technical term, and absolutely nobody who doesn't specialize in the field of evolutionary biology is going to know what it means. It should be changed in the headers, and linked and followed by a short definition when first used in the text. Dinoguy2 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Section "Extinction theories"

This currently duplicates too much of the K-T extinction article, gives too much space to the Alvarez impact theory and omits the other really strong contender, the Deccan Traps flood basalt event.

I suggest this section should:

  • Point out that a good theory has to: (A) account for what became extinct and what survived (with very brief lists); (B) match the fossil record of the timing of extinctions.
  • Point out that a combination of causes might be needed to account for the fossil evidence.
  • Make the account of the Alvarez impact theory shorter and link to the relevant section of the K-T extinction article.
  • Add the Deccan Traps flood basalt event and link to the relevant section of the K-T extinction article.Philcha 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As to your first two suggestions--it's not our place to point things out. These are rational points and probably appear somewhere in the literature. If so, we need to quote sources that point these things out and avoid drawing our own conclusions. Dinoguy2 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Warm-bloodedness

This section is too long and duplicates too much of the article "Warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs".

It also states, mistakenly AFAIK, that 19th century scientists regard dinos as cold-blooded. I'm not sure what Owen's view was, but T.H. Huxley was impressed by their similarities to birds (implies active and therefore "warm-blooded"), and Charles R. Wilson's famous painting "Fighting Laelaps" (now called Dryptosaurus) shows 2 dinos leaping at each other like fighting cocks.Philcha 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct here, though I'm not sure whether these scientists considered dinosaurs warm blooded or not (or whether they explicitley considered them cold blooded). Someone more familiar with the early literature would be able to clarify this section. Dinoguy2 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your agnosticism ("I'm not sure whether these scientists considered dinosaurs warm blooded or not"). The best-known evidence for 19th century opinion is: Owen's lizard-like reconstructions at Crystal Palace; Huxley's comparison of dinos to birds and and Wilson's "Fighting Laelaps". I suggest the article should say that there is little clear evidence of the views of 19th century scientists and refer to Owen, Huxley and Wilson.Philcha 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how and when the "cold-blooded" view became dominant?Philcha 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Owen thought they had a high metabolism; the typical "sluggish" view only became dogma in the thirties of the 20th century. This wasn't caused by some deceptive empirical knowledge gained but merely a result of lessened interest, so that their peculiarities no longer stood out from general "reptility"--MWAK 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The section also misses the real issue: were dinos sluggish or active? If they were sluggish, how did they remain the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 150MY? As Bakker ("Dinosaur Heresies") points out, mammal's high activity levels make them the dominant terrestrial vertebrates except in very special environments (small islands, e.g. Komodo, where prey biomass is insufficient to support large mammalian predators; deserts, where diapsids' superior water conservation is critical).Philcha 13:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"The section also misses the real issue: were dinos sluggish or active" Scientists like Bakker have a clear opinion on this. I seriously doubt it's possible to know something like that. Even among warm-blooded animals, plenty are very sluggish. And among cold-blooded animals, many are highly active. Impossible to kno without directly observing the behavior of each species. Dinoguy2 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Even among warm-blooded animals, plenty are very sluggish. And among cold-blooded animals, many are highly active." I accept that: crocs and some other reptiles can display great speed and agility, but only in very short bursts; some mammals avoid exertion where possible (notably domestic cats); some sauropods apparently used their long necks to graze / browse over a wide area while their bodies stood still. But AFAIK all warm-blooded terrestrial vertebrates are capable of keeping on the move for hours at a time, and I know of no cold-blooded terrestrial vertebrates which are capable of such long periods of activity.Philcha 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion & Dinosaurs

I edited this section because it was kind of ugly previously; it was reworded, and I don't really have a problem with it. However, I do question the use of written scriptures rather than mythology; while Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalists are the most common and prominent religious folk who oppose it, they aren't the only ones, and mythology is more inclusive as not all religious folk who oppose the standard interpretation of dinosaur fossils have written scriptures, necessarily. I don't really have any sources on hand to dispute it though, so if anyone does one way or the other, it'd be nice; I'm not sure if its important or not. Thoughts/comments/opinions/sources? Titanium Dragon 10:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please append the heading that the content of this section, as stated currently, is not neutral. A blanket statement implying that all religious references and stances on dinosaur history fails against the scientific method needs further explanation or needs to be removed. It is better simply to refer to the link regarding the Religious Perspective of Dinosaurs without comment than to include that line. Sawubona 10:44, 2/5/2008 (EST). 192.91.147.34 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that the second sentence contains the phrase "these religiously-inspired interpretations". "These" refers back to "Various religious groups have views about dinosaurs that differ from those held by most scientists" in the first sentence. There's no reference to "all" religiously-inspired interpretations of dinosaurs--though it would seem a remarkable coincidence for any religiously-inspired interpretation to "withstand serious scientific scrutiny." KarlBunker 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious Perspectives Sub-article Deletion

The Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs sub-article linked to by this article is currently up for deletion, with lots of support for that position.

Just thought I would mention that here. I personally support keeping the sub-article, since religious views on dinosaurs are significant minority positions that should be given coverage on Wikipedia... even if we don't personally agree with them. Various religious groups do have specific views about dinosaurs in particular, whereas this is not the case for, say, ancient organisms such as trilobites that haven't captured the popular imagination. These views shouldn't be completely "disappeared" on Wikipedia IMO, even though they're specious, anti-intellectual, &c.

This issue has been discussed nearly to death here over the past couple of years, so I won't belabor the pros and cons again. Suffice it to say that placing information about religious perspectives on dinosaurs in a sub-article has seemed to work pretty well since we implemented the change back in January '06. Killdevil 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion because the article says very little, is not very active, has issues, and what it does say is simply duplication of what is in other articles. It should be at best a footnote to this article, but a link to, say, creationists in the relevent section on this article seems like it'd be a way to move them elsewhere. Given that "religious perspectives" is really "creationist perspectives" anyway, and fundamentalist Christian ones at that, it seems much better to simply link to the relevent articles (creation-evolution controversy and creationism) and have it be nothing but a couple of sentences here. If there's an increase in vandalism, I'll help fix it, but honestly, vandalism isn't a good reason to change a page. Titanium Dragon 06:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in this race, so long as the content of that article doesn't find its way back into this one where it started off. The creation of the Religion article was a comprimise after pages and pages of debate over whether or not the religious content of this article should be removed. While I normally don't like the idea of creating articles simply for the sake of deflecting unwanted content, know that the deletion of that article could lead to a repeat of the edit wars that took place on Dinosaur. Dinoguy2 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular page

According to this, Dinosaur is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia, receiving over 4,000 visitors a day, which works out to over 1.5 million views per year. As near as I can tell, the only animal-related articles which rank higher are Cat, Animal, List of dog breeds, and Snake. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty cool! Though Animal should probably be beefed up a bit... Dinoguy2 15:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, animal is a pretty terse article. Killdevil 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image swapping and replacement of article text with bullet points

I request that we discuss image swapping here before it's done on a massive scale in the live article. This is a featured article, after all, and while there's certainly room for improvement in terms of imagery, I'm not sure that the outcome of the past couple of days' editing was an overall improvement.

Perhaps you could post the images you want to swap out in a gallery here first?

I'm also not sure that replacing several paragraphs of decent text with hard-to-read bullet-point lists was a good idea... let's talk about that stuff here too, maybe? Killdevil 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the images, and I haven't seen what text was replaced by lists, but generally prose format is preferred over bulleted lists. Several articles have been denyed featured status in peer reviews because they contained informaton in list form. Dinoguy2 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Started looking through the history--one idea I like is using images in the classification section. It's a good place to illustrate dinosaur morphological diversity and fill in the big white space on the rgiht that long list of taxa creates. Dinoguy2 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second (third?) the comment that bullet-point lists in place of prose are a Bad Idea(tm). Featured Articles such as Dinosaur can be recalled at any time, if someone feels the article no longer meets the requirements at WP:FA. I, for one, don't feel like redoing a FAC, especially when there are so many articles left to FA-ize. Let's not backtrack. As long as the layout looks good on a variety of browsers, the idea of adding dinosaur images on the right-hand side of the dinosaur classification list is a good one. And since we have now have several nice illustrations to choose from, thanks to our excellent illustrators... Firsfron of Ronchester 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
On review, there was a bunch of good information added to the article in bullet-point form. If that info could instead be merged with the article in paragraph form, it might be a good thing. 68.100.161.7 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot comment on the bulleted lists, as I did not add them. With regards to the images I swapped, I would ask that you please review the changes I made; I think you will agree that they were an improvement. In light of the importance and popularity of this article, I think it should showcase the very best dinosaur images on Wikipedia. It would be preferable if all the images were closely associated with their adjacent text, but this is unfortunately not the case (I attempted to remedy this when changing the images and moving them around). Mgiganteus1 13:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised by "generally prose format is preferred over bulleted lists. Several articles have been denied featured status in peer reviews because they contained information in list form." AFAIK Wikipedia is primarily an online encyclopedia, and every guide I've ever seen to writing for the Web recommends avoiding long passages of text and using bullet points rather than in-line lists or long sentences.Philcha 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to changes that I made recently. Regardless of our differing views about bullet points, the changes were necessary: the previous (now restored version) has serious errors under "synapomorhies" (which I re-title "Distinguishing characteristics" for the benefit of the non-technical reader); it was also wrong about the advantages of erect limbs (Baker reported his experimental test in "Dinosaur Heresies"); it misrepresented the (not entirely explicit) views of 19th century scientists about dino metabolism; the "extinction theories" section did not refer to the Deccan Traps, which one of the 2 main contenders (along with the Chixculub impact). All of these points are discussed earlier in this page.Philcha 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"every guide I've ever seen to writing for the Web recommends avoiding long passages of text and using bullet points" The internet makes English majors sad ;) Thism ay be a good guideline for, say, powerpoint slides, but in general, lots of lists generally equals bad writing. The key here is encyclopedia, not Internet--crack open a Brittanica and I doubt you'll find many bulleted lists. Just my personal preference, but one that seems to be shared by a whole lot of FAC reviewers. Anyway, I agree that the changes you mention (19th cent. views on metabolism, Deccan Traps, etc.) should be in the article, if they're in prose form. Dinoguy2 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate, philcha, your contributions were good information that should be in the article. Particularly so, considering that this article doesn't often see substantial new contributions of fact made by knowledgeable editors. Your new information simply need to be paragraph-ized, and perhaps more seamlessly merged with the existing article. Killdevil 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So why didn't you do that rather than roll the page back? And have you considered asking readers (rather than editors) which style of presentation they prefer?Philcha 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Philcha, if you have issues with the way information is presented in Wikipedia, I'd encourage you to look through the Manual of Style and take up any suggestions you have for improvement for those editors who keep track of sylistic guidlines and the like. I'm glad that you're contributing good information here, but you have to keep in mind that we other editors may not have the time to reformat information that does not match the tone or style of the rest of the article. As a more extreme example, lately there's been an anonymous contributor who's been quite prolific at suggesting changes, posting additions and references for dinosaur articles on their talk pages, and then 'instructing' other editors to incorporate them into the article. While a majority of his suggestions and contributions are good, I can't always be bothered to go ahead and write up entire new sections, and don't feel I should be expected to when the person posting them has never (to my knowledge) contributed to an actual article rather than a talk page, even though it's the exact same process. As the person who suggested and implemented the present changes, I'm sure you have a better handle on how to write new entries and incorporate them better into the existing text than onlookers like me. If you don't want to do this, that's fine too. I'll have some time later on to work on adapting your contributions, and 'm sure others wouldn't mind helping me, if you chose not to follow up on it. It's just courtesy to offer you first crack at it, since they're your ideas. Dinoguy2 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Dinoguy2, I know you're trying to be diplomatic, but what you describe as courtesy is an invitation to spend almost as much time re-instating my edit as it took originally - getting the mark-up and cross-references right and all the other fiddly details - especially as I edited several sections. I've corrected the worst errors that were there before the edit I did that was rolled back, and it was such a tedious chore I wish I hadn't bothered. Let the style nazi who rolled back the whole of my edit do the rest of the work.Philcha 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Calling user:Killdevil a "style nazi" realy isn't helpful here, Philcha. There's already been explanations from several users concerning bulleted lists. A major concern is this article's status as a Featured Article. Featured Articles can be (and are) de-FAd if editors feel the article no longer meets the requirements.
Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review. Comments on Gerald Ford: "reads very trivial and listy."; Exploding whale "listy sections", "needs conversion from its listy format into prose"; Evolution "a little too listy"; English poetry "The prose is too choppy and listy", etc, etc. It is clear that many FAC reviewers strongly object to multiple lists, and will object to any article which uses them.
FAC is a two week process, not including the preparation. I don't think any editor here (including you) wants to waste another two weeks answering and implementing suggestions from FAC reviewers, especially when it doesn't guarantee a successful FAC in the end. Adding information is great, but the additions truly should resemble the rest of the article, and switching out paragraphs for bulleted text as you did here and elsewhere will only result in two weeks of work for anyone still willing to go through the lengthy FAC process on this article again. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you're trying to be helpful, Firsfron. But if the FAC reviewers are more concerned with presentation style than with quality of content, Wikipedia's in trouble. Before I edited the "dinosaur" article on 9 Jan, it contained the defects listed in my comment of 11 Jan in this "talk" item. The first of these was a credibility killer - any paleontologist who saw them would immediately advise everybody he / she knew to avoid the article. If anyone didn't like my use of bullet lists, they could have changed them to continuous prose in far less time than: (a) it would take me to re-constitute my contribution; (b) any one of yourself, Dinoguy2 or I has spent on this discussion.Philcha 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs members include, among others, actual vertebrate paleontologists, Ph.D students, and others with published paleontological papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised none of them reacted to the erroneous statement that a 3-toed foot is a dino synapomorphy, which I first commented on in Oct 2006.Philcha 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've checked the style guide page about lists, and it says "However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are 'children' of the paragraphs that precede them. Such 'children' logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short" and "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence" (with examples of both cases). I used bullet lists in accordance with these guidelines, either to show that the list elements were logically subordinate to the preceding sentence or to avoid ultra-long inline lists. As far as I can see whoever rolled back my edit misinterpreted the guideline and I leave him / her to sort out the consequences of his / her misunderstanding.Philcha 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There was no misunderstanding. As I said before, an article which uses multiple bulleted lists will never pass FAC because the FAC reviewers refuse to pass a FAC which uses them. And as any Featured Article can be recalled at any time, it made a lot of sense to revert the change from prose to bulleted text. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't disputed my statement that my use of bullet lists conformed to the style guide page about lists. That suggests there's a discrepancy between at least 2 of: the style guide page about lists; the policy of the FAC reviewers (is it stated online?); some administrator's interpretation of either the style guide or the FAC reviewers' policy.Philcha 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute what you've said. The problem is that the FAC criteria are somewhat open to interpretation, and several FAC reviewers will simply not allow an article which has multiple bulleted lists to be promoted to a Featured Article, and will recall a featured article which uses them. We've tried to discuss this many times with various FAC reviewers, and on this issue, they won't budge. I've provided examples above, and if you want, you can take a look at the FAC candidacies of several dinosaur articles where this issue was brought up. It's unfortunate, but FAC is based on a consensus, and if there are objections that are not addressed, there is no consensus, and the article does not reach Featured Article status. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case the FAC reviewers need to rewrite the style guide page about lists, including showing how they would present information in the cases where lists are currently allowed or recommended. In the meantime it would have taken any competent user of English 5 minutes to edit my contribution into continuous prose, so I'm not going to spend 30+ minutes copying and pasting from the "difference" entries then checking markup, references, etc.Philcha 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the image swapping: Mgig replaced several images with other images.

Replaced
Triceratops.gif

with this image.

Replaced
Stego-marsh-1896-US geological survey.jpg

with this image.

Replaced

with this image.

Personally, I have no problem with the replacements, except possibly that the Stegosaurus swap replaced an image with the correct thagomizer with an outdated thagomizer. Any other comments? I also noted browsing the history of the article that a "citation needed" template was placed, and someone added the citation. That edit needs to be reinstated. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nailed it. J. Spencer 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A constructive critique of the recent image replacements

General comments
  • I think we should strive to replicate the balance of left-justified and right-justified images found in the previous incarnation of the article. Most of the new additions are on the right of the article, and to me this feels very "unbalanced."
  • I think we should probably remove some of the new additions just on general principle -- there are simply too many images after the replacements by Mgiganteus. They overwhelm the text in some areas.
  • Finally, without exception, I find the pencil sketches that were added to the article to be too amateurish for placement in a featured article (and the encyclopedia's main article on such an important topic). This is not to demean the talent of the artist(s) who drew these images; they're much better than I could do! Rather, I think such images are more appropriate where there are simply no other options (as in articles on a specific dino species for which we have no other PD imagery). Ask yourself: would these images pass muster in Britannica, or any other professionally-compiled compendium of knowledge you have to pay for? That should be our litmus test for appropriate imagery -- we have no shortage of PD pics contributed by talented people, and we must be vicious and take no prisoners in our exclusion of all but the very best from this particular article.
Specific comments
  • I don't go for the replacement of the stegosaurus skeleton pic with Marsh's sketch thereof. It's too monochromatic; there are too many tans and greys now throughout the article. Though the original museum shot was too dark, that could be fixed using Photoshop.
  • I don't like the dromaeosaurus pic in the Evolution section. It's a pencil sketch and looks a bit too amateurish for a featured article. That said, I didn't like the image it replaced too much, either.
  • Saurischian and ornithischian pelvis illustrations -- the photos illustrating these anatomical elements should be restored; they complemented the illustrations nicely.
  • Illustrations by the taxonomic classification list -- all of these are too amateurishly done to warrant placement in a featured article. Again, they are nice pieces of work by a talented artist and are much better than I could do. I simply believe they do not have a place in such an important article (given that we have other more "serious" and "encyclopedic" imagery that could be substituted). Again, ask yourself if these would pass muster in Britannica.
  • Images in feathered dinosaur section -- these images are okay. They should be spaced out vertically so as not to appear in one long unbroken vertical column. Also, one of the three should be left-justified.
In sum: while some of the images added recently are decent additions to the article in and of themselves, I continue to feel that, on balance, the imagery changes have made this featured article feel less professional, less polished, and less put-together than it was before the changes were implemented. Killdevil 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Illustrations by the taxonomic classification list -- all of these are too amateurishly done to warrant placement in a featured article." Ironically, these were done by a professional... I take it you just don't like the use of b/w illustrations? Dinoguy2 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes... perhaps "amateurish" is the wrong word. The black and white illustrations aren't amateurish, but they do feel too "informal", at least to me. I wouldn't object to the placement of one or two of them in the article, but five feels rather overwhelming. I think we should take a more serious, photography-oriented approach where possible; museum photos of assembled dino skeletons, photos of museum dioramas, and select color illustrations of dinosaurs in realistic settings seem the best match for the serious, scientific tone of the article. Killdevil 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can agree with that. I do think at least a few images should be used in the taxonomy section, which tends to create a lot of white space, and would advocate the way it was set up with the illustration--a representative image for each suborder. Dinoguy2 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Killdevil, I think overall the changes you made to the images today are an improvement. The color illustrations brighten the article up a bit. Though they're not as 'realistic' looking as some of the graphite drawings in the article, and I know you had concerns about using illustrations and having the article appear 'amatureish'. I also have always disliked that statue in the taxobox. While i'm not going to argue that the previous photo of mine should be replaced, I do feel that the use of actual fossils in the taxobox is important, or a well-done painting/illustration depicting a dinosaur in a realistic (not modern) backdrop, though fossils would probably look more professional. Additionally, the current taxobox image lacks copyright info and is marked for deletion. Dinoguy2 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I buy your argument about the taxobox. I've photoshopped a version of your prior image a bit (fixed the color, adjusted levels, brightened) and re-added it. I'm about halfway through the whole article, image-wise; the Classification and Areas of Debate sections still need some TLC.
I'm attempting to place mostly pics of actual fossils; I figured artist's renderings were ideal for the "behavior" section, since that's an area that fossils don't often elucidate as fully as we'd like... Killdevil 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"I request that we discuss image swapping here before it's done on a massive scale in the live article. [...] Perhaps you could post the images you want to swap out in a gallery here first?" Mgiganteus1 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the Brachiosaurus drawing anatomically correct? It looks as if it's about to topple over with its enormously muscled neck and small hind quarters. Lepidodendron 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes--though the extent of the musculature/withers is speculative, it's consistant with the bridge-like construction of sauropod necks. The neck would be at least partially self-supporting in such animals, and wouldn't tip them over. Dinoguy2 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New Link

New link - under Popular

Hi; we've got a link, www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/index.html, which can get you there.

Done. Hut 8.5 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures:

I have recently checked on the article, only to find that most of the good pictures have been replaced with a multitude of pictures, some of which aren't as good. Currently, there are too many pictures on the article. Some of the T. rex pictures have been removed, & let's face it, he's one of the most popular therefore should get at least 1 more picture than he currently has. None of the "periods" or full stops were in place on the image captions & for a FA quality article, this should have picked up on. I agree with people above, I'd prefer a few less artist's depictions & a couple more photos. But overall, the number needs to be decreased as it isn't looking very FA class right now. Articles aren't picture galleries, but encyclopedic pages. Thoguhts on what to do as I'd hate to see this article reviewed... Spawn Man 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about pictures, as I have no sense of aesthetics, but refs are in short supply throughout. J. Spencer 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
At the time I got it to FA status, all sections had references, so I have no idea what's gone on in the regard since then... Spawn Man 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be worthwhile comparing the current article to the one which got FA status, however I don't know how to directly compare two articles more than 500 edits apart, other than to quickly revert to one. Cas Liber 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the difference between the current version and the version on the day it was featured: [15] Mgiganteus1 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I get a headache just looking at it...Cas Liber 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Im doing a research on dinosaurs and was wondering if I could interview someone via email. I just need a few of your words to cite in my report.

Two suggestions

1. The "evolution" section could be expanded. It is not very informative now. It is good to know what types of dinosaurs evolved and became dominant during each period (and perhaps - some existing speculations as to why they evolved and became dominant; e.g., why were the carnivores so predominantly bipedal, and the herbivores quadrupedal, why did the sauropods evolve such long necks, and why did they decline somewhat and yield to different groups, why did so many attend such enormous size, etc.), how did the total "pool" of dinosaur species change over time? Also, while cladistics is all very nice, the good old "tree" pictures of evolution are intuitively easier to grasp. I had better not try to do something like that myself, because my most recent dinosaur book is from the early nineties and I am likely to get it wrong (not to mention that it reqires some work :))

2. A section about dinosaur intelligence might be useful. I believe it has been the subject of controversy, somewhat like (and in connection with) warm-bloodedness, and all those disturbing facts about astoundingly small brains deserve mention.

Both of these issues are touched upon here and there in articles about particular species and groups, but you don't get a global picture there. --91.148.159.4 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! We'll have a look at adjusting those sections. J. Spencer 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heart and Sleeping Posture

Only one dinosaur species has been identified as having a four chambered heart, and the idea is scientifically dubious, i know of at least 2 papers the openly criticise the findings of the paper. shall i add this, and references for both papers, or simply remove the comments? Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 15:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific case was dubious, but the idea that dinosaurs had four-chambered hearts isn't (both birds and crocs have them; crocs are a bit modified to help them stay underwater longer). Nevertheless, that line should have citations, as it currently lacks them. I think it should stay, because it's a recent part of this discussion. If you'd like to do something with that section, it'd be a good idea to add ref 32 from the link above, as it discusses birds and crocs both having four-chambered hearts. J. Spencer 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
as far as i am aware a crocodile has a functionally four chambred heart that is facultatively three-chambered (during diving for example). The hearts of birds and dinosaurs although similar are defiantly differ in anatomical detail. Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)