Talk:Carnotaurus

New sources for FAR

As part of the FAR process, I ticked this as "satisfactory", but wanted to note some recent sources that should probably be incorporated into the article, as follows. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Cerroni & Novas, 2020: The skull of Carnotaurus sastrei Bonaparte 1985 revisited: insights from craniofacial bones, palate and lower jaw

• Cerronia & Paulina-Carabajal, 2019: Novel information on the endocranial morphology of the abelisaurid theropod Carnotaurus sastrei

• Delcourt, 2018: Ceratosaur palaeobiology: new insights on evolution and ecology of the southern rulers

• Also, should we consider structuring the sections as in more recent dinosaur FACs, with history first and paleoenvironemnt last? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, some interesting stuff in those! I try to incorporate what I can without loosing overall balance. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The fake teeth are a bummer though. I think our skeletal reconstruction needs an update here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that was unexpected! Doesn't that also mean our photos of mounted skeletons are wrong? Or maybe it isn't too visible there? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

They are most probably wrong, yeah. But there is nothing we can do about that I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Were the teeth then more similar to those of other abelisaurs? Maybe we can have a section about this at WP:Dinoart to discuss what can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't state that the teeth as reconstructed are wrong, but it does say they are fantasy. There is no reason to assume that they are any different to those of all other abelisaurs, and the replacement teeth have short crowns as expected. Yes maybe we should discuss this at WP:Dinoart. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

But I see we also have conflicting information: Bonaparte (1990) states that "Both lower jaws are completely preserved with all their teeth. Unfortunately some teeth were fragmented when the jaws were being separated from the skull." His skull diagram shows only few missing parts in the teeth, and the upper jaw teeth are shown to be completely preserved. Because of this, maybe we should not do anything at all, and simply provide the conflicting statements in the text.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds odd. Hmmm, yeah, I guess we can only wait and see if this is ever elaborated on... FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I do note that 1) the skull diagram of Bonaparte, in the upper jaw, shows more complete teeth then the actual skull with plaster and all (photograph in the same paper); 2) that the missing parts indicated for the lower jaw in that diagram simply are the missing parts in the reconstruction (so all plaster is shown as preserved, which is misleading); and that 3) the 2020 skull paper has an updated diagram that shows much shorter tooth crowns. I tend to think that the 2020 paper is correct. But yes, let's just wait for another published opinion on this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Or should we just base our stuff on that updated diagram (Cerroni et al. 2020, fig 1)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Heh, I'll bring it up at WP:Dinoart then, because it's certainly not a straightforward decision! FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Above sources are now included (required some major expansion). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks great to me, now the article should be fully up to date! Perhaps the restoration could now be moved from the discovery section (where it is not so relevant) to the skull section, which now has more space? And if we're lucky down the line, a map could then be moved to discovery, or maybe I can find another free photo of the holotype fossils... FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing a skull diagram actually, since I think that would help a lot with understanding the text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The one I just added to this image[1] could be a good basis? Since it's already free... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Added the diagram now. In case you have ideas how to better arrange the images, please do so! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The main thing is that I think it would be good to have the restoration now in discovery somewhere in the description section, but there isn't much room. Another thing that could maybe be cool is to make a double image with the current tail muscle cross section and this 3D reconstruction from the same paper[2] side by side, unless you think it would make the cross section diagram harder to see. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We could maybe move the "skull cast" photo of the skull section down to "Brain and senses" (which has some space), to have space for the restoration? This would leave space in the description section – you suggested to add a map. Do you know any file that can easily be modified to make such a map? And yes, I like the idea to also add the 3D reconstruction to the tail section! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Earlier, I've remade such maps from free papers about animals from the same or adjacent formations (like in Kosmoceratops), but I couldn't find any relevant to Carnotaurus off-hand, but I'll keep an eye on it. Ill try to add the tail muscle image next... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Now added, and took a stab at rejigging images throughout, to see if they could be moved to more fitting places... But there are many possible layouts, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Images

There is some MOS:SANDWICHing of images that should be addressed, perhaps by removing a few images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's one citation needed in the function of the horns section. Needs a little tune-up, but a FAR here is not gonna be useful. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: for the issues above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see sandwitching on my screen, but I made one diagram smaller where images are most crowded. There is no citation needed; that single sentence without a citation is just editorial, a summary of what follows in the three paragraphs to come; it is just providing structure to the article and guides the reader. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see sandwiching either, but one way images can be "combined" rather than removed can be seen at Podokesaurus, which wouldn't have room for half of the images if I hadn't used the double image template a bunch of places. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Carnotaurus skin, osteoderms or feature scales?

There were just a couple of edits that changed the wording of the bumps in Carnotsaurus skin impressions from osteoderms to feature scales, which was then reverted. I'm not sure what the bumps in Carnotaurus actually are, but osteoderms by their name are bone in the skin, whereas 'feature scales' is a term usually used by hadrosaur workers (i.e. Bell 2014) to describe extra large standalone scales or the midline structures, 'midline feature scales'. Reading Bonaparte et al. 1990 describes the bumps simply as 'protuberances'. There is a 1997 paper by Czerkas that discusses Carnotaurus skin, but I haven't got a copy. In a titanosaur paper, Lindoso et al. imply they could be osteoderms, but don't specifically say. Does anyone have a copy of Czerkas 1997? If there is uncertainty in the literature over these bumps, what should wiki refer to them as? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I just checked Czerkas 1997 again, and he refers to these bumps as "conical studs", stating that they are "probably made of a hypertrophied cluster of compacted scales, similar to what is seen in the dermal spines along the dorsal midline of hadrosaurs" and "There is no indication of a horny core". So yes I was wrong and the article is clearly in error; I will correct in a moment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. In fact, the article was already saying these structures were scale aggregates, and was therefore contradicting itself. Not sure how I could not see this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Now the skin has finally been described in detail:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So should we assume that our restorations here, and of most other abelisaurs, are wrong? Here's a restoration based on the new paper, looks pretty smooth:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)