Talk:Dinosaur

Renewing URFA efforts

Prompted by FunkMonk's comments at WP:DINO, I'd like to see if we can get this to the finish line. I previously committed to rewriting the text on soft tissue and dinosaur size, but given the work of LittleLazyLass and others on dinosaur size it may make more sense for me to stick to the former. Other issues are at Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 15#FA criteria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done a thorough revision of three sections: "Dinosaur renaissance" and beyond, Soft tissue and molecular preservation, and Origins and early evolution. Comments welcome. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, Phil Currie has essentially written a version of this article for us... [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

I think we should replace the image of the ankylosaur. With it and the stegosaur, we have two representatives of Thyreophora. I would suggest Heterodontosaurus or Thescelosaurus. They are from clades that are not represented. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs)

I could see a case for replacing it with the Heterodontosaurus. Less enthused about Thescelosaurus due to taxonomic instability and poor image quality. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this, but Lythronax' comment seems sensible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous iteration of the image seemed more balanced left-to-right. Maybe reorder the images vertically? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Balanced in terms of what? LittleJerry (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Mockup of what I mean Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you go with that one, for example, I'd suggest swapping the two images at the bottom, so the skeleton is walking "into" the square and not out of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Made changes. You all are free to make more rearrangements. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

CORRECTIONS NEEDED: Dinosauria 1842 (NOT 1841)

The current text of the Dinosaur article contains a number of errors concerning the date for the name dinosaur and the Dinosauria. The correct date is 1842, not 1841. This correction was pointed out in 1993 by British geologist and historian Hugh Torrens. The corrected date has appeared in ALL scholarly sources since 1993. Owen's 1841 talk before the British Association for the Advancement of Science did not mention dinosaurs as a distinct group. It was only in his revised text published in April of 1842 that he introduced the term dinosaur and the group Dinosauria after additional research. The revised published version is dated 1841 on the title page, but was in fact published in 1842, the now recognized date for the Dinosauria.

Sources:

Torrens, Hugh (1993) The Dinosaurs and Dinomania over 150 years. Modern Geology 18, 257-286.

***

Torrens, Hugh (2012) Politics and Paleontology: Richard Owen and the Invention of Dinosaurs, Chapter 2, pp. 24-43 in The Complete Dinosaur, (editors M.K. Brett-Surman, T. R. Holtz, Jr. and J.O. Farlow), second edition, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.

Above text can be read in Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pX_l24sDARwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA25&dq=Hugh+Torrens+Dinosauria+Owen&ots=W7x2jqnYAj&sig=P_zoJcHLOG_gsw0j476R6yTDZ4E#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Torrens%20Dinosauria%20Owen&f=false

See Dinosauria 1842 citations and discussions:

https://www.gbif.org/species/113680591

https://morethanadodo.com/2017/04/28/the-birth-of-dinosaurs/

https://blog.biodiversitylibrary.org/2015/10/the-birth-of-dinosaurs-richard-owen-and-dinosauria.html

https://dino.lindahall.org/owe1842.shtml

Suggested rewording:

Introduction paragraph 4, first sentence

Existing text:

The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") being coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841 to refer to these "great fossil lizards".

Replace with:

The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") being coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1842 to refer to these "great fossil lizards".

Under Early Dinosaur Research paragraph 3

Existing text:

The study of these "great fossil lizards" soon became of great interest to European and American scientists, and in 1841 the English paleontologist Sir Richard coined the term "dinosaur", using it to refer to the "distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles" that were then being recognized in England and around the world.[50][51]

Replace with:

The study of these "great fossil lizards" soon became of great interest to European and American scientists, and in 1842 the English paleontologist Sir Richard coined the term "dinosaur", using it to refer to the "distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles" that were then being recognized in England and around the world.[50][51]

...........

Owen recognized that the remains that had been found so far, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and Hylaeosaurus, shared a number of distinctive features, and so decided to present them as a distinct taxonomic group.

Suggested added text to follow:

As clarified by British geologist and historian Hugh Torrens, Owen had given a presentation about fossil reptiles to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841, but reports of the time show that Owen did not mention the word "dinosaur" or recognize dinosaurs as a distinct group of reptiles in his address. He only introduced the Dinosauria in the revised text version of his talk published in April of 1842, based on additional research. </ref>

*****

Caption text needs to be revised as well:

Existing text:

Sir Richard Owen's coining of the word dinosaur, at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841

Suggested rewording:

Sir Richard Owen's coining of the word dinosaur, in the 1842 revised published version of his talk at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841

**** 24.143.103.221 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Great stuff, thanks. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Add a photo of a bird to the Infobox image

I think that having an Infobox full of skeletons gives the false impression that all dinosaurs are extinct. I think we should add a modern day bird to the infobox, and in my opinion, a hummingbird would be perfect, as they are the smallest dinosaurs alive today. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

They have evolved from, and are in the clade of dinosaurs. That doesn't mean they are dinosaurs as we see them today. The hummingbird phylum on wikipedia doesn't say dinosaur. We used to think the dinosaur tree was a dead end but now we know better, however we also don't show a picture of a human alongside the wikipedia article on algae. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but we do have a human on the primate article. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

or... I guess we don't? I could have sworn we used to. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this reasoning is patently false. Click through the parents of Trochilidae in the taxobox and eventually you will get to Dinosauria.

That being said, restricting the taxobox image to non-avian dinosaurs is most useful for showing their diversity, especially when there's a range directly above the image that includes birds. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that showcasing non-avian dinosaurs shows their diversity, but to neglect to show any modern, avian dinosaurs exhibits a lack of diversity. I'm not asking for the entire infobox to be changed to birds, I'm simply suggesting that at least one image in the infobox feature a modern bird. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Add text to the "soft tissue and molecular preservation" section, based on a new peer-reviewed study

A recent peer-reviewed study on dinosaur soft tissues came out in the Elsevier journal Earth-Science Reviews. The study offers the first in-depth chemical description for how biological tissues and cells are preserved in fossil vertebrates, including dinosaurs. A link to the original article, which is open access, is given below:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223000569

Additionally, a news article (phys.org) was put out that explains the above peer-reviewed paper in layman's terms. A link to this news article is below:

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-dinosaur-tissues-deep.html

Text offering a brief overview of the topic of how biological cells and tissues preserve, based on this new peer-reviewed research, should be added to the "soft tissue and molecular preservation" section of the "Dinosaur" wikipedia page. 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:55D1:3CF2:BD8A:A185 (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a very general article, not sure why it is needed in this particular article? It would be more relevant in an article about fossilisation itself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. What you added is fine, just a brief reference is appropriate. The paper is generalized for all types of cellular preservation (which includes dinosaurs), but the wikipedia section is literally titled "soft tissue and molecular preservation". If people want to know how this occurs within dinosaurs, this is the paper they need. As is, there isn't another paper that, at least currently, describes this phenomenon correctly and in-depth (at least according to the underlying chemistry). 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:6C03:FF81:39AD:69B (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As the primary author of the section, I added a mention of the paper. The level of detail that you are proposing is inappropriate for a section that deals with the history of research of dinosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, please see my above reply to FunkMonk. 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:6C03:FF81:39AD:69B (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Social Science

What is a dinosaur 103.16.157.189 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

💩💩💩💩🙊yacie

. 103.16.157.189 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

hi I'm Olivia 103.16.157.189 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)