User talk:Dinoguy2

Archives

/Archive 1 - 2005 & 2006
/Archive 2 - 2007
/Archive 3 - 2008
/Archive 4 - 2009

Venom in Sinornithosaurus

Hey man, Would you mind if I revised the Sinornithosaurus venom paragraph a bit? Specifically, the part about the grooves in the teeth being seen only in venomous animals. In fact, the Folinsbee paper that Gong et al. cite notes that grooves are common in the teeth of all kinds of tetrapods, and they do not correlate with venomousness. I was thinking of writing something more like "the authors state that an inference of venomousness is well - supported in extinct animals with grooved teeth, a pocket in the maxilla and ducts between the two. However, Xu+Hu, who described Sinornithosaurus initially, did not report unusual tooth grooves. They noted that both maxillae were damaged during collection, and described maxillary pitting but no pockets large enough to house glands. They compared the putative venom ducts to the maxillary grooves in Caudipteryx, which was most likely herbivorous."Jbrougham (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you

Look at the new dinosaur table in 2010 in paleontology. Do you like it more than the one that had been used previously? Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead of splitting the table, I add a column for the year that the type specimen was found? Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you moved a bunch of dinosaurs to 2010? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that when the ICZN enters the 21st century we'll have to move them back to the old date when their online publication first appeared? Abyssal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think we should mark extant taxa in the formation paleofauna tables? Some thing along the lines of...

Abyssal (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray-finned fish of the Bissekty Formation
Genus	Species	Location	Stratigraphic Position	Abundance	Notes	Images
Aidachar	Aidachar paludalis				An ichthyodectiform tolerant of brackish water.	A living Amia.
Amia ♥	Amia limosa				A bowfin tolerant of brackish water.
Atractosteus	Atractosteus turanensis				A gar tolerant of brackish water.
Belonostomus	Belonostomus aciculifer				A aspidorhynchid.
Psephuroides	Psephuroides kazakhorum				A paddlefish.

No comments? Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heart was the only symbol I saw that I thought made sense for marking something as alive, as in it's heart is still beating. I don't know of any standard marker for extant taxa, I just made that up. If you have any more logical suggestions, or know of some standard practice, please let me know. Abyssal (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T rex

You know that study about Tyranno's bite force? Well ive heard that they scaled the muscles wrong and so gave a way over-estimate. I cant check at the momment (School PC's = crapy) so i thought id let you know. I think its this one but i doesnt load 4 me so i might not be. [1] Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dinosaurs in the Signpost

Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anchiornis

But did the study reveal Anchiornis avoided treading on green backgrounds? --Lambiam 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Brachiosaurus

On this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brachiosaurus_DB.jpg the dino has quill like things all over it. Is this accurate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

Hello, I'm working for an article in the french version of wikipedia about the whale shark (there is a french wikicompetition now: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikiconcours/mars_2010). I've got a question for you. Is it possible to get an illustration on whale shark size? You're figure (Megalodon_scale1.png) is too complete to be used. Could you simplificate it with only the man and R. typus (and with a Fin whale) ? Thank you Glaoadare (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have time at the moment to create a new outline for the fin whale, but I've done a quick edit to isolate the whale shark, here: [2] Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfect. thank you very much (it's already in the right page!) Glaoadare (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new video I made about dinosaurs

Hey, thanks for all your help on dinosaurs. I made a video about dinosaurs, and I thought you would like to see it. Also if you notice any errors/mistakes, let me know so I can correct them. I used a few of your drawings as well because they were excellent. I hope you don't mind. Here's the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGPtXKwALY ScienceApe (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question about theropod height, and another about Dromaeosaurids...

Well, 2 years ago, you gave me a hand with a school project I was working in by making this size chart.

Well, I managed to get the highest possible mark in that subject, so that compensated for some weaker marks, and I managed to enter University without much pressure, so thanks again. Anyway, I was recently surfing the web and I came across this image: http://kronosaurus82.deviantart.com/art/Biggest-Ugliest-Baddest-140881861 As you can see, the animals that appear in it are the same as in the size chart you made, however, we can see some discrepances in their height. So, my question is, is this reconstruction correct in this regard? Tyrannosaurids having longer leg bones that Allosauroids and Spinosaurids (and the latter having a lower profile that other theropods) is pretty common knowledge, and longer leg bones mean more height, but, still, the mounted skeleton of Sue is not that much taller that mounted Giganotosaurus, if I recall correctly, and the mount of Spinosaurus is quite massive...

Anyway, about Dromaeosaurs, do you have any idea about the environment Deinonychus and Utahraptor lived in? I ask, mainly, because of the whole feather density (or oven presence, in some cases, it seems), and, after seeing how you reconstructed Achillobator, and the reasoning behind the ratite feathering you gave it, I've been pondering how that could affect medium-large dromaeosaurs in less arid climates.

In any case, could I ask you a favour, if you have the time and the inmediate means? If yes, remember the giant bird size chart?

Could you add a Velociraptor mongoliensis silouette to it, if you can? I mainly need it to driving a point straight home (not like it is that needed, the paper that describes the quill knobs on that genus is pretty good evidence for wings, but, still...). Again, if you have time. In any case, Deinonychus' height would be slighty higher if it adopted a more natural position that the crouching (or as so I see it, correct me if needed) one it is displaying in the chart. Also, do you think Aepyornis would be heavier that Utahraptor? Seeing that the model for estimating weights was deemed somewhat flawed, and that, at least in the chart, Aepyornis has a larger body, well, yeah...

By the way, I like how you classified Oviraptorosaurs as an order of Aves, and Deinonychosaurs as part of Archaeopterygiformes. It, well, makes sense, that classification should get more standariced. One tends to forget about those things when thinking in a cladistic way, but, that update would be something needed to change the overall image of those animals. I may start writting them in that way, well, when I get my licenciature and start doing actual work and research in place of preparing exams. Well, better that "when", "if", but I hope I do.

One last question: Archaeopteryx, out of the Jurassic Paravians, is the one most adapted for a grounded lifestyle, right? I don't really know the diagnosic details of the bone structure, or the basis of the asignations to different clades, but, could Archaeopteryx be, instead of a basal bird, a basal deinonychosaur, and one of the more arboreal paravians be a basal Avialan?

Anyway, keep up your good work, I've been following your blog, and I like what I read over there! Eriorguez (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, that chart is biased. Well, then, the artist would have to explain something, as he said that it turned out that way from putting together some pics (despite the difference in position), and the disagreement with standard measurements (Giganotosaurus at 14 meters, because otherwise, he couldn't draw it in the right proportions? Tyrannosaurus clocking at 12, despite Sue being LONGER (well, we are missing parts of the tail, but, still...), for the same reasons?). Oh well, gotta stop looking at what the guy does, he just ignores the inaccuracies I point out as "looking for perfection"... While reconstructing Compsognathus as "the smallest known dinosaur", Juravenator as its larger relative, and gives them remiges and feathering only in the front half of the body, and saying that a paleontological advisor gave green light on that and that it is fine (I know those two have scale imprints from the lower part of the tail, but feathers embryologicaly appear from the top of the back, and a relative of those 2 has a feathered tail, the underside may be scaly, but the top possibly was not)... Oh well, sorry for ranting out like this, I also tend to be a bit unapreciative of works, pointing out only the cons...

Anyway, thanks for the information about the habitats, there are people who puck out of feathers those 2 genus because "they are too big and would have overheated", but, I would object. "Ratitefication" of feathers looked plausible, especially if considering that flightless, fast running ratites evolved each from flighted ancestors independently, and the plumage of rheas is not quite similar to that of tinamous, but, arid places are not pretty good for feather fossilification. Still, weight-wise, you'd say that Velociraptor is bustard/fox sized, Deinonychus is emu/wolf sized, and Utahraptor is elephant bird/bear sized, more or less, right?

By the way, the supposed Tyrannosaurid skin imprint we have, showed a pebbley pattern, without anything unusual, or had something that hinted simple, hair-like feathers? I kept hearing mixed signals, and searching arround proved insatisfactory.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to answer those! Eriorguez (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm a bit intrigued about some details of Dromaeosaur cranial anathomy: In the Deinonychus article, the skull of the mounted skeleton that acts as the main picture, is based on the old reconstructions, the ones that resembled Allosaurus, right? Because, I see it a bit too wide to agree with the adjacent text, but I guess accurate Deinonychus skull reconstructions are hard to come by...

Also, speaking of Dromaeosaurines, I've been checking The Theropod Database, and most of the material asigned to that clade are teeth, but, there is the odd maxila and dentaries, and postcranial elements in larger taxa. But, we have had reconstructed Dromaeosaurus skulls for quite a long time, so, what are those based on?

I guess we have more material that the one reported on that site, seeing as both Dromaeosaurus and Utahraptor are labeled "under construction", but still...

By the way, in that Dromaeo skull, is the braincase the bony structure that can be seen in the middle of the skull through the antorbital fenestra? Fried fish tend to be poor specimens to look for it, and in Uni material, I'm not sure of being able to find a braincase in Nereis/Lumbricus/Hiruda, I'm afraid :P Anyway, thanks for your time! Eriorguez (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mixed up then a bone I assume it is related to the nasal passages with the braincase, way to go... But I see then, torwards the back of the skull, it is hard to relate when your skull has an expossed and massive braincase, I guess. So, then, we have a fairly good idea of how Dromaeosaurus' skull was, good to know. And, Deinonychus, we have to wait then, right? The guy also has a convulted taxonomical history, jumping arround all of Eudromaeosauria, so, it is hard to associate it with relatives. But we can outright discard depressed nasals, right? Eriorguez (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, do you have time? Well, dromaeosaurine dromaeosaurids, they did not have larger wing claws that those of other eudromaeosaurs, right? I ask, because I keep hearing about (*sigh* yet again) Utahraptor having "claws in its hands that rivaled its sickle claw", but, we lack hand matherial from it if I recall correctly, so, yeah... Also, looked up the whole Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus height, and, surprise surprise, not only they have minimal differences, but Giganotosaurus (holotype) has a longer femur that Tyrannosaurus (Sue). By 10 centimeters or so, and made up with a shorter tibia, but it is in both cases shorter that the femur. So, well, what conclusion can we find? Speaking about relative speed too, as, while just numbers are not athe answer to everything, this seems a bit odd... Oh, and, Coelurosaurian plumage up to at least Archaeopteryx, was hair-like or down-like in the main body coverage role, instead of somewhat ramificated like in modern birds (while my experience with modern birds on hand is a bit limited, I belive those feathers are ramificated, due to, well, blue and green birds existing), with remiges and rectices being ramificated in Oviraptorosaurs and Paravians (Therizinosaurs had blade-like feathers, if I understood correctly what was seen in Beipiaosaurus) Anyway, thanks again! Eriorguez (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, giant dromies are a bit odd, I guess that is what happens when you get something huge in a clade of small animals... Anyway, looked up Spinosaur leg length (well, femur and tibia of Suchomimus, we need more spinosaur material), and, while it is a smaller animal that T.rex and Giga, the tibia/femur ratio is 0.879, compared with the 0.783 ratio of Giga, and the 0.89 (type)/0.873 (Sue) of Tyranno. In any case, each bone is 20-30 centimeters shorter in Sucho... Anyway, I have to ask, what is your opinion on the whole ontological stages issue with Triceratops/Torosaurus, Dracorex/Stygimoloch/Pachycephalosaurus, and Homalocephale/Prenocephale? And, speaking of the ceratopsians, what remains do we have of Torosaurus? By the way, the argument against the ontogenical relation based on Triceratops (the younger animal) being larger that Torosaurus (the fully grown one), uses not quite correct estimates for both animals, no? Because, 10 meter Triceratops and 7.5 meter Torosaurus, with Toro having a skull that is like Triceratops' but larger, and not like the ones of earlier ceratopsines, well, as far as I know. The Theropod Database is not helpful with those things that do not quite fall within theropods, I guess... Anyway, thanks! Eriorguez (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit embarrasing to see that oneself had already commented in the source given and had forgotten about doing so... XD Anyway, about the Trike/Toro issue, Eotriceratops is likely a transitional taxa between earlier ceratopsines and Triceratops, and Torosaurus has more characters in common with Triceratops that Eotriceratops does, right? Eriorguez (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, how's it going? If you have time, could you give me your opinion in this issue: What do you think about the theory of Allosaurus having a very wide gape, and using its neck to slam the skull into the prey instead of just closing the jaw onto it? I've taken a look at the paper, and, so far, it looks accurate, but I wanted a second opinion. Also, I've read somewhere that Carnotaurus had evolved a similar system, but I'm not sure about it, do you know anything about that? Finaly, the Allo paper said that Acrocanthosaurus did not have the same adaptations; well, do we know the degree of mouth opening Carcharodontosaurids could archieve? The supposed lack of that adaptation suggests a different feeding method that on Allosaurus, but, still, to be sure... Eriorguez (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A F K When Needed (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hey, asking about ceratopsians yet again... Anyway, do you know where can I find information about the Triceratops mummy that was said to have a crocodilian-like belly, and some sort of anchoring points for quills? I am specially interested on the latter, their diameter and all that. Well, and on the general topic of ceratopsian quills (and omnivory, I keep getting mentions of a Pachyrhinosaur found with bones as stomach content), what do we know? And of ornithischian tegument? Heterodontosaurs have been basal everythings except thyreophorans, and I guess they fit quite well as basal Cerapoda (if it is still in use, not quite good with Ornithischians) due to heterodoncy. However, I've heard some reports of Tianyulong having a quite dromaeosaur-like tail, and it maybe being a chimera, so I am a bit confused... Anyway, thanks for the time! Eriorguez (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/

That's from where I got said report. As for the Pachyrhinosaurus fossil with bones in the stomach, the person who mentioned it did so alongside the Psittacosaurus one; I'll try to get more information about that. Eriorguez (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the paper came out, and after reading it Torosaurus has became Triceratops (and Nedoceratops seems to be settling down). Now, all it is there to do is the long and arduous process of integrating it into pop culture, starting by the people who are aware of the paper but just outright refute it, without even reading it, mostly because of Horner's image... Well, lets see what fate awaits the Pachycephalosaurines... And Edmontosaurini, and "Homalocephalines", and Velociraptorines, and Tyrannosaurini... Anyway, I've got to ask, if we have anything new on Deinocheirus. I recall seeing some movement last year regarding it, but nothing came after all, only the study that said it and Therizinosaurus would be taller that everything else nearby... And, speaking of the latter, anything new about it, would you know? Eriorguez (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art

You are an amazing artist. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An award

		The Dinosaur Star
		For your excellent contributions to dinosaur related articles. Great job, and keep it up! The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance --> Material

Good work on the Yixian insect stuff. Nice to see some spineless critters get time in the spotlight. Also, I've been considering changing the "Abundance" column to a "Material" column in this types of article due to the difficulty in finding sources that discuss taxa in terms of their abundances as opposed to just describing what remains exist. Additionally, relative abundance information like saying whether something is common or rare is relatively meaningless compared to absolute numbers. So many taxa are represented by such scant remains that an abundance cell usually ends up reading something like "known from a lower jaw, a partial vertebral column and pelvis from a single individual." The quantity of the taxon gets covered, but is usually such a minor point that it doesn't feel right calling the entire column "Abundance." The material column also allows room for potentially relevant stuff like taphonomy, comments on preservation quality and such. If you support this, I'll begin piece-mill renaming (and filling in) the replacement Material column as I work on them, starting in the next couple days. Abyssal (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think "Material" is too technical? Abyssal (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask you

I see you have made numerous scale charts for wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to make a chart of Deinocheirus (based on |this?) alongside other large Theropods (your choice), or by itself? And if you are wondering about its size, i have seen a forum user scale up from another Ornithomimusaurid using the arms, and it was 13-15m long. If you can then thanks. 90.208.141.96 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Ah well thats handy! (yes it was me who asked for the chart, i just didnt realise i wasnt logged in at the time), thanks for it. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linheraptor size

I still don't think Linheraptor's 1.8 meters in length is large enough to be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. At minimum, I would say a dromaeosaur has to be 2.5 meters before it can be classed as a medium dromaeosaur. The Utahraptor ^Talk 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wood/XKCD comment

I just read your comment from a couple of years back on the "In Popular Culture" joke by XKCD... got a laugh out of me. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperornithes

Hi! I see you reverted my edit in the article Hesperornithes, but my edit was right. I just wanted to show you my source: [3]. Sincerely, --87.48.0.130 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theropod size comparision

Hey dinoguy2,

very nice pictures!

I guess you know that there are plenty of discussions 'Spino VS Rex' in the www .. And a very well discussion doesnt work without any image, thats why your 'Largesttheropods.svg' is used very often.. !

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Largesttheropods.svg/800px-Largesttheropods.svg.png (largesttheropods.svg) Discussing the picture, there were some people who thought that the Spinosaurus should have been at least a bit larger in the image, because you picked the lowest current estimation (about 16m). But i guess, that the main problem of the image is, that the Spinosaurus has another poise of body than the other theropods. Which is a bit disapointing and shows the spino to be too low.

Would be really nice to know whats up there - and if it could be corrected to avoid futher problems in such discussions! ;)

Regards,

Venoxxis (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to revisit this diagram actually, maybe later this week... MMartyniuk (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice to hear that! Venoxxis (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.224.48 (talk) [reply]

DYK for Alanqa

On May 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alanqa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Micro-Yix

Yep, Weis really listed Microraptor from the Yix. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gui was listed from Yix, Zhaoianus was listed from Jiufo. Page 198. Abyssal (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox on birds

The information I used to change the taxobox to the broken mishmash was off of tolweb.org. I am not sure why your POV is correct, is this not a NPOV problem as in cladistic vs. phylogentic? Both are accepted. I changed that entry a while ago, early on in my editing history. I am not sure if I deserved your pointed coments. The taxobox template is designed with the items that "I had to break it, to get it to work".

I probably feel that the phylogenetic version is the better version, as I have learned much in the last year. So I guess I don't have a problem with it being changed back, but i believe the NPOV guidelines dictates at least a discussion. I DO have a minor problem with the way I am portrayed.

Like I said, I was new at this when it was added so lets start a dialogue, which would educate those of us that need education, rather than summary changes.speednat (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response, and the clarification/explanation. Now on to bigger things. How do we get the cladistic view admitted? It is obviously mainstream enough to be included in all the articles. speednat (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fanwank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fanwank. Since you had some involvement with the Fanwank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

/Archive 1 - 2005 & 2006
/Archive 2 - 2007
/Archive 3 - 2008
/Archive 4 - 2009

Venom in Sinornithosaurus

Hey man, Would you mind if I revised the Sinornithosaurus venom paragraph a bit? Specifically, the part about the grooves in the teeth being seen only in venomous animals. In fact, the Folinsbee paper that Gong et al. cite notes that grooves are common in the teeth of all kinds of tetrapods, and they do not correlate with venomousness. I was thinking of writing something more like "the authors state that an inference of venomousness is well - supported in extinct animals with grooved teeth, a pocket in the maxilla and ducts between the two. However, Xu+Hu, who described Sinornithosaurus initially, did not report unusual tooth grooves. They noted that both maxillae were damaged during collection, and described maxillary pitting but no pockets large enough to house glands. They compared the putative venom ducts to the maxillary grooves in Caudipteryx, which was most likely herbivorous."Jbrougham (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you

Look at the new dinosaur table in 2010 in paleontology. Do you like it more than the one that had been used previously? Abyssal (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead of splitting the table, I add a column for the year that the type specimen was found? Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you moved a bunch of dinosaurs to 2010? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that when the ICZN enters the 21st century we'll have to move them back to the old date when their online publication first appeared? Abyssal (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think we should mark extant taxa in the formation paleofauna tables? Some thing along the lines of...

Abyssal (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray-finned fish of the Bissekty Formation
Genus	Species	Location	Stratigraphic Position	Abundance	Notes	Images
Aidachar	Aidachar paludalis				An ichthyodectiform tolerant of brackish water.	A living Amia.
Amia ♥	Amia limosa				A bowfin tolerant of brackish water.
Atractosteus	Atractosteus turanensis				A gar tolerant of brackish water.
Belonostomus	Belonostomus aciculifer				A aspidorhynchid.
Psephuroides	Psephuroides kazakhorum				A paddlefish.

No comments? Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heart was the only symbol I saw that I thought made sense for marking something as alive, as in it's heart is still beating. I don't know of any standard marker for extant taxa, I just made that up. If you have any more logical suggestions, or know of some standard practice, please let me know. Abyssal (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T rex

You know that study about Tyranno's bite force? Well ive heard that they scaled the muscles wrong and so gave a way over-estimate. I cant check at the momment (School PC's = crapy) so i thought id let you know. I think its this one but i doesnt load 4 me so i might not be. [4] Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dinosaurs in the Signpost

Hi. I noticed you're an active member of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Would you be willing to be interviewed for an article in the Signpost? It's quick and painless, plus you'll contribute to some great publicity for the project and articles you've been working on. Also, would you recommend any other editors who should be interviewed for an article on WP Dinosaurs? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some questions for the upcoming Signpost article. Answer as many as you feel comfortable with. Also, feel free to add anything else you'd like mentioned in the article in the section at the end of the questions. Thanks for helping with this article and I hope it brings your project some great publicity and a few new contributors. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anchiornis

But did the study reveal Anchiornis avoided treading on green backgrounds? --Lambiam 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Brachiosaurus

On this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brachiosaurus_DB.jpg the dino has quill like things all over it. Is this accurate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

Hello, I'm working for an article in the french version of wikipedia about the whale shark (there is a french wikicompetition now: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikiconcours/mars_2010). I've got a question for you. Is it possible to get an illustration on whale shark size? You're figure (Megalodon_scale1.png) is too complete to be used. Could you simplificate it with only the man and R. typus (and with a Fin whale) ? Thank you Glaoadare (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have time at the moment to create a new outline for the fin whale, but I've done a quick edit to isolate the whale shark, here: [5] Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfect. thank you very much (it's already in the right page!) Glaoadare (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new video I made about dinosaurs

Hey, thanks for all your help on dinosaurs. I made a video about dinosaurs, and I thought you would like to see it. Also if you notice any errors/mistakes, let me know so I can correct them. I used a few of your drawings as well because they were excellent. I hope you don't mind. Here's the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGPtXKwALY ScienceApe (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question about theropod height, and another about Dromaeosaurids...

Well, 2 years ago, you gave me a hand with a school project I was working in by making this size chart.

Well, I managed to get the highest possible mark in that subject, so that compensated for some weaker marks, and I managed to enter University without much pressure, so thanks again. Anyway, I was recently surfing the web and I came across this image: http://kronosaurus82.deviantart.com/art/Biggest-Ugliest-Baddest-140881861 As you can see, the animals that appear in it are the same as in the size chart you made, however, we can see some discrepances in their height. So, my question is, is this reconstruction correct in this regard? Tyrannosaurids having longer leg bones that Allosauroids and Spinosaurids (and the latter having a lower profile that other theropods) is pretty common knowledge, and longer leg bones mean more height, but, still, the mounted skeleton of Sue is not that much taller that mounted Giganotosaurus, if I recall correctly, and the mount of Spinosaurus is quite massive...

Anyway, about Dromaeosaurs, do you have any idea about the environment Deinonychus and Utahraptor lived in? I ask, mainly, because of the whole feather density (or oven presence, in some cases, it seems), and, after seeing how you reconstructed Achillobator, and the reasoning behind the ratite feathering you gave it, I've been pondering how that could affect medium-large dromaeosaurs in less arid climates.

In any case, could I ask you a favour, if you have the time and the inmediate means? If yes, remember the giant bird size chart?

Could you add a Velociraptor mongoliensis silouette to it, if you can? I mainly need it to driving a point straight home (not like it is that needed, the paper that describes the quill knobs on that genus is pretty good evidence for wings, but, still...). Again, if you have time. In any case, Deinonychus' height would be slighty higher if it adopted a more natural position that the crouching (or as so I see it, correct me if needed) one it is displaying in the chart. Also, do you think Aepyornis would be heavier that Utahraptor? Seeing that the model for estimating weights was deemed somewhat flawed, and that, at least in the chart, Aepyornis has a larger body, well, yeah...

By the way, I like how you classified Oviraptorosaurs as an order of Aves, and Deinonychosaurs as part of Archaeopterygiformes. It, well, makes sense, that classification should get more standariced. One tends to forget about those things when thinking in a cladistic way, but, that update would be something needed to change the overall image of those animals. I may start writting them in that way, well, when I get my licenciature and start doing actual work and research in place of preparing exams. Well, better that "when", "if", but I hope I do.

One last question: Archaeopteryx, out of the Jurassic Paravians, is the one most adapted for a grounded lifestyle, right? I don't really know the diagnosic details of the bone structure, or the basis of the asignations to different clades, but, could Archaeopteryx be, instead of a basal bird, a basal deinonychosaur, and one of the more arboreal paravians be a basal Avialan?

Anyway, keep up your good work, I've been following your blog, and I like what I read over there! Eriorguez (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, that chart is biased. Well, then, the artist would have to explain something, as he said that it turned out that way from putting together some pics (despite the difference in position), and the disagreement with standard measurements (Giganotosaurus at 14 meters, because otherwise, he couldn't draw it in the right proportions? Tyrannosaurus clocking at 12, despite Sue being LONGER (well, we are missing parts of the tail, but, still...), for the same reasons?). Oh well, gotta stop looking at what the guy does, he just ignores the inaccuracies I point out as "looking for perfection"... While reconstructing Compsognathus as "the smallest known dinosaur", Juravenator as its larger relative, and gives them remiges and feathering only in the front half of the body, and saying that a paleontological advisor gave green light on that and that it is fine (I know those two have scale imprints from the lower part of the tail, but feathers embryologicaly appear from the top of the back, and a relative of those 2 has a feathered tail, the underside may be scaly, but the top possibly was not)... Oh well, sorry for ranting out like this, I also tend to be a bit unapreciative of works, pointing out only the cons...

Anyway, thanks for the information about the habitats, there are people who puck out of feathers those 2 genus because "they are too big and would have overheated", but, I would object. "Ratitefication" of feathers looked plausible, especially if considering that flightless, fast running ratites evolved each from flighted ancestors independently, and the plumage of rheas is not quite similar to that of tinamous, but, arid places are not pretty good for feather fossilification. Still, weight-wise, you'd say that Velociraptor is bustard/fox sized, Deinonychus is emu/wolf sized, and Utahraptor is elephant bird/bear sized, more or less, right?

By the way, the supposed Tyrannosaurid skin imprint we have, showed a pebbley pattern, without anything unusual, or had something that hinted simple, hair-like feathers? I kept hearing mixed signals, and searching arround proved insatisfactory.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to answer those! Eriorguez (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm a bit intrigued about some details of Dromaeosaur cranial anathomy: In the Deinonychus article, the skull of the mounted skeleton that acts as the main picture, is based on the old reconstructions, the ones that resembled Allosaurus, right? Because, I see it a bit too wide to agree with the adjacent text, but I guess accurate Deinonychus skull reconstructions are hard to come by...

Also, speaking of Dromaeosaurines, I've been checking The Theropod Database, and most of the material asigned to that clade are teeth, but, there is the odd maxila and dentaries, and postcranial elements in larger taxa. But, we have had reconstructed Dromaeosaurus skulls for quite a long time, so, what are those based on?