Talk:Chirostenotes

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chironstenotes synonymies[edit]

Place Chironstenotes sternbergi (Cracraft, 1971) in the synonymy of Chironstenotes pergracilis, because this species is definitely referrable to C. pergracilis (Currie, 2005). Also, Sues (1997) showed Ornithomimus elegans to be a species of Chirostenotes. Because Sues (1997) noted similarities of C. sternbergi to C. elegans, he placed C. sternbergi in the synonymy of C. elegans. Currie & Russell (1988) suggested the possible synonymy of Caenagnathus with Chirostenotes, a hypothesis confirmed by Sues (1997). They went further by proposing that C. elegans and C. pergracilis may represent two sexes of the same species.

Currie, P.J. 1989. The first records of Elmisaurus (Saurischia, Theropoda) from North America. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences -- Revue Canadienne des Sciences de la Terre 26: 1319-1324.

Currie, P.J. 1990. Elmisauridae. pg. 244-248 in Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmólska (eds.) The Dinosauria (University of California Press: Berkeley.

Currie, P.J. and Koppelhus, E.B., 2005. Dinosaur Provincial Park: A Spectacular Ancient Ecosystem Revealed. Indiana University Press: Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Currie, P.J., and Russell, D.A. (1988). Osteology and relationships of Chirostenotes pergracilis (Saurischia, Theropoda) from the Judith River (Oldman) Formation of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 25:972-986.

Sues, H.-D. 1997. On Chirostenotes, a Late Cretaceous oviraptorosaur (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from western North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 17 (4): 698-716. 72.194.116.63 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 6 March 2007 21.00[reply]

"because this species is definitely referrable to C. pergracilis" Cite?

"I propose returning Ornithomimus elegans to Elmisaurus." Unfortunately, this is not JVP and I am not the peer review comittee. Better publish this elsewhere ;) Dinoguy2 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split page[edit]

Senter (2007) in his study "A new look at the phylogeny of coelurosauria" found Caenagnathus and Chirostenotes not congeneric and not even closely related. So says tha phylogeny section of the article of wikipedia "oviraptorosauria": but the page contradicts itself. And family Caenagnathidae is found to be paraphyletic too: i suggest a revision of pages related to oviraptorosaurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of that, too. I don't know how widely accepted it is, however. 209.121.124.49 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need to wait on this. It was the result of a phylo analysis but was not even commented upon and would represent a pretty major upheaval of oviraptorid taxonomy. Wait for a paper that attempts to resurrect Caenagnathus, or at least a second analysis that finds that same thing and maybe notes how unorthodox it is... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chirostenotes elegans no more[edit]

Longrich et. al. (2013) subsume Ornithomimus elegans in the new genus Leptorhynchos and describe a new species of Leptorhynchos from Big Bend National Park in Texas. Looks like elegans isn't Chirostenotes or Elmisaurus but instead its own thing.

Nicholas R. Longrich, Ken Barnes , Scott Clark , and Larry Millar (2013) Caenagnathidae from the Upper Campanian Aguja Formation of West Texas, and a Revision of the Caenagnathinae. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 54(1):23-49. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I don't have the paper yet, anybody know which is the type species, L. elegans or the new one? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longrich et. al. (2013) have published a corrigendum to the original description of Leptorhynchus gaddisi clarifying that Leptorhynchos gaddisi is the type species of Leptorhynchos. This means that "Ornithomimus" elegans is a referred species of Leptorhynchos, at least for now (as ROM 781 doesn't overlap with the holotype of L. gaddisi.

Longrich, N. R.; Barnes, K.; Clark, S.; Millar, L. (2013). "Correction to "Caenagnathidae from the Upper Campanian Aguja Formation of West Texas, and a Revision of the Caenagnathinae"". Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 54 (2): 263. doi:10.3374/014.054.0204. edit 68.4.28.33 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

New name for Hell Creek caenagnathid[edit]

The Hell Creek caenagnathid has been given its own genus and species name, Anzu wyliei (Lamanna et. al. 2014). Since the description of Anzu removes the last of the putative records of Chirostenotes from post-Juidithian strata, the images of Anzu (including CM 78000).

Lamanna MC, Sues H-D, Schachner ER, Lyson TR (2014) A New Large-Bodied Oviraptorosaurian Theropod Dinosaur from the Latest Cretaceous of Western North America. PLoS ONE 9(3): e92022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092022. 72.194.115.252 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Anyone know where that leaves this specimen, which is apparently labelled Chirostenotes pergracilis at the Royal Tyrrell Museum? FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any ceanagnathid specimen known from that much skeletal material other than Anzu, but it would be good to double check. Might be something undescribed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be Apatoraptor?[1] The elements seem to match, but I haven't seen a photo. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see MWAK expanded the Dutch article, perhaps he knows? FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Apatoraptor :o). Good that you remembered! (I didn't...).--MWAK (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have a whole Commons category[2] full of unnamed dinosaurs waiting for description... FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The work is never done. Here's another one: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150529 ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how an article about such a creature would looks? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In principle like any other article. We just would have to name it "CPC 274", which is a bit awkward. If you dare to create it, I'll flesh it out. After all, as we both know, the text is just there to provide room for the images ;o).--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, what to do if more specimens are referred to it, but it is yet unnamed? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it has no name, how can specimens be referred to it? ;o) But I see what you mean. We might than add a chapter "Additional Coahuila centrosaurine material". Or, alternatively we could rename the article "Coahuila Centrosaurinae" :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chirostenotes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613235610/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/03/feathers_and_filaments_of_dino.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/03/feathers_and_filaments_of_dino.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]