Talk:Nothronychus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:55, 16 July 2009

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

'Toothless beak' and 'small mouth with leaf shaped teeth' ??? As far as I know, no theropods ever developed into fully fledged veggies. I'm not an expert so have not edited the text, but it needs looking at. 86.8.136.217 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (I don't have the refs on-hand, but it's discussed in the second edition of The Dinosauria), paleontologists are pretty comfortable with the idea of therizinosaurs as herbivores. J. Spencer 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could post or point to an image of the actual remains that may help. A google image search finds two rather different interpretations...86.8.136.217 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's close cousin Erlikosaurus J. Spencer 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head and neck of N. graffami ?

The caption of the image in the taxobox was saying that it was a cast of the skull and neck of N. graffami. The animal is known from a nearly complete postcranial skeleton, missing the skull and most of the neck, so it was kind of odd to display the cast of the only substantially missing parts. ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skull is unknown for both species of Nothronychus... I feel like we've had this conversation before, but should we be displaying skeletal casts that show predominantly speculative reconstructions rather than actual material based on fossils? (The mount is N. graffami, btw, as detailed in the Gillette 2007 pdf ref. The MNA specimen is graffami, the New Mexico specimen is mckinleyi). Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is that the reconstruction could be of either species as the skull is unknown for both of them as you mentioned. Showing the entire mount would be fine, but showing a picture of the reconstruction focused only on the parts which are actually missing from the fossils is really misleading in my opinion. I would simply removed that picture and wait for a better one. ArthurWeasley (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 The caption of the image in the taxobox was saying that it was a cast of the skull and neck of ''N. graffami''. The animal is known from a nearly complete postcranial skeleton, missing the skull and most of the neck, so it was kind of odd to display the cast of the only substantially missing parts. [[User:ArthurWeasley|ArthurWeasley]] ([[User talk:ArthurWeasley|talk]]) 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 :The skull is unknown for both species of ''Nothronychus''... I feel like we've had this conversation before, but should we be displaying skeletal casts that show predominantly speculative reconstructions rather than actual material based on fossils? (The mount is ''N. graffami'', btw, as detailed in the Gillette 2007 pdf ref. The MNA specimen is ''graffami'', the New Mexico specimen is ''mckinleyi''). [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] ([[User talk:Dinoguy2|talk]]) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
+::Yes, the point is that the reconstruction could be of either species as the skull is unknown for both of them as you mentioned. Showing the entire mount would be fine, but showing a picture of the reconstruction  focused only on the parts which are actually missing from the fossils is really misleading in my opinion. I would simply removed that picture and wait for a better one. [[User:ArthurWeasley|ArthurWeasley]] ([[User talk:ArthurWeasley|talk]]) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)