Talk:Dinosaur

Template:Past cotw

If dinosaurs are reptiles

And birds are dinosaurs, then wouldn't that mean birds must be reptiles? 209.86.226.25 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, in the cladistic system (but not the Linnaean system used in the info boxes), birds are reptiles. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

dinosaurs are not extinct, they have been spotted in numerous backyards, jungles and forestrial and industrial parks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.35.112 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs, but the African cryptids are likely to be a myth. Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are not reptiles. When you say "are" you imply their current status. Birds, as the contemporary theory goes, descended from reptillian ancestors. Just as man descended from the earliest forms of mammalian life. That does not mean our current status is small mammalian rodents. Birds have reptillian ancestry, they are not currently reptiles. 204.65.34.169 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, birds are reptiles. Abyssal (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From Biology, 8th Edition by Campbell and Reece (and many other junior authors): "The reptile clade includes tuataras, lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and birds, along with a number of extinct groups, such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs." This is the text used in the BIO 111 course I teach. It is representative of many new texts in that birds are no longer afforded separate treatment as they were under non-cladistic classifications. --Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that the two are one, it's just that it's a lot easier to treat them seperately!...But I try to include them. The classification system's so messed up that I try to make it simpler...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

'Birds' and 'reptiles' are just terms we have invented.Western science has long had a mania for attaching labels to living things and putting them in their proper boxes. The truth is, life varies along a broad and colourful spectrum. When can we say a reptile becomes a bird, or vice versa, unless we create artificial criteria for separating them? Science at last acknowledges this. It may be that the terms Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia, etc, will become popular terms and have no scientific value whatsoever. A bit of a nominalist perspective here.Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We've completely messed up the measuring system by introducing our own "better" thing (I'm trying hard to convert back to metric). Now the classification system has fallen too. Might need a redesign someday...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because a type of animal evolved from another doesn't mean that it is. Amphibians evolved from fish but are not fish. If birds are considered reptiles then so should mammals. Mammals evolved from reptiles as well. I think birds are to diffirent from modern day reptiles. When I check the bird page they are not listed as reptiles or archosauria but as a seperate class (aves). There is still a debate whether birds evolved from Dinosaurs or an ealier reptile species but if they evolved from a species of dinosaurs that doesn't mean that they are Dinosaurs or Reptiles. An Eagle is something totally diffirent then a Triceratops, Apatosaurus or a snake. I think birds could be considered their own order. There were some bird-like Dinosaurs just as there were mammal-like reptiles. In both cases there will be animals that are on the edge of both classes which will be difficult to be put in either class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.181.214 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Why is it that people always re-define terms any way they like, then blabber exhaustively about them, instead of just accepting that there are already valid scientific definitions in existence? And why is it that these people are those who can't spell? rediculous, diffirent, seperate.......HMallison (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Why do phylogentic nomenclaturists allways assume that phylogeny is the only criterum for classification? And why do they re-define terms any way they like instead of inventing new ones to cover what they mean? Birds are not reptiles in the common understanding of the words. Forcing phyologentic taxonomy without explaing what is going on is not doing anyone a favour. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! I do biomechanics, and dislike taxonomy and cladistics. The point is, however, that wikipedia as an encyclopedic work should not use arbitrary terms (e.g., "reptile" in the sense of "snakes+turtles+crocodiles", at least in a palaeontological context, but it is not helpful, but rather confusing to the reader, especially if the use varies (due to necessity) across several articles. If we use proper clades, readers will be able to understand even complex concepts and evolutionary lines, if we use "everyday terms", things will be as confusing as school biology class content shows itself to be each and every time someone with an interest in the subject encounters fossils. I have found that people can understand nested hierarchies easily, and get a much better grasp of evolutionary processes if you use them.

Just because "commonly", people in Europe assign crocodiles to reptiles, but not birds, doesn't mean that this is helpful, sensible, or the case in other cultures - would you like to vary based on local conventions? And how to treat terms that have, like the term "reptile" varied in their meaning historically? Maybe we should go back to the scala naturae?

btw, yo risk sounding very much like a BANDit apologist, with your continued fight against correctness and clarity. HMallison (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, bandit apologist, haven't heard that one before (had to look it up). I am not entirely sure we want to go down that road.

I'm a zoologist and work as a public educator in a natural history museum (I'm typically the guy to tour school classes). To me taxonomy is an essential tool to keep track of the various critters of this planet, I'm supposed to be able to say something intelligent about eartworms, insects, fish and (of course) dinosaurs. You may say I'm a typical end user in that I need taxonomy as a filing system. I don't use cladistics myself (I'm more of an ecologist), but I would be a fool if I did not recognise it's value. I have no problem with fylogentically defined taxons (eg Tetanura, Maniraptora, Dinosauriformes) they are needed to explore the nooks and crannies of phylogeny, but I do have a problem with changing content of a well established unit. As an end user, I depend on taxonomic stability. New units are perfectly fine by me, I think the taxon you are looking for is Sauropsida, not Reptilia. The two are not interchangeable units, and we should take care to say when we mean one or the other. Dinosaurs of course are both.

As for local convention, I hope you are aware that dinosaur palaeontology is kind of unique in it's wholesale embracement of phylogenetic nomenclature. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I do see the use of established names has it's use - don't get me wrong! The issue about dinosaurs is that keeping up the old-fashioned use of the term, in my experience (and I have quite some, although likely not as much as you) CONFUSES both laypeople and journalists MORE than if I take the extra two minutes to explain what MRCA (LCA in normal parlance) is, give one example (typically: "imagine we want to study hereditary diseases. We have a family from Dresden names 'Schmitz', in which the disease is prevalent. Now we add Mr. Mugundu from Zaire - is that going to be helpful? No, we want to study a related group"), and then use "Dinosaur" to include birds as well. Obviously, I'll slip back into the old use when the context is clear, but I'll often use "non-avian" or "non-bird" or "mesozoic". And people remember - some come back over a year later and still remember!

Additionally, while many zoologists and botanists do not, the best zoologists I know embrace phylogenetic taxa wholeheartedly, because they force people to think in proper relationship terms, pushing old bias aside.

In sum, I think we are on a very good way with how the article (more: the version on dinoguy2's userpage) is developing. I am a bit radical one way, you are the brake that keeps me in check. This will end up well :) HMallison (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Under that logic Humans would be Fish, and we'd all be bacteria (or whatever the equivilent term is) --Kurtle (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong on multiple levels. First, we are not fish because we do not share enough genetic and anatomical similarities to fit under the criteria of "fish". Secondly, we did not evolve from bacteria. We evolved from a eukaryotic single cell organism, and we are called eukaryotes because we have the necessary requirements to fit this clade we made. The reason why birds are currently melded with reptiles is because there are not nearly enough genetic and anatomical differences between them and theropods to warrant separation, so birds are considered theropods. And since theropods are dinosaurs, then birds are dinosaurs. And since dinosaurs are archosaurs, birds are archosaurs. And finally, since archosaurs are reptiles, birds are reptiles. There, I gave you the overly simplified thought process of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.235.155 (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't go to List of misconceptions. There's an ongoing war about the fact that only non-Avian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-T boundary, which is my preferred edit. Some non-scientific types that say that's silly. War ensues. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we are fish. Lobe-finned fish specifically. See Sarcopterygii. As for bacteria, the tree structure is a bit more muddled that deep in our ancestry. We are really both bacteria and archaea. de Bivort 05:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern Definition

I looked up the reference for this sentence: "Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of "Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants."[12] " And while it's a faithful quote (except for the "usually" part), I'm struck by the fact that it seems extremely out of context and, well, just odd. No explanation is given in the reference for why this is the definition, or why Triceratops is the base dinosaur upon which to base all others and the definition. Neither is there any explanation for this in the article. I don't exactly know how to improve it, but I do know that it shouldn't be like this. Hires an editor (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think ceratopsians and birds are generally considered the most "advanced" groups in each major dinosaurian lineage, which is why they're often used. But I agree that Iguanodon/Megalosaurus is better. It reflects the original usage (required by PhyloCode) and doesn't force birds to be dinosaurs by definition, only by discovery. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean "advanced" just by time, not some other characteristic? I hope. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Most derived, with gross body form being different from the basal state. And yeah, I'm sure time plays a role as well, as both groups diversified in the LK. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd use the definition "Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and the descendants of their most recent common ancestor." It's the same set of animals, been used by professionals, and makes more intuitive sense since Megalosaurus and Iguanodon were the first dinosaurs formally named. I think the ugly Triceratops one is more commonly used for whatever reason. The set of animals is still the same, but Megalosaurus and Iguanodon are much less arbitrary anchors. Abyssal (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ornithischians and birds have their earliest common ancestor in the Triassic period. Of the ornithischians, the ceratopsians and ankylosaurs reverted back to fully dedicated quadrupedal posture and developed armor. That much makes sense to me, anyway. For me, Triceratops or Ankylosaurus would both serve purposefully at the reptilian end of the spectrum (has anyone got evidence of what sets Triceratops further than Ankylosaurus?). And typically, the definition I hear is more specific, citing the pigeon as the avian end of the spectrum. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I always saw Passer domesticus listed as the bird anchor. Abyssal (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My source was informal conversation; I imagine the house sparrow is more accurate, though I find that an interesting spectrum end; it seems so ordinary. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: You've got me curious...I'm doing reserach now Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Sibley and Alquist went for the albatross (another anchor I recall hearing before), Johansson went for the tyrant flycatcher, and Pereira, Baker, Mayr, Clarke, Cracraft, Slack, Delsuc, McLenachan, Arnason, Penny, and Butler all went for the sparrow. Sounds nearly unanimous to me, and I'd say my friends were mistaken. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Not that it matters, since I still think we should go with Megalosaurus + Iguanodon. Abyssal (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "go with Megalosaurus + Iguanodon"? We're here to report what reliable sources say, not choose our personal preferences. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that formulation used by reliable sources. Abyssal (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, both would point to MRCA of Ornithischia and Saurischia. Therefore, it doesn't really matter whether we use Triceratops + Passer or Megalosaurus + Iguanodon or even Eocursor + Eoparsor. Does it? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact since both formulations denote the same group under all current phylogenies, there's really no reason not to note that both are in wide current use (at least until PC makes one somewhat more "official"). MMartyniuk (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If more than one definition is used in reliable sources then let's note that fact. We don't have to choose between them. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

None of this answers the question of why Triceratops (or other creature, per the above discussion) is the "default" definitional dinosaur. Hires an editor (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary ornithischian that's regarded as a "safe" anchor. No one's going to suddenly declare Triceratops an invalid name. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what about the seeming "out of context" part of the sentence. There should still be some explanation of that, so it doesn't seem so odd. The way it reads right now makes it look like vandalism. Hires an editor (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps we can squeeze a source out of them. I'll go ask them. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a reference that triceratops in particular is used. But I reverted "arbitrary" because on its own this word implies that any dinosaur could be used. If the issue is a lack of citation, then add a cn template to the sentence, rather than the word arbitrary. de Bivort 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was in the middle of a quote, so an addition of the word "arbitrarily" wasn't quite appropriate there. The paragraph seems to have a sentence now that clarifies that both definitions presented include the same group, anyway. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I hadn't even seen that it was in a quote - how about that. Well, that constrains it! de Bivort 22:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm reading the modern definition, and I'm not expecting to see "Triceratops..." etc as the definition. I did I quick Google search, and see that the definition here leaves something to be desired. In addition, I looked at the source cited for the definition, and it doesn't offer an explanation, either. It doesn't matter what the reference is or the accuracy of the quote, but some explanation is needed to say why this is the reference point. Hires an editor (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sereno has this to say on the selection of anchors:

In formulation of definitions, recommendations regarding specifiers have favored (1) nested rather than basal specifiers; (2) multiple internal or external specifiers to combat uncertain relationships; (3) specifiers that are well known or readily available; (4) specifiers that accommodate alternative phylogenetic arrangements; and (5) specifiers that were originally included in traditional paraphyletic groups rather than more deeply nested members now included on the basis of monophyly (e.g., the theropod Megalosaurus bucklandi rather than the bird Passer domesticus as an internal specifier for Dinosauria)......Anchoring well-supported, widely recognized, and/or traditional dichotomies with [node-stem triplets] helps to sustain the narrative function of taxonomy.

Going on these excerpts from his work, it seems apparent that Triceratops horridus was selected for its unquestionable status as a well-known, unchallenged Ornithischian and a non-dubious taxon. Megalosaurus would have been ideal, since it has always been recognized as a dinosaur from the get-go of things, but using a well-known bird such as Passer domesticus forces anyone accepting that definition to include birds in their definition. This isn't really necessary to use P. domesticus, but it can't hurt to remind folks that birds are dinosaurs, and what better place to do so than in a definition of Dinosauria?

Sereno goes on to throw us a curveball:

...a few taxonomists have considered Sauropodomorpha (normally within Saurischia) to be more closely related to Ornithischia. Should this prove to be the case, sauropodomorphs would be relegated to Ornithischia using the aforementioned definition. This could be prevented by including a derived sauropodomorph (e.g., Saltasaurus loricatus) as an additional external specifier: Ornithischia = (>Triceratops horridus but not Passer domesticus or Saltasaurus loricatus). Given this definition, the equivalence statement "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia" will not hold when sauropodomorphs are more closely related to ornithischians. In that case, Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Sauropodomorpha + Theropoda.

In other words, a more sauropod-friendly definition would recognize that the placement of Sauropodomorpha is unstable, redefining Dinosauria as "Triceratops, Passer, Saltasaurus, their most recent common ancestor, and all descendents".

Source: Sereno, P. (2005). "The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy". Systematic Biology. 54 (4): 595-619.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Modern Definition - Wording

Thank you for doing this! I probably could have got there, but didn't really know the research well enough to look it up in a short period. Anyway, so my thought is to summarize what the source material says. Before the first sentence, we might put some discussion that says, "To get to the definition of dinosaur, we have to take an example that we all agree is a dinosaur that is from the saurosopids and neornithes groups, and their most common ancestor..." - something like that, but much better put together. I also find that another definition is hinted at in the article (and among the searches I did) - dinosaurs aren't archosaurs, because dinosaurs really start at the beginning of the Triassic... Hires an editor (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your statement about dinosaurs not being archosaurs is untrue; the first dinosaur in the fossil record appeared approximately midway through the Triassic. Also-- not the sauropsids, but the animals classically recognized as dinosaurs since their discovery. It's shaky wording, but really, Dinosauria is strongly based upon that (it happens that very few creatures, such as Dimetrodon and the pterodactyls, had to be ruled out of Dinosauria when the phylogenetic definition was finally established). Since Sereno 2005 has a very sound definition, I'm adding his definition to the article. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Locomotion

this page is wong some dinsaur flow and some wham and aome walkked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.171.96 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see the incorrect claim in the article? Offhand, ducks come to mind as exhibiting all three modes you just mentioned. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Realness

Dinosaurs only lived in missouri under water in caves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaursarereal (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Got a source? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look my teacher said that wiki is unrelialbesource and that someone could say "dinosaurs only lived in missori under water in caves", can you put this up for like a day -please lol, shes a good source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaursarereal (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell your teacher Wiki is actually as reliable for science topics as 'real' encyclopedias like Brittannica. Fact! It's those biography and political articles you should watch out for. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This obvious misinformation (as well as this) prove you and your teacher are not credible resources and therefore less reliable than Wikipedia. Have her take a look at this article; if she finds anything incorrect, she should remove it or correct it and cite reliable sources. That's how we roll here at Wikipedia. We don't just add whatever misinformation we feel like adding, even if it would be funny. However, if you enjoy fun misinformation, I suggest you check out an encyclopedia designed just for that-- it's called Uncyclopedia. It has an article on dinosaurs, too. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference arrangement

Anybody of the regular editors mind if I re-arrange the refs? They are now spears out "at first call", which makes editing a bit of a bother. I'd place them all in the References section, alphabetically sorted. You'd have to edit two sections to add or remove a ref, but it makes double entries extremely easy to avoid, and makes finding the ref data very easy. Also, it is much easier to edit the text because you do not get several lines of ref data mixed in with a sentence. It also helps for formatting refs properly, because the next example is just above and below the new ref you add.

An example of what I intend to do can be found in the article Plateosaurus.

If nobody yells NO I'll put this article on in use in a few days and change things over. Discussions - please use my talk page --HMallison (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Abyssal (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing this now. HMallison (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I kind of find this a pain for editing. You have to jump between sections to get the reference right. But I see where it can be easier. I'd have to say it's a wash. Also, Plateosaurus, the citations are really poorly done in that they don't use the citation templates. Hope they don't get messed up here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern. Yes, it is annoying to edit two sections. OTOH, this way it is so much easier to edit and remove refs...... It matters less in good and stable articles. However, if there are major edits to do, including total re-writes of sections, having them bundled makes live much easier. And this article certainly needs a thorough clean-up and update.

As for "poorly done" - the refs in Plateosaurus come c&p from my papers, mostly. You should be glad that people who do real research on the stuff bother to write really up to date articles. Don't whine if we can't be bothered to re-format refs to suit sorry templates. They are, for the reader, equally good either way.

If it bothers you, please go ahead and re-format, or, better yet, write me a zotero style that outputs them properly formatted! That'd be a real blast, and greatly appreciated :D

That aside, you can trust me not to fuck up anything here: each ref stays formatted as it is, except for typos (get removed), and except for those that have no name (they get one). HMallison (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of obsessive about citations. I want them easily clickable, so I've got Plateosaurus on my list of things to do. It takes a lot of focus, and two computer screens going to do it right! Hey, sorry, I really didn't mean to screw up your editing, which I don't think I did. Again, you're doing some dirty work that would drive me crazy. I'm actually kind of warming up to this new thing. I'm going to practice using it on your Plateosaurus article (I know it's not yours, but you know what I mean). I'll probably try to clean up some other articles. My only real concern, is new edits. Inexperienced editors tend to mess up citations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Guilty: Plateosaurus is mine (90%). After all, I wrote the papers..... and equally true: well-formatted citations, properly using the template, are a nice thing. Which (the template) I tend to fuck up, being new. So if you'd have a go at P., well, what can I say? That is really dirty work! I am, as you may have guessed, currently setting Dinosaur up for a major edit of the content here ;)

And no, you did not screw anything up :P HMallison (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What?

Where in this article does it mention that dinosaurs are reptiles? This should be added ASAP. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If the taxobox on the right margin isn't enough, the article mentions it under "General description". Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind.. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

K/T boundary abbreviation.

Yes, technically, it is the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary (or Palaeogene for the "civilized" ;p ). But I do not know very many people in science who use an abbreviation other than K/T. The K is "wrong", so it the T, but the short has become a fixed term in itself, one that is perfectly understandable and well memorable. So why change to K/Pg on wikipedia? HMallison (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the K wrong...? Standard abb. for Cretaceous. For the record, a search for k/pg boundary on Google Scholar turns up over 2000 articles. If it's not in more widespread use, surely it's just because the Paleogene is relatively new designation. But the fact is, whatever you call it, "Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event" is an outdated term that has already been abandoned in the literature for several years. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you spell it Kretaceous? The K was used so that nobody would mix it up with other ages starting with a C, and because in German it is Kreide, with the K.

And did you do a search for K/T boundary, too? Over a million hits..... And that aside, it may well be that palaeomagnetics people etc. use K/Pg, but this is the page Dinosaur, and I can tell you that my coleagues do not use that term. We're too lazy, maybe. And as the other reply said: the general audience is better served with K/T. The US still used miles, too, despite officially using kilometers. HMallison (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If the abbrevitation is to be changed, it would have to be to a full, non-abbrevitated expressein (eg "End of Mesozoic extinction, End of Cretacious extinction, Cretacious-Paleocene extinction etc). The K/T abbrevitation is kind of marginal as it is, using another less known expression would confuse all but the people most intimately familiar with the concept, and WP is supposed to be for a general audience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I haven't seen a lot of the K-Pg usage, I think we should start using it. It won't hurt to write Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (also known as the K-Pr event, and previously known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary, or K-T, extinction event). Probably should rename the K-T extinction event article, but with all of the links and redirects, it might not be worth the trouble. When we were doing the FA Review, there were a lot of complaints that even K-T should be renamed to the dinosaur extinction because it's what the common reader would be trying to search. That didn't fly. We also discussed the K-Pg terminology, but we were concerned about the lack of common use as of this time.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Inspired by some discussions over at Human about deciding exactly what an article is trying to cover, I'm going to be bold and implement what seems to have been the result of the scope discussions here and here. Neither discussions seem to have generated many comments so I'm linking them here for the record and for reference if any more debate on these topics opens up. The upshot is that the article titled "Dinosaur" should cover all dinosaurs as defined in the intro and in the Modern definition section. That means birds would have to be taken into account in how things are worded (which really doesn't require much change at all, just some slight tweaks and the removal of unnecessary disclaimers that the article is only about non-avian dinosaurs). MMartyniuk (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire "oh, we stick with Linné" line is ridiculous, stupid, and prone to cause misunderstandings. Why oh why did you undue your edits? HMallison (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I immediately realized this is a bigger job than I thought... the entire article deals with the biology, ecology, metabolism etc. of non-avian dinosaurs. i'm not quite ue how to siphon it all into a broader context without basically putting 80% the article under a heading like "Biology and ecology of non-avialan dinosaurs" :/ It almost would be better simply to re-title the bulk away from Dinosaur, but obviously that is very far from ideal. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand.... I recently moved the refs, preparing for a major re-write. maybe we do that together and re-structure the entire thing? Moving a lot of stuff off onto separate pages may be a good idea, in fact: lumping even all non-avian dinosaurs is a baaad idea! HMallison (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wonder how systemic this problem is. If most of this page can't be applied to birds, what makes anyone think it can apply to all groups of non-avian dinosaurs? It seems Dinosauria is *too* diverse to even be that useful a term... there's not really much you can say about dinosaurs in general other than its definition. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, there is a bunch of things, some plesiomorphic (so yes, lotsa non-dinosaurian archosaurs will have it as well), some actually apomorphic. But yes, overall, the Dinosauria are a chance product of taxonomy, and they are a huge group. We'll end up having to have section on major groups for everything that's not surely known to be plesiomorphic. That's not nice, but then, wikipedia is not for nice articles only ;) HMallison (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I created a dummy page with my last, reverted edit on my userspace, at User:Dinoguy2/Test/Dinosaur. I figure anybody who wants to help work on this re-write can do so there and not disrupt an FA. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Covering birds and dinosaurs in one go will make for unclear reading and a very long article, and it is not making Wikipedia more accessible. To anyone other than the die-heart phylogenetic nomenclaturist, shoehorning birds into any aspects of dinosaur anatomy and physiology will look very artificial and "forced". The article is abundantly clear on how the phylogenetic tree looks, and it is also clear on being a description on the non-avian grade. Give "phylogenetic correctness" a rest already! Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike basal tetrapods, even popular works on dinosaur paleontology can't be used to justify such a position. Birds are being included as dinosaurs even in children's books nowadays. Tell it to the paleontological community, not editors who are meant to report on the consensus usage. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting hiding that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As you said, it's even in childrens books these days. I'm saying that writing devoting a large section on e.g. dinosaur physiology to "adaptions for flight" is a bit over the top. We all know where birds came from, we don't need it repeted for every section through the article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, repeating sections like those specifically for birds is not a good idea. We're simply saying anything on this page should be about all dinosaurs in general. Adaptations for flight, being specific to a single subset of dinosaurs, should be kept to the sub-pages. Similarly, we wouldn't want to include a section on the biomechanics of sauropods--leave that for Sauropoda. We should treat this page like we do Tetrapod--a general overview of the entire group, including such disparate forms as humans and frogs, but nothing specific to either. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Petter, let's get one thing clear: nobody wants to cover birds (as in extant passerines) in the same go as Mesozoic dinosaurs. However, it is very difficult where to draw the line, and there may well have been a bunch of flying animals that do not make Aves - where to treat the adaptations leading to them? Also, just because it makes life easier and is commonly done, there is no reason for an encyclopaedia to be wrong. Among experts, it is starting to become normal not to write "birds", but "extant dinosaurs". It is time that the public doesn't get mushroomed (kept in the dark and fed shit) any more. Being exact and still retain a readable article is possible. Let's do it! HMallison (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, drawing the line is rather simple. The first published phylogenetic definition of Aves happens to coincide nicely with the Linnaean one, with old Aunty Archy as the cut off point (Padian & Chiappe, 1997). Even though PhyloCode isn't implemented, using the priority approach is prudent. That a small, but very vocal group argue for the restriction of Aves to the crown group does not mean they have got any traction in the rest of the life science community. Unless you want to argue the "birds came first" position (which is a very small minority, I'd go so far as to suggest fringe), the flying bunch you mention are birds. Birds should be mentioned. Their phylogenetic position as surviving dinosaurs should be explored in all it's feathery detail. Avian traits should be discussed when relevant etc. However, if we really are to include birds, the task would be to merge this article with Birds. The use of "extant dinosaurs" for birds among experts is no more no more relevant to this discussion than some anthropologists using "ulotrichous" when referring to curly haired people. Should it be mentioned? Yes. Should we substitute all instances of "bird" in Wikipedia with extant dinosaur? Not quite.

Not so fast! "First" means nothing, "right" is the magic word for wikipedia. If there is a current consensus, wiki should follow it. If not, wiki must describe the possible positions.

Also, please quit the strawman arguments. Nobody suggested repalcing ALL instances of "bird" with "extant dinosaur".

The problem with the phylogenetic position of disallowing grades is that we sometimes need to discuss them. This is a very good example. When I want to read about social signals on dinosaurs, I want to read about the head crest in hadrosaurs and the funny tail-feather in Caudipteryx, I do not want a discussion on the tails of peacocks or the evolutionary significance of song in tits. When discussing dinosaur reproduction, I don't want to read about the hallux and the evolution of nesting in trees. Still, perching birds constitute by far the largest number of known dinosaurs, so the hallux discussion should take up a sizeable portion of such a section if we are to be serious of including birds. The need for discussing grades even in phylogenetic nomenclature has lead to a sort of double communication, where "amniote" is a code word for reptiles and "tetrapod" for labyrinthodonts. Likewise, what you are suggesting is using dinosaurs for birds and some of their ancestors, only you don't really mean birds. Treating this subtlety as implicit is not doing anyone a favour. Both the lede and the section "Modern definition" amply covers the phylogenetic position. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly is the Linnaean definition of Aves? And how does Archaeopteryx fit it but not Microraptor or Rahonavis? Most recent research has concluded that neither could fly, but to what limited extent they could, Micro and certainly Rahon did it better. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, nobody who participated in the discussion here wants purely Aves stuff in here. You're constant use of strawman arguments gets rather boring and old. If you don't cut it out we will ignore you. HMallison (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that there's a decent article Origin of birds, which should be the "main article" for that topic. Then both Dinosaur and Birds can summarise the relevant parts. If I were trying to work out that, I'd make a table in a subpage somewhere with: columns "Dinosaur", "Origin of birds" and "Birds"; a row for each aspect, e.g. inherited theropod anatomy, flight, when the "parson's nose" tail (pygostyle) appeared, possible non-bird flying or gliding dinosaurs, etc.; and in each cell a comment or code, e.g. "main", "important", "minor". Hopeful it won't take long to reach a good enough consensus - otherwise it would be more productive to something else, as paleontology is all about transitions. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do remember! As Dinoguy2 said above: "We're simply saying anything on this page should be about all dinosaurs in general." And "in general" means that the page should not cover a specific sub-group in details, nor an anatomic transition to a new mode of life in it. So here, they should be a three-sentence summary of how small theropods turned into birds, with the key anatomic features listed and linked to the appropriate sections of the other existieng articles. :) HMallison (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pilcha's suggestion seems sensible to me. I think we really do agree on most topics, this discussion is on details.

The initial suggestion for this thread is to move the article to "non-avian dinosaurs", and that "birds would have to be taken into account in how things are worded". As far as I can see, this means putting "in birds, this ..." a lot of places. Neither are conductive to a good article as far as I can see. The article "Dinosaur" should cover the normal meaning of the word. It should absolutely be mentioned that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we have the article Evolution of birds for a reason. I think it will be better if we stop debating and try to find a way to formulate things to make the article better. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that anything that has to begin "in birds..." or even "in sauropods..." or "in T. rex..." should not be included at all in a general overview of an entire, massively diverse group. We don't have an enormous amount of text in Archosaur which begins "in crocodilians..." but, on the other hand, Archosaur is a pretty skimpy article, simply because there is not much to say about a group so diverse it's almost pointless to consider it. That's why I feared Dinosaur might have to go the same way. The best solution is to present an overview of how major groups differ and compare in each section, including birds. Under Physiology, we can give a brief overview of bird physiology, a brief overview of sauropod physiology, etc., to kind of present a general sum of the physiology of dinosaurs, which is by no means monolithic even if you exclude birds. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, wouldn't it be a bit silly to have a "Behavior" section for Vertebrate? Clearly behavior varies so much between groups, both living and those for which it must be inferred from fossil evidence, that such a section is overly simplistic and broad. Even if we kept birds out of the equation, it's simply misleading to have a "Behavior" section here, as if "dinosaur behavior" is a single thing that can be studied. Either brake it down by major group or remove it, I say. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of dinosaurs includes birds. Birds make up the vast bulk a dinosaur biodiversity, and are the only kinds of dinosaurs to exist for a 65 million year stretch. Consequently, it's really no contest; a great deal of this article should focus on birds and the NAD-bird connection. I'm sorry that dinosaurs weren't the distinct group of reptiles the coloring books we had in kindergarten portrayed them as, but that's how it is. Abyssal (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason this article is a lot longer than the Archosaur article is not that there's less things to say about archosaurs, it is that dinosaurs is a topic of great common interest, while archosaurs are not. It is the same way Winston Churchill is a lot longer than Benjamin Disraeli. At one point the Churchill article was so long it exceeded Wikipedia limits and had to be spilt. Now, bout have sub articles, but Churchill's ones are by far the largest number. The reason is naturally that Churchill garner a lot more public interest than old Disraeli. Considering the the public interest in (non-avian) dinosaurs, this really should be the main article, and a long one with good examples too.

Abyssal, you seem to be under the impression that phylogeny is the only criterium by which to decide article length and content. I think you will find that if we really did make this article mainly about birds, there would be a storm of protests for the general reader who no doubt would want Bird for that subject. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest:

• Please be much less technical in at least the earlier sections and paragraphs - WP is mainly for general and often younger readers.
• Please use diagrams more to explain features. You can label or colour-code parts of a body or feature, see e.g. Portia fimbriata (body structure).
• Consider using tables. I asked 2 friends to look at the table at Portia fimbriata (hunting tactics), and both understood the point(s) in seconds, despite knowing nothing about jumping spiders.
• How solid is the base of the phylogenic tree, e.g. Lagosuchus, Lewisuchus', Lagerpeton, Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus?
• If the base of the tree is reasonably solid, it's easy to explain phylogeny with a simple cladogram and metaphors like "tree of life" or "family tree"
  • Where Linnean taxomony breaks down, you can highlight paraphyletic and/or polyphyletic groups as at Nemertea#Within_Nemertea.
  • I suggest you use at most 3 or 4 level in cladograms in this article, and you can continue cladograms (using consistent clade names) in subordinate articles. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Random thought I had a while back; why can't we have an article called "Non-avian dinosaur" that discusses the dinosaurs of tradition, while the dinosaur article proper takes a more modern phylogenetic approach? We could move the content of Dinosaur to Non-avian dinosaur, and then rewrite it to more closely follow the phylogenetic view. Abyssal (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's my random thought. It's ok for us to have an article about the paraphyletic group "Fish" even though the amniotes are an ingroup to the Teleosti. So, by analogy, it should be fine to have an article on the paraphyletic group Dinosaurs even though aves is an ingroup to dinosauria. At the very least there is no reason to get riled up or emotional about this issue. de Bivort 18:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is that fish has never been used by scientists to include their descendants the tetrapods in the same way that scientists use Dinosauria to include their descendants, the birds, as a matter of course these days. Using the Dinosaur article in a way that doesn't include Aves is factually misleading. I'm okay with a separate article specifically about non-avian dinosaurs, but only if that article is up front about the fact that it's discussing an incoherent and obsolete subject matter and the main dinosaur article takes a more accurate approach. Abyssal (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "dinosaur" is no more obsolete and incoherent than "fish." I think what you should be advocating is a technical cladistic article Dinosauria (rather than a redirect) to accompany Dinosaur the way that Osteichthyes accompanies Fish. de Bivort 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Abyssal has a point here: if I, as vertebrate palaeontologist, say "dinosaur" in the presence of a peer, it ALWAYS means "Dinosauria", not "non-avian dinosaur". If I want to exclude birds, I say so. OTOH, if my colleagues say "fish" they still means "vertebrate that lives in water", not "Osteichthyes". Wiki isn't an experts' conference, but there is a distinct difference in actual use by experts.

and, while we are at it: Fish covers way too much territory for my liking. HMallison (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also another issue, which makes the comparison to "fish" rather lame: because there are so many theropods physically so highly similar to birds, and because it has in recent years been shown that most of their really important characteristics (avian lung, e.g.) are shared even by basal Saurischia, "dinosaurs" is a term that (though not knowingly for most people) describes a group of animals that are, in may respects, highly SIMILAR (while "fish" are diverse). Simply stated, a basal bird is so similar to a NAD from the right lineage, and even in basic important stuff like lung physiology, locomotory pattern and metabolism to ALL dinosaurs, that distinguishing them would be difficult for lay people if both animals were placed in front of the alive - birds ARE dinosaurs, and most dinosaurs are best though of as "giant bird-ish" that separating them because one group is extant while the rest is not is really absurd! HMallison (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fish is a quite good comparison. There were a whole bunch of very tetrapod-like fish foundering around in the Devonian shallows (the Elpistostegalia) who moved like a tetrapod, breathed with their lungs rather than gills and used their fins rather than tails for propulsion. On the amphibian side of the divide you have the Ichthyostegalia who for all practical pruposes were fish with feet. The only real difference in the fish/dinosaur comparrison is that fish are very much alive and kicking, we even have lungfish around so taht we can see for our selves. Had the sauropods pulled through the K/T extinction, our perspective might have looked a bit different. As for dinosaurs best be seen as "giant bird-ish", I find e.g. Diplodocus not quite filling the "birdish" stereotype, just as I fail to see dinosaurs as "perch-ish". Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?

In response to "What?", I have a question: Are you sure that dinosaurs are reptiles? This review of Walking with Dinosaurs says otherwise. I doubt he's correct, I just want to confirm it. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That person has no idea what they're talking about. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one relevant question in that review: How "hot-blooded" were the various critters really? He seem to object to the use of "reptile" as the dinosaurs (and a synapsid) weren't "cold-blooded enough" to be reptiles. While the position is kind of moronic, it begs the interesting question is how "warm-blooded" the creatures in Walking With Dinosaurs really were. At what state of temperature control do we semantically draw the line between cold-blooded (in it's various forms) and homeothermy/endothermy? If we assume some form of temperature control was the original state of affairs in Archosauria and at least in the more advanced Pelycosauria, how did that control "work". How was temperature regulated, and what were their optimal temperature? To what degree were they bradymetabolic, or were any of them obligate homeothermic? This article (Dinosaur) seem to rely on a somewhat simplistic dichotomous understanding of the cold/warm-bloodednes continuum, perhaps we should detail it a bit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)