Talk:Pachycephalosaurus: Difference between revisions
replace Extinction banner with Palaeontology |
|||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
::::Only notable cultural reference to Pachy I can think of is the appearance in [[The Lost World: Jurassic Park]]. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::Only notable cultural reference to Pachy I can think of is the appearance in [[The Lost World: Jurassic Park]]. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::Thanks for the check-back, Bibliomaniac. We sure appreciate your diligence. I know that you passed the article, but I did add a bit more to the lead, added the tendon ref, and am certainly willing to add whatever else is required/desired. A pop culture section could be made. I usually take a look at ''what links here'' to see what appearances might be suitable. In this case, it's (as FunkMonk indicates) mostly movie appearances, probably where ''Pachy'' appears in the background of a scene. Some asteroids are named after popular dinosaurs, but ''Pachy'' isn't one of them. I'm definitely open to further suggestions, however, and we could certainly start a pop culture section. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::Thanks for the check-back, Bibliomaniac. We sure appreciate your diligence. I know that you passed the article, but I did add a bit more to the lead, added the tendon ref, and am certainly willing to add whatever else is required/desired. A pop culture section could be made. I usually take a look at ''what links here'' to see what appearances might be suitable. In this case, it's (as FunkMonk indicates) mostly movie appearances, probably where ''Pachy'' appears in the background of a scene. Some asteroids are named after popular dinosaurs, but ''Pachy'' isn't one of them. I'm definitely open to further suggestions, however, and we could certainly start a pop culture section. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: The Pachy Zord in Power Rangers Dino Charge.[[Special:Contributions/65.255.88.233|65.255.88.233]] ([[User talk:65.255.88.233|talk]]) 23:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Is this Pachycephalosaurus? == |
== Is this Pachycephalosaurus? == |
Revision as of 23:24, 8 May 2017
![]() | Pachycephalosaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | Dinosaurs GA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Palaeontology GA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Template:Wikipedia CD selection
Which Is it?
The article currently has the following statement near the end:
Diet
Scientists do not yet know what these dinosaurs ate. Having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. It is assumed that pachycephalosaurs lived on a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects. The sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants.
I hate to find contradictions on Wikipedia as it tends to hurt the credibility, however I'm no dinosaur or dental expert. So.....can we get a ruling on if they're teeth were "not as effective" or "very effective"? Thanks.
75.59.178.61 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to look it up, but it's not a *complete* contradiction. The teeth would not have been great for fibrous stuff, but would have cut and sliced well (think green iguanas). J. Spencer 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- As written, it is contradictory. "Having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs" ... "The sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants." You can't shred plant matter effectively with small ridged teeth that don't effectively chew tough, fibrous plants. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Shredding is not the same as chewing, which grinds food. You can't grind food very well with little triangular thingies, but you can cut it. J. Spencer 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- As written, it is contradictory. "Having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs" ... "The sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants." You can't shred plant matter effectively with small ridged teeth that don't effectively chew tough, fibrous plants. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I totaly agree, because of the shape of its teeth.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.jpinstitute.com/dinopedia/images/dc_card_pachy3_big.jpg
- In Pachycephalosaurus on Mon Jul 17 14:50:07 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
- In Pachycephalosaurus on Thu Jul 27 00:38:26 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
maru (talk) contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Status of Tylosteus
Sullivan (2006) demonstrated that Tylosteus ornatus Leidy, 1872 is not referrable to Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis and is very similar to Dracorex hogwartsia. Therefore, the ICZN will be asked to resurrect Tylosteus from the list of nomina oblita and nomina rejecta.
Sullivan, R.M., 2006. A taxonomic review of the Pachycephalosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 35: 347-365. 72.194.116.63 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 09.51 15 April 2007
Synonyms in taxobox
This may be largely semantic, but the use of specific synonyms in the taxobox for a genus-level article doesn't jibe with the way we've been doing it everywhere else. I think the logic here is that on the Pachycephalosaurus, only synonyms at the genus level should be listed. If the article were titled Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis (with the appropriate species-level taxobox that uses binomial fields instead of species subdivisions), the specific synonyms would be included. In other articles where a type or other species have synonyms, this is only discussed in the classification section. Dinoguy2 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- ok. I just figured since the genus was monotypic, the article was just as much about P. wyomingensis as it was about Pachycephalosaurus, so the synonyms belonged in the taxobox. Of course, you're right: we haven't been doing that for any of the others, and obviously there's a problem with stating that a species is synonymous with a genus. I'll revert self. BTW, since you're here, other ideas for improvement on this article are welcome... Firsfron of Ronchester 09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Pachycephalosaurus new collaboration for dec 07 with 5 votes
Support:
- Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- ArthurWeasley 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Qwo 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- With this I have tried to nominate another unrepresented group, so to give people an idea of what we haven't done yet. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Surely, there are many things to say about Pachy. ArthurWeasley 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded and added images to practically every pachycephalosaurid article, but there is certainly a great amount of work remaining to be done. Help would be much appreciated. Qwo 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
GA
I've done a few dino articles, so I think I'll take a look at this. I gave it a cleanup while I was reading it. I don't think that this is the best dinosaur GA put up by the dedicated Dino group, and I think that it warrants a few fixes before attaining GA status.
- Maybe I'm being too much of a traditionalist, but I don't see the paleoecology section that pretty much every other dino article seems to have. I think it would be best to include one, but it's not a big problem.
- The skull ramming section is lacking citations. I think it would also be best to mention the headbutting in the lead as well, since it's an aspect that holds the general public's imagination.
- In the description section, who says that the dinosaur might have had long legs, short forelimbs, and ossified tendons?
- Please cite "more related to ceratopsians than ornithopods".
- Are there any depictions in popular culture of Pachycephalosaurus, seeing as they are the most well-known species in their clade.
Overall, I think that a few expansions and citations are needed to get this up to GA status. Therefore, I'm placing this on hold for now. bibliomaniac15 00:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review and copyedit, Bibliomaniac. I am receptive to your suggestions and ideas, and am absolutely thrilled to be working with you again. :) Thanks so much for picking up the dinosaur review flag.
- The popular culture section of this article was jettisoned at one point in 2007 because it was so anemic; I can scrape something together if you'd like. Of our GAs, Amphicoelias, Ankylosaurus, Abelisauridae, Dromaeosauridae, Gryposaurus, Heterodontosauridae, Scelidosaurus, and Tyrannosauroidea have no paleoecology section. The rest of the GAs do. A few, like Othnielosaurus have a combined paleobiology and paleoecology section.
- I will add the appropriate citations tonight. The head-butting bit is in Carpenter at least, so that's an easy reference to add in. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Right, I've done a bit of work, based on your observations, Bibliomaniac. I will continue to work on this tomorrow afternoon. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seems better. If the popular culture was removed before, then it's all right, no need to add it. The Paleoecology stuff isn't really needed anyway. The citations look good, and although I'd still like to see where the "ossified tendons" came from, I see nothing keeping it from GA anymore. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Only notable cultural reference to Pachy I can think of is the appearance in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the check-back, Bibliomaniac. We sure appreciate your diligence. I know that you passed the article, but I did add a bit more to the lead, added the tendon ref, and am certainly willing to add whatever else is required/desired. A pop culture section could be made. I usually take a look at what links here to see what appearances might be suitable. In this case, it's (as FunkMonk indicates) mostly movie appearances, probably where Pachy appears in the background of a scene. Some asteroids are named after popular dinosaurs, but Pachy isn't one of them. I'm definitely open to further suggestions, however, and we could certainly start a pop culture section. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Only notable cultural reference to Pachy I can think of is the appearance in The Lost World: Jurassic Park. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seems better. If the popular culture was removed before, then it's all right, no need to add it. The Paleoecology stuff isn't really needed anyway. The citations look good, and although I'd still like to see where the "ossified tendons" came from, I see nothing keeping it from GA anymore. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Right, I've done a bit of work, based on your observations, Bibliomaniac. I will continue to work on this tomorrow afternoon. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Pachy Zord in Power Rangers Dino Charge.65.255.88.233 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this Pachycephalosaurus?
The description of this[1] image says "Sketch of a pachycephalosaur of uncertain systematical position and still (2003) not formally described. Its remains were found in the "Sandy Quarry" of the Hell Creek Formation, near Buffalo, South Dakota (USA). Initially reconstructed as Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis by Michael Triebold later many attendees of an international symposium referred the remains to Stygimoloch spinifer because of the prominent spikes on the back of the skull. ". Has it been clarified what it is in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- If that is "Sandy", it is Stygimoloch (which may or may not turn out to be a juvenile Pachycephalosaurus). Perhaps a section dedicated to the "Sandy" skeleton is in order? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could perhaps be mentioned if it is notable? That drawing is the basis of this scale diagram, by the way, so maybe Dinoguy knows: [2] And this skeleton for example, seems very similar to the drawing, with the spikes and stuff: [3] FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "Sandy" skeleton is certainly notable, as a partially complete skeleton of a pachycephalosaur. I'm not sure if it belongs in this article or in Stygimoloch. Perhaps mention could be made in both. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The drawing is Sandy. I didn't know it had been published and referred to a genus though. The scale is based on the drawing but scaled to larger pachy specimens, so it can stay here if the drawing moves. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The "Sandy" skeleton is certainly notable, as a partially complete skeleton of a pachycephalosaur. I'm not sure if it belongs in this article or in Stygimoloch. Perhaps mention could be made in both. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Could perhaps be mentioned if it is notable? That drawing is the basis of this scale diagram, by the way, so maybe Dinoguy knows: [2] And this skeleton for example, seems very similar to the drawing, with the spikes and stuff: [3] FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Pachycephalosaurus = Stygimoloch = Dracorex
Recently Horner found Stygimoloch and Dracorex being junior synonyms of Pachycephalosaurus Please, read this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002314.htm This is the scientific paper http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007626 This thing finally came out, i REALLY suggest of merging Stygymoloch and Dracorex articles in Pachycephalosaurus article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.240.155 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned in all the affected articles. Not all scientists agree with the conclusion, so the articles should remain separate. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)