Talk:Dinosaur

Template:Past cotw

Dinosaurs as Aquatic Animals

A British scientist claims that dinosaurs were too heavy to have been terrestrial animals, and that they spent most of their time floating in shallow rivers and lakes. Furthermore, he says that the tail was a swimming aid instead of a tool used for balance on land. I don't buy this hypothesis myself, but I put the info here just to alert the dino-nuts on this encyclopedia about this new theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy is a crackpot with no evidence and no knowledge of dinosaur anatomy. A group of paleontologists are currently petitioning the BBC to retract this ridiculous story. Note that this "researcher" published his "theory" in a magazine with no references and no peer review. The "study" consisted of him looking at pictures of dinosaurs and thinking they didn't look right. That's it. Totally worthless and not science. It's deeply unfortunate this was picked up by every media outlet on earth including the BBC. Apparently nobody checks facts anymore. [1] MMartyniuk (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Phew, that's a relief. Come to think of it, wasn't this a popular theory in the 1930s that has been disproven since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a popular theory right up till the 1980s, and is still occasionally presented as fact. I don't know anything about this purported study, and I don't support the idea of amphibious sauropods. But I do think that as wikipedians we need to treat this historical idea with some respect. At the time it was based on the science at the time, although we now know it was misinterpreted. The idea was supported by sound palaeontologists. It's an important idea in the history of palaeontology and it is so often ridiculed on these talk pages or grudgingly glossed over in articlers.Gazzster (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And to be fair to the report in question, if this is it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3310531.stm, the study does not claim that sauropods were aquatic, or needed to live in water. It only claims that an amphibious lifestyle is not inconsistent with their physiology. And it goes on to say that if they moved into deep water they would have experienced difficulties.Gazzster (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Spinosaurids as semi-aquatic

At some point, the text of the article states "†Megalosauroidea (early group of large carnivores including the semi-aquatic spinosaurids)". I think it's a bit far-fetched to call Spinosaurids semi-aquatic. Should I remove the statement? DaMatriX (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would at most be semi-amphibic. I'd say remove. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs that archeologists discover and observe as prehistoric fossils were once the dominant terrestial vertabraes that ever existed in the the environment which surrounds us but due to the sub-zero effects of the climate that we humans have adapted to, their diverse population has seized to exist since the triassic period.

During the era which these creatures existed, an immense quantity of them behaved in a brutal and sinister manner towards the other classifications of these dinosaurs whilst some were eco-friendly and peaceful in their surroundings;Behaviour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.124.45 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaurs were extremely adaptable animals, and it was not climate change that contributed to their demise, despite popular belief. They dealt with all kinds of changes in the climate and environment during their 165+ million years on Earth. Their demise was brought on by an extraordinary cataclysm, usually thought to have been an asteroid or a comet that slammed into Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago. To put it simply, your statement is invalid, my fellow unsigned contributor.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

none of those two beginning entires to this section made any sense. if dinosaurs went extinct in the triassic why are there dinosaur fossils dated to the Cretacious? are you talking about Therapsids?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

Dinosaurs still exist. Barren2134 (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and that is clearly stated a number of times in the article. There was no actual request to edit made here. Cadiomals (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

we have fossils, but no living dinosaur claims as they are all hoaxes.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm..he's not talking about the Mokele-mbembe and crap, which are quite obviously fake. He's talking about those tiny, feathered flying dinosaurs in our backyards. You know, the ones that the kids these days call "birds". --24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nyasasaurus

Stop removing it from the infobox. The argument that all dinosaurs have to fall into either the Saurischia or Ornithischia is invalid, for 1) the definition section of this article states that "Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants".[10] It has also been suggested that Dinosauria be defined with respect to the most recent common ancestor of Megalosaurus and Iguanodon, because these were two of the three genera cited by Richard Owen when he recognized the Dinosauria.[11] Both definitions result in the same set of animals being defined as dinosaurs: "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia"". At least based on the information we have here, a species does not have to be Saurischian or Ornithischian to be a dinosaur, but for the most part, all known species that met the actual definition fell into one of them, so it amounted to be that - notice it says results, not called for a redefinition as - before this finding. 2) The researchers (Nesbitt, etc.) are well more educated in the field than any of us, and clearly know what a dinosaur is defined as. They would not have states it was either a basal Dinosaurian or a Dinosauriform if it was not possible to be just a basal Dinosaurian. 3) We are not the taxonomists here who are to determine whether it is or is not a basal dinosaur, but if scientists say it is in either one clade or the other, then it belongs in both with a question mark next to its placement in Wikipedia articles. Jntg4Games (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand how these definitions work, and how the scientists are using them. "Basal dinosaurian" means either basal saurischian or basal ornithischian and nobody has implied otherwise. If Dinosauria = either Triceratops + Passer or Megalosaurus + Iguanodon, it includes, by definition, saurischians and ornithischians only, because Saurischia itself = all animals closer to Passer than to Triceratops and vice versa. Secondly, even if Nyasasaurus is a basal dinosaur, which there's no solid evidence for according to the scientists who described it, it doesn't warrant inclusion in the taxobox, because the taxobox is only for major groups as currently stated. There are dozens of genera of basal saurischians, basal ornithischians, and basal dinosaurs which also are too fragmentary to assign to either group being left out. So there's no reason to add Nyasauruas and not, say, Pisanosaurus and Alwalkeria etc. except for the fact that Nyasasaurus happens to be in the news at the moment. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done with this. But is absolutely wrong that what is likely the oldest known dinosaur isn't located on any dinosaur taxonomies here at all, huge case of not supplying readers a huge piece of information just because we aren't sure which order it would belong to. It also receives no mention in its other possible location in the Dinosauriformes, we are treating it as if it doesn't exist here. And the inclusion of other species known to exist in one order or the other is irrelevant since they can be found by going to the Saurischia or Ornithischia page. And, while there is no indication this is it, but the MRCA would be a dinosaur but not in either, just saying it isn't impossible to fall into neither but still be one. Something has to be done to include this species more obviously on this wiki, due to the implications it holds. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jnt,

Nyasasaurus is already included in the following articles: List of dinosaurs, Dinosauriformes, 1967 in paleontology, 2013 in paleontology, 2012 in science, and Manda Formation according to the 'what links here' tool. Someone also created a nomination for the genus on Wikipedia's Main Page, in the "In the news" section. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion in the Dinosauriformes article is a good step forward. Jntg4Games (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)