From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Allosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2010.
December 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Allosaurus at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

older entries[edit]

I changed the translation on "άλλο" (allo), since it doesn't mean "strange" or different, but "another" ("anderer" in German, "ellers" in Norvegian). (unsigned)

If you look at this revision - - under the 'Findings' section of the article the second and third paragraphs are messed up. The end of the final sentence of paragraph two and the beginning of the first sentece of paragraph three are omitted, and the paragraphs are separated by two rows of dashes.

The paragraphs/sentences were complete in the December 2, 2005 revisions; the error appears in the first revision on December 4, 2005. I fixed this by repasting the lines from the last December 2, 2005 revision. If this was an accident that occurred while editing that section, please feel free to edit them as originally intended. --Slow Graffiti 06:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing occurred within the first paragraph of 'Classification and history' - nearly the whole paragraph was missing, but randomly. All that remained was the first half of the first sentence, and the last words of the last sentence. This error appeared on December 4 as well, and the December 2 revision was used to restore the paragraph. --Slow Graffiti 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Facts" [Creationist vs Evolution][edit]

Every dinosaur article has so many "millions of years" on it. I don't care if the "majority" of the scientific community believe this; if the majority of scientists believed in a flat earth, that wouldn't make it true! Besides, there are a good number of scientists that don't believe in mega-anums, so Wikipedia shouldn't be listing these things as facts. Scorpionman 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are posting this here rather than the main dinosaur page, but since you did post here, I'll answer here. There is no need to write "such and such million years ago, unless of course there havent been that many" on every single dinosaur taxon article, just like there's no need to write "such and such fossils have been found, although they might have been placed there by the Devil" or "Chinese people might think this was a dragon" on every single dinosaur page. We also don't recount the entire history of dinosaur paleontology or list every single other dinosaur in a dinosaur taxon article. This is information that is just too general to be placed in an article about a specific dinosaur and better suited to one of the main dinosaur pages, links to which are provided in the article.
Wikipedia articles about specific religions don't list every possible alternative religion. Instead, Wikipedia provides links to them all (or most of them) on the page about religion, which IS linked to from every specific religion page. Criticisms of the old earth hypothesis are linked to on several pages related to the age of the Earth, as well as the dinosaur page itself.
Also, not a majority, but 100% of professional dinosaur paleontologists believe in mega-anums. Sheep81
True. In fact, if mega-anums are not real, neither is paleontology, since prehistory itself would by definition not exist.Dinoguy2 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. If 100% of scientists believed in a flat earth, would that make it true? And dinosaur paleontologists don't comprise 100% of scientists, so not all scientists believe in mega-anums. Scorpionman 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks for ignoring the previous two paragraphs which were my main point. Dinosaur research is done by dinosaur paleontologists, so their opinion is highly relevant to the subject matter, far moreso than a physicist or astronomer, especially the tiny minority that don't believe in mega-annums (and you would really have to say "don't believe" in this case, since their opinion runs counter to all available scientific evidence). That's all. Sheep81 03:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As both a Christian and someone with a science degree my personal beliefs do not see a conflict with evolution or the "mega-annums" issue. But, as I stated, those are my personal beliefs. I do think it is important to avoid claiming any scientific theory has the backing of "100%" of the scientific community. At the same time, a few theories including evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, and a few others ARE well established and widely accepted by the bulk of legitimate scientists. Scientific theories are based on evidence. Responsible and reputable scientists will continually search for evidence that does not fit their theory. Any such discovery will then be used to either revise or (in extreme cases) discredit the theory. To date, the legitimate data supports both the theory of evolution AND the case for millions (and in some cases billions) of years for the evolution of life and the universe as a whole. A reasonable case can be made that God created everything a few thousand years ago, but this is a position entirely based on one religious point of view (not shared by all Christians) and would suggest to me a Creator who is deceptive, a concept that does not fit with my personal beliefs. In the end, I would hope this article is written to address the theories that are most widely accepted within the scientific community and save theological discussions for another arena.CharmsDad (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You should get your facts straight. Not 100% of dinosaur researchers believe in evolution. You just say that because you, like most of the users on this frickin' encyclopedia, are biased against creation. I'm not going to argue this point anymore; it's like arguing with a stone. Scorpionman 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Name one that doesn't? Sheep81 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL Scorpionman, Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not fantasy *rolls eyes* 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses scientific evidence, not your personal opinion. Maior1 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite right what scientists believe isn't a fact, but see, what scientists believe backed up with actual evidence from the real world is. The Earth can be dated by Uranium dating, carbon dating, and other methods (I can't think of the others right now), which allow us to pinpoint Allosaurus' existence from 150 to 145 million years ago. By the way, name me one legitimate paleontologist who believes in creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talkcontribs) 23:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Geologists knew that the Earth was millions of years old long before Darwin. Not only that, the idea that the planet was only a few thousand years old was not a major concept among religious people. Nor was the immutability of species a central concept of religion. It is only since some people feel religion is under attack that such concepts are emphasized. (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven76.28.103.69 (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall one of the first to suggest the earth was so old and have his theories widely accepted was Darwin's son. The various theories which increased the accepted age of the earth first to millions then to billions of years came amost entirely after Darwin published "Origin of Species".CharmsDad (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. This article summarizes the history of "deep time". Hutton was the one to popularize it among scientists, in the 1700s. By Darwin's time, the debate had boiled down to which variety of deep time one accepted: Catastrophism or uniformitarianism. Contemporaries of Darwin were already kicking around estimates for the age of the earth that went into the hundreds of millions of years, such as William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. Anyway, the Origin of Species had nothing to do with the shift towards greater understanding of the earth's age--the main influence came from Charles Lyell and Principles of Geology. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 I'll jump in this. I am a Christian, but as someone who's had a passion for dinosaurs my whole life, I've yet to see one shred of hard evidence that would lead me to even consider evolution as factual, or even possible. Tell me, would any of you actually believe in evolution if it wasn't so widely agreed upon? I mean, creationists could be wrong, but evolutionists seem to be the ones without evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtail870 (talkcontribs) 07:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 

Proposed Edit by[edit]

I discovered the following hidden within the article. It seems to be somebody's version of the article. I thought that the Talk page was a better place for it. Jimp 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Allosaurus was a huge carnivore. Allosaurus probably ate herbivore dinosaurs, like stegosaurs and iguanadons. It could kill medium-sized sauropods, and sick or injured large saurpods like apatosaurs and others of its kind. Allosaurus may have been a scavenger. Allosaurus probably had competition with Ceratosaurus, though Allosaurus was much larger.

Bones of big sauropods, like Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Apatosaurus have Allosaurus tooth marks. A huge sauropod was most likely to big for even one Allosaurus to kill, so scientists think Allosuarus probably hunted in packs to kill such big Plant-eaters. But maybe Allosaurus could’ve only gone after injured or sick dinosaurs, not risking being killed by a strong and healthy Sauropod, or a whack of a tail.

A recent study found that Allosaurus’ powerful bite was not in the musles of its jaws, but its neck and reinforced skull. It would gape and cleave flesh from its prey by using its powerfully-muscled neck to wield its impact-resistant skull like an axe. This would have done far more damage than simply opening and closing its jaws.

Allosaurus was a Carnosaur, and his intelligence was high. His EQ ( Enephalization Quotient, or how its brain measured to its body) was about 1.9 EQ.

In 1998, an Allosaurus nest was discovered in Wyoming. Fossils of adults and young were found, along with tons of Herbivore bones. The bones had teeth marks from young and from grown Allosaurs. This shows that Allosaurs may have brought food back to the nests to feed to their young.

It’s not determined that Allosaurs were able to communicate vocally besides a hiss. But because their closest living relatives, birds and crocodiles can, it probably means Allosaurus could too. It’s certain that Allosaurus used visual communication some what. The crest on its head is proof of this. Its crest was probably colorful. Communicating by bobbing the head was probably part of courting and telling of enemies. Showing its massive teeth was probably another way of warding of threats.

During the Mesozoic era, the climate was warmer, the seasons were mild, the sea level was higher, and there was no polar ice. In the mid-Jurassic, Laurasia and Gondwanaland started forming because Pangaea was breaking apart. By the late Jurassic, the spreading of Laurasia and Gondwanaland was almost complete. The climate of the Jurassic period was hot and dry, but later changed, with no polar ice, warm and moist, and very much flooding in vast areas. Pterosaurs starting flying in the sky.

The seas during the Jurassic period were home to tons of coral reefs, fish, ichthyosaurs, (fishlike reptiles), plesiosaurs, giant marine crocodiles, ammonites, squid, sharks, and rays.

Triassic plant lines continued. Many palm-like trees, called Cycads were around. There was also many seed ferns, gingkos, and conifers in the subtropical forests.

So far, more than sixty complete and partial Allosaurus skeletons have been found. They’ve been found in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and possibly Portugal and Tanzania.

In one quarry here in Utah, remains of at least 44 Allosaurs were found mixed together! The teeth of Allosaurus are the most common remains of theropods from the late Jurassic in the American West.

In 1991 a 95% complete Allosaurus skeleton was found, and was later named Big Al. the skeleton was excavated near Shell, Wyoming by the Museum of the Rockies and the University of Wyoming Geological Museum. It was originally discovered by a Swiss team led by Kirby Siber. They later found a second Allosaurus, named “Big Al Two”. It’s the best preserved skeleton of Allosaurus yet.

Joe Tucciarone Image[edit]

User:Maior1 has repeatedly added the image Image:A maximus.jpg by Joe Tucciarone to the article. The image was marked for deletion becuase it did not have the correct copyright status, yet this tag has been removed. Mr. Tucciarone's own website, which Maior1 linked to and apparently misinterpreted, allows for only paid commercial use of his images. Maior1 has provided no evidence that he provided Mr. Tucciarone with any kind of payment for the image's use on Wikipedia. Maior1 said on the image page: "Fair use rationale: Picture of an allosauras belongs on the allosaurus article. No further explanation required". This is in no way the case. Unless that image was part of a news story or press kit, as is the case with stills from movies like Walking With Dinosaurs, images are the SOLE property of the artist who created them. Images are not simply public domain just because they are used in a relavant discussion. If one of my images appeared in a dinosaur book, without my consent, even if that book was given away free, I would fight for compensation, and all the other paleoartists I know would do the same. This image must be deleted, and if Maior1 persists in adding it to the allosaurus page, action should be taken against him. I don't have a strong opinion on many things, but artist's rights are one exception. Either get permission from Joe Tucciarone and replace the "marked for deletion" copyright tag, or have the image deleted.Dinoguy2 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Different then, or still different?[edit]

"Allosurus ... was named 'different lizard' because its vertebrae were different from those of all other dinosaurs." -- Should this be "different from those of all other dinosaurs known at that time"?, or are its vertebrae still considered distinctive (in which case we want a note on just what's so darn distinctive about them.) -- Writtenonsand 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many dinosaurs were given names and the meanings not clarified at the time, which cna make it hard 150 years on ti figure out what the original namer was thinking. I think we'll look into it at some point. Someone will probably need to see the original paper from 1879......Cas Liber 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Allosaurus[edit]

Loewen (2004) performed an analysis of all of specimens of Allosaurus found in the Morrison Formation to determine how many Allosaurus species exist, and he concluded that only two species of Allosaurus are valid: Allosaurus fragilis Marsh, 1877 and Allosaurus "jimmadseni" Chure, 2000. He concluded also that Antrodemus may not be a specimen of Allosaurus after all, since no information on its time period and provenance were provided, and that Saurophaganax is a distinct genus. The synonymy of Allosaurus from North America is as follows:

Allosaurus Marsh, 1877

=Creosaurus Marsh, 1878

=Epanterias Cope, 1878

=Labrosaurus Marsh, 1879

Allosaurus fragilis Marsh, 1877

= Creosaurus atrox Marsh, 1878

= Allosaurus atrox (Marsh, 1878) Paul, 1987

= Antrodemus atrox (Marsh, 1878) Gilmore, 1920

= Allosaurus lucaris Marsh, 1878

= Epanterias amplexus Cope, 1878

= Labrosaurus lucaris (Marsh, 1878) Marsh, 1879

= Labrosaurus ferox Marsh, 1884

= Allosaurus ferox Marsh, 1896

= Labrosaurus fragilis (Marsh, 1877) Nopsca, 1901

= Antrodemus lucaris (Marsh, 1878) Hay, 1902

= Antrodemus fragilis (Marsh, 1877) Lapparent and Zbyszewski, 1957

= Antrodemus ferox (Marsh, 1896) Ostrom and McIntosh, 1966

= Allosaurus amplexus (Cope, 1878) Paul, 1988

= Allosaurus trihedrodon (Cope, 1877) Glut, 1997

= Laelaps trihedrodon Cope, 1877

= Dryptosaurus trihedrodon (Cope, 1877) Hay, 1902

= Creosaurus trigonodon (Cope, 1877) Osborn, 1931 [sic]

= Antrodemus trihedrodon (Cope, 1877) Kuhn, 1939

= Hypsirophus trihedrodon (Cope, 1877) Cope vide Chure, 2001

= Allosaurus whitei Pickering, 1996 [nomen nudum]

= Allosaurus carnegeii Levin, 2003 [nomen nudum]

Allosaurus "jimmadseni" [nomen ex dissertationae]

This analysis confirms that Creosaurus, Epanterias, and Labrosaurus are synonymous with Allosaurus, and the type species of each genus are different growth stages or diseased individuals of Allosaurus. Therefore, remove Camptonotus, Saurophaganax and Antrodemus from synonymy with Allosaurus and merge the Epanterias page with Allosaurus, as Loewen demonstrated Epanterias to be conspecific with Allosaurus fragilis. Also, reomove Allosaurus atrox from the species list under Allosaurus because it is intraspecific within A. fragilis


My name is Vahe Demirjian.

I think A. atrox is still used frequently enough that it shuold remain in the article for now. When Chure's thesis is published officially (he also find no diagnostic characters of A. atrox to differentiate it from the other species), A. atrox can be pretty safely removed from the taxobox list. For now, use Loewen 2004 and Chure 2000 as a basis for an explaination of the species situation in the text. Dinoguy2 18:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Allosaurus atrox, A. amplexus[edit]

Does Smith (1998) synonymize Allosaurus atrox (Marsh, 1878) [originally Creosaurus] and A. amplexus (Cope, 1878) [originally Epanterias] with A. fragilis? If so, Allosaurus atrox should be removed from the taxobox and Epanterias is a junior synonym of Allosaurus fragilis.

D. K. Smith. 1998. A morphometric analysis of Allosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 18(1):126-142. 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian 09.37 20 February 2007

The Astragalus[edit]

From what I had heard, the astragalus discovered in Victoria has been assigned to several different animals, from allosaurs to alvarezsaurs to giant ornithomimosaurs. Unless recent evidence has finally proven once and for all that it DID belong to an allosaur, it would be nice to at least mention that it has been referred to other animals, too. 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was an allosaur, how did it get to Austrila?

Note: "allosaur", not Allosaurus. Nobody is saying it's the same genus or species as A. fragillis. Giganotosaurus, Eocarcharia, and Sinraptor are also allosaurs, and nobody asks how they got to South America, Africa, and Asia. The origin of allosaurs occurred when the continents were more or less connected, so various lineages were able to spread across Laurasia and Gondwana. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


I've heard mention of a specimen (specimens?) of Allosaurus with shock damage to the gastralia, giving rise to the "Allosaurus belly flop" idea. Can anyone cite which specimen this is please? Also, does anyone know if there has been an attempt to calculate the speed of Allosaurus based on the estimated weight and severety of the fractures? Thanks, Mistyschism 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus (6 votes) successful collab for August 07[edit]

Nominated 10th May, 2007;


  1. 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Spawn Man 02:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dropzink 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. J. Spencer 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. ArthurWeasley 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


  • One of the bigger dinosaurs that need to become featured - lots of information too... 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Who likes Plateosaurus really? Honestly people, a cool dinosaur like Ally here going unvoted for? Outrageous... ;) Spawn Man 02:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like ArthurWeasley said, there are overrepresentation of North American dinosaurs in the collaboration. But this dinosaur is very known to everyone that needs a lot of information and improvement, isn't it? Dropzink 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a flagship that needs a lot of work. J. Spencer 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, totally agree. ArthurWeasley 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


A lot is needed; the format is very archaic, and very unlike what we've come to use. Here's a quick outline based on what we've been doing:

  • Introduction
  • Description
  • Classification
  • Discovery and history
  • Marsh and Cope years up to Gilmore's redescription as Antrodemus (1870s-1920s)
  • "Antrodemus years" (1920s-1970s)
  • Madsen monograph/Cleveland-Lloyd
  • Recent research (Big Al, "new" species, arm and jaw biomechanics, etc.)
  • Species (I think there's enough for its own full section)
  • A. fragilis versus A. atrox, Allosaurus in (or not in) Australia
  • Paleoecology (most common large predator of the Morrison, postulated size of hunting range (in either PDotW or Dinosaur Heresies), etc.)
  • Paleobiology (growth, group behavior, biomechanics, brain, etc.)
  • In popular culture (which seems to be going out of style)
  • References
  • External links

J. Spencer 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to take a lot of work; I suggest we extend it through September, since so many other things came up this month (rex specimens, the latest front in the ongoing Pop Culture Deletion Wars of 2007, etc.). J. Spencer 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The species section should also include some discussion of things like Epanterias and Saurophaganax... maybe this would fall under classification? Dinoguy2 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid any specific references to Daniel Chure's dissertation, valuable and pertinent as it is (I wouldn't have bothered doing this article without it), because a) access to regular users, who probably don't feel like dropping on this, is limited; and b) it's unpublished and technically not peer-reviewed, at least not in the traditional sense (although anyone who has done a thesis or dissertation knows that there has been quite a bit of review from others by the time it is accepted). I am well aware that what it contains is open knowledge at this point, so the possibility of interfering with a publication embargo is something we no longer have any control over, but I think the other two reasons are strong enough to keep it out except for general statements. J. Spencer 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pack Hunters[edit]

My understanding is that Allosaurus was a pack wight. Is this true?Cameron Nedland 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on it. There's no good evidence for real, cooperative hierarchical packs (which are actually very rare in nature anyway). J. Spencer 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the Dinomeister, but I could have sworn I read something about it...Cameron Nedland 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
A behaviour like this is an extinct species would be purely speculative, evidence such as mass fossil graves, footprints etc can only speculate as well. The fact is we will never know what the behaviour of a fossil animal was like apart from the said above and anatomical adaptions similar to modern species. Enlil Ninlil 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that modern reptiles and birds aren't often pack hunters, there is good evidence that Allosaurus was a pack hunter. Fossil sites both dug up by Robert Bakker and ones found at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center show evidence for pack behavior in Allosaurus. While Allosaurs did bite each other on the face to establish dominance, and they would cannibalize their own species. I mean, look at modern species. Male lions will kill juvies that are not sired by them. But there is strong evidence for packing behavior in many species of dinosaurs, based on interage associations of dinosaurs (Albertosaurus, Deinonychus). Allosaurus wasn't a big Komodo Dragon, it was very avian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talkcontribs) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
According to some researchers. Especially Bakker, but he's not exactly mainstream. There's some evidence that Allosaurus-grade dinosaurs were more reptilian than avian. Of course this is all still very controversial, so no definitive statements should be made either way, despite the way these things tend to get portrayed in the popular media. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Pack hunting is something that looks a lot better on paper that it does to those with experience in the disillusioning field of taphonomy. J. Spencer (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
While I believe that tetanurans were more avian than reptilian (I mean, look at Maiasaura, they took care of their young, and they weren't on the fast track to birds) I do believe that no definitive statements should be made either way, or else provide evidence for both sides. But the article is biased towards "allosaurus was a big, dumb lizard" than Allosaurus was a "big, scaly bird". We should either provide both sides of the issue, or neither. I also see a similar problem with the article on DeinonychusMetalraptor (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC).
Also, we're using Bakker's idea that Allosaurus' jaw was like a hatchet, is that mainstream? In addition, we list sauropods as prey of allosaurus...

70 foot diplodocus vs. 35 foot allosaurus

I don't know about you, but I'd put my money on the sauropod. If these guys were doing the hunting alone, we would be finding skeletons of theropods littering the ground everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talkcontribs) 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says they were hunting adult sauropods? How about 35 foot Allosaurus versus 15-20 foot partially grown Diplodocus? J. Spencer (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems far more likely, especially given that sauropods appear to have been r-strategists. Produce dozens of offspring several times a year, the vast majority get eaten before adulthood. A few make it through to become mega or gigapods. Modern predators almost exclusively hunt the young or the sick, but in the case of gigantic animals, I think it's fairly safe to take even sick adults off the table. I don't want to imagine the type of predator capable of bringing down a sick Supersaurus. Much less dangerous to eat some of his numerous babies and wait for the big guy to die on his own. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, Dinoguy. Better wait till the big guy trips and get an infected foot, easier to take down. But there is evidence of bites on fully grown animals, diseased or not. Anyway, all I'm saying is that we provide both sides of the argument, like we do with the T-rex, hunter or scavenger. Some people say one side, other people say otherwise. And before people start getting angry, and say that there is no evidence, remember that some debates (t-rex, scavenger or hunter for example) many people believe there is no evidence for the other side. Better yet, lets leave it ambiguous, and just mention in passing the two theories. There's not a ton of evidence that Allosaurus and other theropods (see Deinonychus) were big, dumb lizards, and there isn't a ton that says they were pack hunters. Lets stop basing dinosaur behavior on this one paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talkcontribs) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why say they were big, dumb lizards as opposed to pack hunters? Why not say big, dumb birds? ;) There's a real trend to mammaliafy dinosaurs, and compare them to mammals, and speculate that their behavior was similar to mammals, when mammals are their most distant relatives among tetrapods. Mammals are a really poor analogy for dinosaurs, compared with crocodiles, or birds especially. Anyway, your main contention here is that a debate exists, yet you have not provided any citations for published science that asserts pack hunting in favor of other explanations for aggregations of theropod skeletons. If such a cite exists, we can include it. Discussing pack hunting as a viable option when the scientists themselves aren't doing this in published lit falls under original research. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and it is certainly possible. The problem is that the two groups of living archosaurs are very specialized in their behaviors. Birds are incredibly adapted for flying, and for taking in large amounts of energy to keep their metabolism up. Ostriches, cassowaries, emus, and rheas are decent examples for ground living herbivores, but the modern carnivorous birds are all aerial hunters or scavengers, and they do not form big social groups (not on purpose anyway). Crocodilians are very specialized for their semi-aquatic lifestyle. Its too bad that Quinkana, Bullockornis, or Titanis didn't survive to the modern day. They could really shed some insight on possible dinosaurian behavior. The thing I am trying to say is that dinosaurs were probably a middle analog between birds and mammals. We have evidence of multi-age burials of various theropods, and not Ghost Ranch style either. But, they were not like big dumb lizards. For example, while they may have lived in family groups like mammals (based on their niche), they would probably have viewed any other small allosaur as lunch. An example of how we have to look at both niche analogues and relatedness analogues can be seen with icthyosaurs. We thought ichthyosaurs would lay eggs, because all of their relatives did, but now we know they give live birth. Relatedness does not equal similar behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talkcontribs) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that provides information on weather or not Allosaurus was a "pack hunter". According to the book The Complete Dinosaur that i recently found Allosaurus lived (and hunted) in groups. I am going to add this information to the article.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all what your citation says. It says that at least 44 Allosaurus were found in a bonebed at Cleveland-Lloyd, and the site may have been a predator trap. It also says "Assuming that Cleveland-Lloyd was a predator trap, it provides no evidence of gregarious behavior in Allosaurus." It then proposes that allosaurids may have hunted in packs. It doesn't say anything that is definitive one way or the other. J. Spencer (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not good technique to add 1,272 characters to an article and call it a minor edit. It is not honest to source a reference as saying "though paleontologists generally believe that Allosaurus did engage in pack hunting" when it says nothing remotely close to this; further, it is not good to represent a 1999 (must be second edition, as mine is 1997) reference as giving the state of the science in 2008. It is not honest to source a reference as saying "Allosaurus lived together in packs" when it does not say this. It is borderline to source the reference as saying "Additionally in contrast to the Tyrannosaurids Allosaurus may formed packs that were larger than family units to hunt sauropods" when it said "allosaurids", which are different. J. Spencer (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I will change it to say Allosaurus may have hunted in packs. Since I didn’t read it completely I mistakenly believed and assumed that it said that Allosaurus lived together in packs and that most scientists believe that they definitely were pack hunters rather than they may have formed packs.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also thanks for removing my incorrect edits.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done i changed it.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I added the chapter title/author and page number so the cite be easier to find in paper copies of the book. J. Spencer (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks alot!--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts[edit]

J, you've done a wonderful job cleaning up and adding huge amounts of content to this article. As always, I'm impressed. Thank you so much for your hard work. I have some questions and suggestions for possible improvement.

The sentence containing "each maxilla (the main tooth-bearing bones in the upper jaw) had between 14 and at least 17 teeth" makes no sense to me. How can it have between 14-17 teeth and at least 17 teeth? I thought about changing it to "at least 14 teeth and as many as 18 teeth", but figured I'd consult with you first. Is a specific maximum number mentioned in the reference? If it is, I say we should go with that number.

Probably best to go with 17; I had a reason for the hedging, but I forget now. Madsen has 17 as the maximum (although a sentence before, he says 14-16). J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"These include Marsh's Creosaurus[21] and Labrosaurus (1879),[33] and Cope's Epanterias.[34]" Why does Labrosaurus need a date by it? Were there two different Labrosaurus specimens described by Marsh? If not, the date here might be superfluous.

Yeah, superfluous. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"as of 2006, of the 73 individual dinosaurs that at minimum must be present to account for the bones, 46 are Allosaurus" makes no sense to me. I don't know how to fix it, though. What is being said here? Something like "of the 73 individual dinosaurs found there, 46 are Allosaurus..."?

In essence, that's what I'm trying to say, but because almost nothing is articulated at Cleveland-Lloyd, the number of dinosaurs present could be between 72 and nearly the number of bones present. It's misleading to say 73 were present, because that's just a minimum, but I haven't come up with a more graceful way of stating it.

"The period since Madsen's monograph has been marked by a great expansion in studies dealing with topics concerning Allosaurus in life (paleobiological and paleoecological topics). Such studies have covered topics including skeletal variation,[42][43] growth,[44][45] skull construction[46] and other biomechanical topics,[18] hunting methods,[47][46] the possibility of gregarious living and parental care,[48][49] and vision.[50] Reanalysis of old material (particularly of large 'allosaur' specimens),[10][51] new discoveries in Portugal,[52][53] and several very complete new specimens[54][16][55] have also contributed to the growing knowledge base." This paragraph is overcited. It is only three sentences long, but has eighteen citations! One citation is probably good enough for each example of study topic, which would reduce the number of citations to ten. The "Skull" section also has several instances of multiple citations. These could also be pared down.

Definitely a lot of citations. :) They're all going to be used in the not-yet created paleobiology section, so I think we should wait for that before removal so I don't have to recreate all the citations. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"with A. europaeus not yet named and A. maximus assigned ..." If A. europaeus hasn't been named yet, should it appear in italics?

Perhaps "not yet proposed" would make more sense, as I have no evidence it was a nomen nudum beforehand. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"There is also an A. maximus in Paul (1988), but it is a typographical error for A. amplexus." That's quite a typo! How does one accidentally type "maximus" when "amplexus" is meant? This probably needs more than one citation, if possible. Also, since it's a typo, and not a described name, should it be in italics?

It was a one-off mistake where it was obvious what he meant. He did similar things elsewhere with the use of "yangchuanosaurs" (sinking Yangchuanosaurus into Metriacanthosaurus elsewhere in the book), and using Metriacanthosaurus carpenteri at one point but never using it again (I'm guessing an alternate solution for how to handle the "Szechuanosaurus" specimens he assigned to Metriacanthosaurus, which was missed in proofreading, but he'd have to confirm or deny). The sentence, along with the other typographical errors, could probably be removed, if we're not concerned about the heavy taxonomic sticklers. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

" "A. agilis", seen in Zittel, 1887, and Osborn, 1912, is a typographical error for A. fragilis." Are typographical errors considered described?

"Slip of the pen" or lapsus calami, in the parlance. I'm honestly not sure, and most authors don't keep track of typos or places where an author switched names accidentally, but I'd just leave them in quotes and unitalicized, since they are not in use. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Labrosaurus ferox discussed twice, first in the invalid species paragraph, then in the invalid genera paragraph? I think this info should be combined.

I'm not sure what you're seeing. It is mentioned twice, but once is to differentiate it from actual Allosaurus ferox, since A. ferox and L. ferox are two different things. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Allosaurus valens is a typo for Antrodemus valens accidentally used by Friedrich von Huene in 1932" Again, are italics appropriate here? For names that are only typos?

"L. fragilis is a typographical error by Marsh (1896) for Labrosaurus ferox" Ditto; also maybe redundant with the earlier paragraphs?

Again, they should probably be de-italicized, although the Madsen/Welles paper uses L. fragilis in italics. I'm not fond of the typos, and we could probably get away without including them, since it may not be feasible to make an exhaustive list. The DML post we link to has yet more; I was just going off of Chure's listing. J. Spencer 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done wonderful work, and I'd "fix" some of these issues myself, but I'm not sure how much really needs fixing, and I hate for you to have to re-correct stuff, so I only fixed grammar and junk. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Iguanodon, we didn't include the typos and misspellings in Dinogeorge's posting, so I think it might be better to just delete them from here and include a note to the effect that these were omitted. That would cover A. agilis, Paul's A. maximus, A. valens, and L. fragilis, plus any other like A. gracilis. J. Spencer 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I really wish I could have helped out more on this article, but you've done a fine job by yourself, so as long as you're not annoyed at the lack of assistance on this one, that's all that matters. Deleting the names would be one solution; another might be to just group them all together in a one-off sentence. Something like: The names "A. valens", "L. fragilis", [etc], are typographical errors and should not be construed as actual taxa. or something along those lines. That way, someone doing research on those names would at least find what they were looking for, and the article would be comprehensive. Maybe we should do the same thing over at Iguanodon? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that might be excessive; we're going to have a hard time tracking them all down, and once we have them, do we then reference where they were used and that they were typos (which could be harder to find)? We also have been excluding the vast majority of typos from the genus list. Perhaps this should be brought up on the WP:DINO talk page? J. Spencer 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, as always, I defer to your opinion, but in the case of Iguanodon, how hard would it be to briefly mention the typographical names, and cite Olshevsky's DML post? Still, it wouldn't hurt to get more input from the team. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By and large, I'm finished adding things. There was a bit more in the brain article, speculating on behavior, extinction, and physiology, but I thought that it was getting pretty far afield, so I left it out. There are also sizes for endocasts, but the articles neglect to mention the size of the Allosaurus, a useful bit of context. I'm sure there are bits and pieces of information all over that could be added, but hey. J. Spencer 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's awesome, J. Now that you're pretty much done, can we get some of the more superfluous citations in the Allosaurus#Recent_work:_1980s-present section removed? It still has the 18 citations for the three sentences, which is definitely citation overkill. I know you wanted to save those in case you used them anywhere else in the text, but now that you're done editing, and they're all used elsewhere in the text, the need for multiple citations in a row isn't very pressing. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, so long as the actual reference is moved and not lost, otherwise we'll get lots of null refs. J. Spencer 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, care just has to be taken to remove:
a) just one citation in each example, and
b) only the partial citation thingies, not the full inline citation templates. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement about Allosauroid paraphyly[edit]

This sentence: "In 1988 Gregory S. Paul proposed that the family Allosauridae was ancestral to the Tyrannosauridae (and thus would be paraphyletic),[29] but this has been rejected, with tyrannosaurids identified as members of a separate branch of theropods, the Coelurosauria.[30]" seems problematic to me. I've got several old reference books from the 1960s which claim Allosaurus was "directly ancestral" to Tyrannosaurus, which indicates to me that Paul wasn't the first person to suggest a direct ancestral relationship. And while it's true the article doesn't actually state Paul was the first, it doesn't clarify that this wasn't the first time such a relationship had been proposed. I think this section needs further clarification; maybe I'm being overly picky. If so, feel free to swat me. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I picked at it, but I'm not sure it's improved. In the GSP example, it was just the family that was suggested as ancestral, not a direct genus-level allo-tyranno relationship; anyway, it was a lot more acceptable to have direct genus to genus connections a few decades ago (those old ceratopid and hadrosaurid family diagrams were rife with them). J. Spencer 02:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, "carnosaur" diversity wasn't as well known back then, which also might have added to this (pretty much everything was still Megalosaurus in the '60s, wasn't it?). Still, I think some genus-genus paraphyly might still be supportable today, esp. among hadrosaurs and ceratopsids (I remember one or two papers suggesting a direct line of descent among pachyrhinosaurins...). I bet if paraphyly were still "allowed" in cladistics there would be less new genera being named and more polyspecific existing genera in such well-resolved families. More lumping than splitting, at least. Dinoguy2 04:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to understand why Allosaurus is not considered to be a tyrannosaurid. Kortoso (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Big Al" image: keep or drop?[edit]

I'm tidying this article for FAC, and although I don't mind the "Big Al" image, I think I'd have a hard time justifying it as fair-use, since the article already has a lot of illustrations. Any thoughts? J. Spencer 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on fair-use and have tried to stay away from the controversy where I can. I'd be inclined to leave it as it falls under 'fair use' if you read the definition , just depends whether someone feels that only one use on an article rather than section is permitted...not sure what the general feeling on that is currently.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the Fair Use image? The image illustrates the text next to which it appears. It is of lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality). It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the work in any way. The image is being used in an informative way, to illustrate the portrayal of "Big Al" in a pop culture program. No free or public domain images have been located for Big Al, right?
We occasionally get Fair Use Puritans who want to purge the site of FU images, as they believe the site will be sued by someone for excessive copyrighted material. However, even Wikipedia's policies, which are much stricter than FU law, allow FU images on WP as long as they are not excessive and contain FU rationales. I think few Wikipedians would argue that two FU images in an 80k long article are excessive.
I think we should try to keep as much content as possible, and jettison it only if there are objections which hold the article back from FA status, but I'm only one voice. :)
Having said that... I think this article needs a trim. The folks on dial-up will not be able to read this article, and several web guidelines recommend keeping pages under 70k. Part of the reason we're able to load pages rather quickly is because people who visit WP frequently have a copy of the WP templates already stored in their caches. A first-time user to WP on dial-up is going to have a long while to wait to get this page to load. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I was mostly wondering because I hate dealing with FU myself, and people have expressed issues with the accuracy of WWD images in the past. I don't want two images in Cultural Depictions, as that is a short section, and I'd rather have Gwangi because it's cool. Do people mind the WWD depiction in the History section dealing with Big Al?
I know it's huge, but what should be cut? Pagewise, it's shorter than Dinosaur; a lot of the hidden length is the references. J. Spencer 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to comment on the accuracy, the allosaurs are one thing WWD got right, as far as I know. It would be nice if we had an image of the actual Big Al skeleton for that section, but if no such thing is available, I guess the WWD image is ok. Dinoguy2 00:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Rather than cut anything, maybe we could spin off the species section into a Species of Allosaurus article, as was done for Psittacosaurus, and just a brief summary of the species in this article? Another option would be to fork off the pop culture section into its own article, Allosaurus in popular culture, as was done for Tyrannosaurus. A third option is to trim the prose in places where the content may go into too much detail. I don't think there is a whole lot of that, though... Firsfron of Ronchester 21:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I ran WP:AWB on the page, and it flagged a lot of wikilinks as redundant. Feel free to restore some as needed. I can understand the need to wikilink technical terms, such as basal, or humerus, more than once, but there's no reason Utah needs to be linked repeatedly, and bird probably doesn't need to be linked at all: probably anyone reading the article will be quite familiar with the term. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Species of Allosaurus", so I threw together a userpage: User:J. Spencer/Species of Allosaurus. It would cut the article down by about a quarter. J. Spencer 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Holy...! That's an article by itself. Throw a longer lead on that, and it'd probably make a GA or FA by itself. I don't know how anyone else feels, but I like it. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Species of Allosaurus it is, dropping the page to just under 70 k. How's the summary? J. Spencer 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't think you could spin off much more to the new article without affecting the comprehensiveness of this one. It still seems to cover most of the bases while still loading for dial-up users. I love it. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


  • "Its maximum growth appears to have been at age 15, putting on 148 kilograms (326 lb) in a year at that point."

Is that from 15th birthday to 16th birthday? or from 14½ to 15½? In a 366-day leap year or a regular year? Or, using calculus, the instantaneous slope of the growth curve on the 15th birthday, based on a Julian year, or some other year? (unsigned)

You couldn't get that precision for any one living individual, if any such existed, let alone as an average for any sex of a millions-of-years-extinct species known from only a few examples of fossilized bones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's what the source states, and it's not the only paper which uses these precise estimates. We just had this discussion on talk:Massospondylus. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the abstract:
"Allosaurus is one of the most common Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs. We present a histological analysis to assess its growth strategy and ontogenetic limb bone scaling. Based on an ontogenetic series of humeral, ulnar, femoral, and tibial sections of fibrolamellar bone, we estimate the ages of the largest individuals in the sample to be between 13-19 years. Growth curve reconstruction suggests that maximum growth occurred at 15 years, when body mass increased 148 kg/year. Based on larger bones of Allosaurus, we estimate an upper age limit of between 22-28 years of age, which is similar to preliminary data for other large theropods. Both Model I and Model II regression analyses suggest that relative to the length of the femur, the lengths of the humerus, ulna, and tibia increase in length more slowly than isometry predicts. That pattern of limb scaling in Allosaurus is similar to those in other large theropods such as the tyrannosaurids. Phylogenetic optimization suggests that large theropods independently evolved reduced humeral, ulnar, and tibial lengths by a phyletic reduction in longitudinal growth relative to the femur. J. Morphol. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc."
What am I supposed to do if the reference said it? J. Spencer (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's no different than being able to estimate 90377 Sedna's temperature and escape velocity from 72,489,400,000 km away from Earth, or 136199 Eris' diameter as exactly 2,657 km from 10,140,300,000 away. No one blinks at these numbers, but the already-sourced estimate of maximal weight gain in Allosaurus gets a dubious tag? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason they throw out 148 kg/year in the paper instead of rounding is because they want to make sure their results are reproducible. Like if you were to take their numbers and run them again, you would also get 148, not 150. I think it's probably assumed that the figure is just a rough idea of what the growth rate would have been. Obviously it would vary between individuals. Sheep81 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is much different from th 90377 Sedna example, whose escape velocity is expressed to similar precision (at least similar to the kilogra precision), but which is much less uncertain. The temperature there is expressed less precisely, as an upper limit.
Just because a source says something, that doesn't mean we need to include it in Wikipedia unquestioned. When something is on its face impossibly precise, it should be used with extreme caution.
Running the numbers again with the same model doesn't show a damn thing. What needs to be tested is the usefulness of the model which gives those results. Like Sheep81 says, it is probably assumed that the figure is just a rough idea of what the growth rate might have been. So that's all we should use of this information.
It isn't one iota different from all the Wikipedia editors who include grossly overprecise conversions of measurements in Wikipedia articles, and the much bigger problem in this regard in other encyclopedias and other publications where they are much less likely to be corrected. Furthermore, this isn't a disease peculiar to clerical workers who often insert them elsewhere, this insane tendency to think that your calculator gives you all those numbers when you do various multiplicaitons and divisions with your original numbers, that all the numbers given in the result really mean something. There are a significant number of people writing papers for publication in scientific journals who suffer from the same affliction. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you think the text should be written? J. Spencer (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You can solve this very easily by just throwing in an "estimated" or something like "with one model suggesting an growth rate of blah blah blah or something". That is if you can't just round to 150... I'm not sure rounding to the nearest ten counts as original research. Sheep81 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Gene? What do you think? J. Spencer (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I like Sheep81's idea. Say about 150 kg, I'd suggest either 300 or "300 to 350" for the pounds, but 330 lb would be okay (we should generally look to the original measurement for clues as to the precision, and a conversion is usually going to be either a bit overprecise or a bit underprecise anyway.
I just watched a television program last night talking about how finding some little clues can change considerably our conceptions of what dinosaurs were like; that program had to do with the Dakota hadrosaur fossil. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, "blah blah blah or something" it is. :) Sheep81 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AutoPR comments[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  •  Done. This was a minor issue in one citation and this has been sorted out -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), meter (A) (British: metre), sabre (B) (American: saber), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), cosy (B) (American: cozy).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a scale model of AMNH 5753?[edit]

The skeletal mount of AMNH 5753, posed as scavenging an Apatosaurus.
Scale model of the never-completed Tyrannosaurus rex exhibit planned for the American Museum of Natural History by H.F. Osborn.

This image on the left is labeled as the mounted AMNH 5753 itself, but based on the ruler like object on the right of the image, the signature on the left part of the base, and the fact that the base looks quite different from the base on this picture which is the mount for certain[1], has me wondering whether that picture is really just of a scale model, like this image of a scale model of mounted two Tyrannosaurus on the right? FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure at first, because Osborn sometimes had the superstructure removed from photos of skeletal mounts, but there are cutouts on the side of the base of the actual skeletal mount missing from the other photo. Since both photos are public domain, and since we know that the other is definitely a skeletal mount, I wouldn't be opposed to switching images. J. Spencer (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the current image is better, since it's from the exact same angle as the Charles Knight drawing which is compared to it, and because there is already a modern picture of the actual mount. All which should be changed would be the caption, if it is a scale model, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The differences in the base make me think it's a model, but then I look at the skull, and both images clearly show areas in the maxilla and mandible that appear to me to show real bone among sculpted bone. If it's a model for purposes of figuring out how best to make the mount, would they go to the trouble of decorating the skull to match? It's possible that the base was remade at some point, and the scale could easily be in feet. The signature is the name of the photographer and when the photo was taken ("Anderson, Photo 1909" to my eyes). I may have to appeal to a higher authority. J. Spencer (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was fooled by the signature looking slightly angled, making it look like it was written on the base. And it never occurred to me that the scale thing could be showing feet, as well, I'm not familiar with them, and didn't take it into consideration. It's probably the real mount, since that's also what the description in that Gutenberg book says. FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

The current image is most likely going to be deleted, since it was from, and therefore didn't have a usable license. I've searched for images we could use instead, so on the right are two similar images from Commons, but which have a bit of the lower jaw cropped out, and noisy backgrounds. Then one where the arms are showing. And then one from Flickr, which can be cropped, but is a bit dark: [2] What do people think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they are all fine. But the one that sticks out the most is the first. I think it even possibly looks better than the others Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, i just got permission from the author of the current image to upload it with a CC license. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Why aren't there any references at the beginning of the article? There isn't one single reference. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the lead (or lede, if you prefer). The lead is introductory, and everything discussed in the lead is discussed and referenced in the article. It's similar to an abstract of a paper, which is an overview and typically does not include references either. J. Spencer (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Allosaurus skull/ dentation variation[edit]

There is a substantial difference between "short toothed" and "long toothed" Allosaurs, as illustrated in the article's source #42, and something I'd personally want elaborated on. That might just be me though...many of the theropod pages need to be cleaned but expanded- especially better known animals like Dilophosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Torvosaurus, etc.- but I don't want to start overhauling this stuff without the input of the established persons around here (just f.y.i. the Allosaurus article is NOT in need of expansion, IMO) Forescore68 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural reference[edit]

I' ve just added a new cultural reference of the allosaurus and that is featured in the film Land of the Lost. --Harvey Dos Caras (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable if it was the "star" dinosaur. Otherwise these sections degenerate into "Spot the Dinosaur". J. Spencer (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
But it had an important part that is why I've added it. Harvey Dos Caras (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the allosaurus in the 1940 film Fantasia excluded? Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That was Tyrannosaurus, despite being depicted with three fingers, which was still common at the time (see also King Kong). MMartyniuk (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is a Tyrannosaurus, then not only is the number of fingers wrong, but also a major anachronism has been committed, since the Stegosaurus (the prey of the allosaurus) belongs in the Jurassic period, while the Tyrannosaurus belongs to the Cretaceous. Rather than saying it must be a T. rex with the wrong number of fingers, in the wrong geological period, would it not be simpler to say it is an Allosaurus? See Occam's Razor. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, Rite of Spring is one of the most famous examples of the rampant anachronism that used to go on in popular depictions of dinosaurs. It also includes Cretaceous forms like Pteranodon, Triceratops and Struthiomimus (all of which did not even live together in the Cretaceous). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record, here's a source discussing the Tyrannosaurus in Fantasia. [3] and here's one specifically discussing why Disney gave it 3 fingers: [4]
Using Occam's razor is original research in this regard. Sources are all that counts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FunkMonk, it is not logical to say a principle of logic that was developed and published centuries ago is "original" research. The principle you propose, that one should not be allowed to think for oneself but only to parrot what somebody else has said, sounds like a formula for total mental stagnation. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is how wikipedia works. See: FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If so, then Wikipedia is fighting against, not working for, the advancement of human knowledge. Such a principle that you cannot think, only parrot, is an outrage against Epistemology. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty amazing what philosophical heights a minor dispute about a dinosaur in a cartoon can lead to. Anyhow, see above, MM provided a citation for it being a Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A citation says it is a Tyrannosaurus with the wrong number of fingers in the wrong Era (Jurassic). Common Sense and logic say it is an Allosaurus. The citation trumps the common sense and logic. And this is what is wrong with Wikipedia. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone try to apply common sense and logic to a 60 year old Disney cartoon? Why harp on this one point and ignore the presence of Dimetrodon, ornithomimids (I didn't catch which genus, did you? I'm not sure whether to apply our logic to Struthiomimus, Ornithomimus, or what. Can you review the tape and compare relative manual ungule sizes? It looked like they had a dewclaw, so maybe they're actually some kind of derived Shuvosaurus) and Pteranodon in the "Jurassic era" (it's period, btw, not era). The fact is Disney was depicting a generalized "Age of Reptiles", a common theme at the time, and using three fingers on its tyrannosaur, also common at the time because evidence to the contrary was fairly new and not definitive. All the hubbub about depicting dinosaurs in an anachronistic way didn't arise until the 70s dinosaur renaissance, in response to the very pop culture depictions you see in Fantasia, because they were so common, and you're average Joe had no conception of geologic time and that different dinosaurs lived in different periods, and didn't care. Trying to fanwank Fantasia the way people try to do with the scientific errors in Walking with Dinosaurs or plot holes in Star Wars, in an encyclopedia, is ludicrous. Walt Disney said he meant it to be a T. rex. Therefore it's an inaccurate T. rex, standing alongside twenty other inaccurate prehistoric animals. I'm surprised people aren't trying to edit entries on The Land Before time to try and diagnose what genus and species of Maastrichtian sauropod Littlefoot is supposed to be. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If the filmmakers intended it to be a Tyrannosaurus, then it's just an inaccurate Tyrannosaurus. No amount of "common sense" would change that fact. And as for Jurassic, that's irrelevant, since there's a Dimetrodon in there too. Here's an actual book where it's identified as Tyrannosaurus, by the way: FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to go on and on about this, but it just occurred to me- maybe Das Baz is right, but how can we be sure it's Allosaurus? It could be Saurophaganax or Torvosaurus. I remember when I was a kid, trying to convince my dad that the T. rex in King Kong was actually Allosaurus, because of the three fingers. As if that was the only difference between the two dinosaurs, or as if Allosaurus was the only large carnivorous theropod with three fingers. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, what about Megalosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Martyniuk. This is getting more complicated than I thought it would be. So I'm giving it a rest for a while. Maybe I shall return to the matter when I have more time. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On three fingered movie-Tyrannosaurus getting confused with Allosaurus, see this from the Skull Island article: "A large theropod which has been identified as both Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus: The dinosaur was modeled after Charles R. Knight's depiction of a Tyrannosaurus.[1] However, it possesses three fingers per hand, unlike Tyrannosaurus which had only two (it should be noted that the number of fingers in Tyrannosaurus was disputed at the time, as a complete manus would not be uncovered until the mid-90s). In the documentary I'm King Kong! The Exploits of Merian C. Cooper, included on the 2 disk DVD release of King Kong, Cooper refers to this beast as an Allosaurus, not a Tyrannosaurus, which would help explain the number of fingers. However, the creature was originally intended to be a Tyrannosaurus designed for the canceled Willis O'Brien film Creation (1931). It may also be worth noting that the Tyrannosaurus present in Willis O'Brien's earlier project The Lost World (1925) also had a third finger. The 1932 King Kong screenplay refers to the dinosaur only as a "Meat Eater." The creature appears in the iconic scene where Kong defends Anne from its attack, killing it after a protracted fight." FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's an Allosaurus, though, you're just creating the new problem of needing to explain the teeny tiny arms. Some things just aren't fanwankable, and should simply been looked at from an out-of-universe, historical perspective. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

'Leaping Lizard'?[edit]

Some older books give the meaning of 'Allosaurus' as 'Leaping lizard'. Does anyone know where this comes from? Is it still a viable alternative meaning or was it an error? CFLeon (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking that it's probably connected with 'Hallopus' and 'Saltopus' both being translated as 'leaping (or hopping) foot'. Maybe Marsh had Cockney ancestors and dropped the 'H'? CFLeon (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Captions and sizes.[edit]

Nice to see this on the main page. But I have a comment about the image File:Allosaurus size comparison.svg and the associated caption, which reads The size range of Allosaurus and Epanterias (brown), compared with a human. It strikes me that there are two possible colours there that qualify as brown (the largest and the second smallest, fragillis), and I assumed that the largest dino, coloured chestnut to my eye, was one of the allosaurs. Could the image be recoloured to remove possible confusion? Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about just changing the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever reduces the confusion works for me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

featured wording[edit]

I'm a reader only, never editor, and gleefully perused the Allosaurus article as a feature. The super enjoyable wording of the feature, which was as follows, "... it has long attracted attention outside paleontological circles, and has been a lead dinosaur in several films and documentaries...," I found enchanting and was disappointed to find that the article doesn't actually read that way. I humbly request that this wording be considered for more or less, permanent placement in the article.

I had to chat my way over to this page, so I'm not sure I'll notice if someone responds to this, but I have some hope that I may one day find that the article casts the Allosaur as the superstar it really is. Thanks for your attention.

sincerely, from Lisa, Torriblezone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torriblezone (talkcontribs) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of size diagram[edit]

I just noticed that the size diagram has been featured on Dinosaur Tracking. It's been a while since I looked at this image, it hasn't been modified since 2007. Since then we have become a bit more strict on what sources we use and I noticed that we are still using Mortimers estimates on the DML as reference for the 9.7m and 12m specimens. Should we review this? Maybe we should emphasize that thses arn't published? Also the silhouettes are based on Hartman's Allosaurus skeletal; If I remember correctly someone got permision to use some of them ages ago. I might check with him to see if this is still ok. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been updating a lot of my own older diagrams with more rigorous estimates based on scaling discrete elements rather than total length estimates and with original silhouettes. Maybe I'll take a stab at re-doing this one this week.

MMartyniuk (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

28 ft?[edit]

This article states that Allosaurus averaged 28 ft. in length. I've always been under the impression that the animal was roughly the size of Tyrannosaurus. I mean, I've been next to a mounted Allosaurus skeleton before and it was rather small, but even then I just assumed that it wasn't a fully grown individual. What happened to the 40-foot allosaur in all my books?

It exists as fragments, estimated as belonging to 40-ft allosaurs (see: Epanterias, Saurophaganax). Otherwise, the actual population of animals averaged a much smaller length. It's a bit like the comparison between most people and Robert Wadlow. However, book writers have the habit of running with the largest estimates they can find, which gives people the impression that these shaky outliers are typical. Edmontosaurus/Anatotitan is the same way: most nontechnical books just slap up 40 ft and are done with it, but if you go through the literature, you'll have a hard time finding any decent specimens that top out longer than 30 ft. It's not to say that record-holders don't exist, it's just that they're rare, poorly documented (how big are they? extrapolating from bits and pieces is a fool's errand), and misleading to represent as typical. J. Spencer (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, the key here is "average". Unlike most dinosaurs, we have hundreds of adult Allosaurus specimens to compare. The very largest ones, like "Epanterias", are roughly the size of the very largest T. rex specimens. But 95% of them are much smaller than that. As far as we can tell most dinosaurs kept growing through their lives (though the growth sped up rapidly during adolescence and then slowed again at maturity). So only the very oldest, luckiest allosaurs would have gotten to 40ft. They would be like the rare, 19-20ft crocodiles today. They exist, but they are in no way typical. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Allosaurus Jaws Steveoc86.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Allosaurus Jaws Steveoc86.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 12, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-11-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Allosaurus mouth
An artist's rendition of an Allosaurus fragilis with its jaws open fully, based on the research of paleontologist Robert T. Bakker. Allosaurus were active predators of large animals, and probably had the ability to open their jaws extremely wide. Studies suggest that they attacked prey open-mouthed, slashing flesh with their teeth, and tearing it away without splintering bones. Allosaurus was a genus of theropod dinosaurs that lived in the upper Jurassic period.Image: Steveoc 86
Thanks for notifying us. I'm not sure how to re-word it but the part that says '..gape of an Allosaurus species of dinosaur..' is a bit odd,. Allosaurus is actually a genus. Maybe somthing like this:

'An artist's rendition of the dinosaur genus, Allosaurus, with it's jaws open fully, based on the research of paleontologist Robert T. Bakker. Allosaurus was an active predator of large animals, and probably had the ability to open its jaws extremely wide. Studies suggest that it used its skull like a hatchet against prey, attacking open-mouthed, slashing flesh with its teeth, and tearing it away without splintering bones.' Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's still a bit awkward, since it's not a picture of a genus, it's a picture of a specimen in the genus. You wouldn't write "rendition of the dinosaur family Allosauridae". Maybe" rendition of a dinosaur of the genus Allosaurus"? Or "Rendition of an allosaur (Allosaurus fragilis)"? These aren't really common constructions but they should be. A lot of writing about dinosaurs is plagued by poor grammar and holdovers from technical 19th century writing and has gotten awfully confused... MMartyniuk (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think your second suggestion is the least awkward so far. Other POTD containing animals have a similar format. So somthing like, 'An artist's rendition of an allosaur (Allosaurus fragilis), with it's jaws open fully, based on the research of paleontologist Robert T. Bakker.'
In other POTD they say the common name for the animal then the scientific one in brackets, Allosaurus doen't have a common name, so it might sound awkward to lay people. Maybe it should just be An artist's rendition of an Allosaurus fragilis. It would be nice to keep the word Dinosaur in the caption, somewhere. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think "An artist's rendition of an Allosaurus fragilis" is the way to go. "Allosaur" is slightly ambiguous and could mean a member of Allosauridae, a member of Allosauroidea, a member of Allosaurus, etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How about this, 'An artist's rendition of an Allosaurus fragilis with it's jaws open fully, based on the research of paleontologist Robert T. Bakker. Allosaurus was an active predator of large animals, and probably had the ability to open its jaws extremely wide. Studies suggest that it used its skull like a hatchet against prey, attacking open-mouthed, slashing flesh with its teeth, and tearing it away without splintering bones. Allosaurus was a theropod dinosaur that lived in the upper Jurassic peroid.' ? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good. It still bothers me when people write "Allosaurus was a dinosaur" rather than "Allosaurus were dinosaurs" or "Allosaurus is a genus of dinosaurs" but the first usage is so common I can't say it's wrong, unfortunately. But Allosaurus is the name of a dinosaur group, not a dinosaur species, which nearly all scientists and science writers seem to forget. :P MMartyniuk (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair to people who use the lazy usage though, it pays to remember that almost all non-avian dinosaur genera are monospecific. Abyssal (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but so is Allosauridae, depending on who you talk to. Replace Allosaurus with Allosauridae in the original caption and it sounds extremely wrong. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the caption! I agree that 'were' seems better. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget it should be "its jaws", not "it's jaws". J. Spencer (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture Section[edit]

The large predatory theropod in Conan Doyle's novel has not been confirmed as an Allosaurus. While it was identified with certainty in the 1925 film adaptation, in the novel it was just a suggestion as to what it may have been. It could also very well have been a species unknown to the fossil record or even a present-day descendant of a fossil taxon. I highly doubt it was a carnosaur of any sort, the description of its "bloated, toad-like face" made me picture a very large abelisaurid, and in my opinion that's what it was. The article could instead explain that it "may" have been an Allosaurus and that the genus was indeed mentioned, but concluding as a fact that the theropod was an allosaur doesn't suggest an especially good article. Could someone a little more knowledgable change the article to reflect this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Abelisaurs were not known at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. My point is that the dinosaurs appearing simply seemed to be generic theropods, with little evidence supporting the notion that they were Allosaurus (and yes, this is the same guy who started this section). -- (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There were no "generic theropods" at the time, too few genera of large theropods were known. Such were either Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, or Megalosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Allosaurus tendagurensis[edit]

Rauhut (2011) reexamined the holotype of Allosaurus tendagurensis and concluded that this taxon lacks any characters to permit referral to Allosaurus and represents a nomen dubium possibly referrable to Carcharodontosauridae.

There is no reason to believe that Antrodemus is conspecific with A. fragilis because the holotype (USNM 218) lacks distinguishing characters to distinguish it from other large bodied theropods from the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Until USNM 218 is compared with other carnosaurs, it would be appropriate to consider Antrodemus an indeterminate non-coelurosaur tetauran.

Rauhut, Oliver W. M. (2011). "Theropod dinosaurs from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania)". Special Papers in Palaeontology 86: 195- (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Alright, the article is updated in regards to tendagurensis, still needs a comment about Antrodemus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A. europaeus in taxobox?[edit]

It seems all recent studies remove it from Allosaurus. Does it belong in the taxobox then? FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Which recent studies? Last I heard, it was a tossup with just being A. fragilis on a European vacation. J. Spencer (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I may be confusing it with some info about A. tendaguruensis... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. (← This is a disruptive edit that clearly demonstrates vandalism and this user's IP address should be immediately blocked, as per user Denniss' subjective standard for what constitutes vandalism.) (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It should probably go on its own page for now which can be renamed when it's given a new genus name. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a chance it will get its own genus? The Allosaurus species article seems very ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
If studies show it is not more closely related to Allosaurus fragilis than to anything else not placed in the genus Allosaurus, it will almost definitely get its own genus. Dinosaurologists tend to dislike paraphyletic genera, making almost all of them monotypic :) I'm not sure what the current consensus is, I was just going by your post above where you said "all recent studies remove it from Allosaurus." MMartyniuk (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, ok, I was thinking it was a similar case to A. tendaguruensis, where it is not Allosaurus, just some indeterminate theropod. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is why I hate the concept of "nomen dubia"... if we can say for sure it's not a member of the genus Allosaurus it's not really indeterminate, is it? ;) Just give the thing a genus name already! MMartyniuk (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this[5] addition of species perhaps a bit premature? Is atrox considered valid by anyone else? FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

8.5 m?[edit]

This article states that the average Allosaurus fragillis specimen was 8.5 m, however, using lengths from the theropod database I got an average size from this species: USNM 7437, 6.8-7.7 m (Skeleton: skull 682 mm, femur 770 mm) UUVP 6000/DINO 2560, 8.8 m (Skeleton: skull 850-880 mm, femur 880 mm) AMH 666, 8.8 m (Skull, 885 mm) USNM 8423, 8.05 m (femur 805 mm) AMNH 600, 8.1 m (skull, 810 mm) AMNH 680, 10 m (femur 1.008 m) NMMNH P-26083 10.4 m (femur 1.04 m, tibia 910 mm) Using the provided figures, the estimate for average length yields a length of 8.8 m, not 8.5 m. PD: According to Scott Hartman (known for his extremely accurate skeletals), UUVP 6000 is not 8.5 but 8.8 m, his skeleton can be seen here: --Dinoexpert (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is original research. The 8.5m figure in the text is linked to a reliable source. Besides, it's silly to think that a 20 centimeter difference is not within the margin of error considering that none of the specimens mentioned are complete enough to measure down to the centimeter and all represent various degrees of estimate. If we were to change the text, it should probably be made less definitive, not more--something like "average length is between 8 and 9 meters." MMartyniuk (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree the difference is a minor one (and in fact it probably breaks down to nothing but a difference in the lenght restored for the tail, which for example is really long in Hartman's DINO 2560, but really short in the 7.9m figure from the theropod database). Also I want to add that the sample is pretty insignificant and should be taken with a lot of caution (as you correctly note due to all those being estimates). However, is "Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia" really a reliable scientific work the like of "The Dinosauria"? I think this part should be changed to "typical adults are between 8 and 9m", something less definitive than "8.5m is average". --Ornitholestes (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

}I agree, but keep in mind that assuming 8.5 m is average is very risky too, and I cannot find the source where 8.5 m is established as average, can you provide me a link?--Dinoexpert (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The source in the current article cites to Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Only seven specimens are listed above; if you're ever stuck in the airport or waiting room and feel like extrapolating sizes, you can find measurements from the Cleveland-Lloyd material in a PDF of Madsen's monograph (plenty of femurs!). On a more serious note, although I was the one who included the average size in the article way back when (in part because people seem to want to find the largest estimate ever given and slap that on as the size without any meaningful commentary, including whether or not it's accurate), and if anything it seems a little generous from the mounts I've seen, I would be interested in Glut's original source. Given our changing understanding of growth, the "average adult size" is probably "average size of late subadults". J. Spencer (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wyomingraptor and Madsenius[edit]

Should these be merged into here? FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, nobody has supported the distinctness of these specimens in almost 25 years, and "Wyomingraptor" is just as valid a genus name as "Elvisaurus", "Stan", or "Sue". Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Anything worth salvaging here, or should they just redirect? No proper sources, so probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


I think it should be included in the popular culture section, since the protagonist is an anthropomorphic allosaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah. Trivia, crap, non-notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Allosaurus. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)