From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I added an image but it was removed due to not being anatomically rigourous. I did a new one using the image from The Washington Post ( as a model. Here is mine, I don't know if it would be appropriate, or what needs to be improved Nestor db (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nestor db, thanks for your contribution, but I feel the shapes used are too imprecise and the details too simplified to qualify for use in an encyclopedia article. Not sure what others opinions would be, it might be useful to discuss images on our review page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ville Sinkkonen recently published a skeletal restoration, perhaps that would provide a better reference for an illustration? Seems like it would at least be easier to start with a side view than some three-quarter view. (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice on the restoration, this is my latest try (I put it there to stop uploading content to Wikimedia Commons). I used Ville Sinkkonen's restoration as a model which helped me with some features and the proportions. Maybe it still needs work, but what should be done? I will post it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review to see what other people think as well.

Nestor db (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell what's changing other than the color. The relative proportions and shapes of the finger,s toes, claws, etc. seem to be the main issue but don't change from model to model. These kind of proportions are hard to get right in a 2D drawing, I imagine they take a whole lot of work (and probably a lot more polygons, or whatever) to nail in 3D. For example, in an isometric top-down view like you show, the toes should splay out a bit into a wide V, like the foot of a bird. Take a look at some bird feet or dino footprints to see what I mean. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've been trying to find a way to make the toes spread out a little more without messing all the foot. The things I changed were the "hump" (which was simpler in my previous image than it's on Ville Sinkkonen's restoration) and also the position of the neck and the head, but maybe it's not really evident because of the angle. About the rest of the issues you mentioned what should be done? maybe the claws should be bigger? and I also don't know how right or wrong the hands are. Nestor db (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I managed to do something about the feet, if you click on the link I posted before you'll find the new version.Nestor db (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on creating a Wiki image for this animal also, possibly today or tomorrow. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quill Knobs[edit]

The quill knob interpretation has been questioned by Darren Naish at Tetrapod Zoology and Mickey Mortemer on his blog (and again). Neither of these are peer-reviewed, of course, but I think the intramuscular line hypothesis at least deserves a mention here. Thoughts? John.Conway (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be *somewhere* (that and Becklespinax). J. Spencer (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Darren Naish is notable enough to include as per Wikipedia's notable self-publish guidelines. I'll include a bit about it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Better, but not hard enough for my taste. This is a tricky situation, because I think the intramuscular line hypothesis is the right one, and yet (obviously) isn't represented in the peer-reviewed literature. However, it doesn't even seem to have been considered by the authors of the original paper, and no one has rebutted it anywhere that I know of. For this reason I think going on about the intricacies of what this means for the origins of feathers, before we mention that it could simply be a misinterpretation, seems to give the wrong impression. However, I acknowledge that this borders on original research or undue weight, so I'm hesitant to dive in and blunder about in the actual article with my opinions. John.Conway (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way to handle this would just be to put the paragraph I added at the end of the "description" section instead of under the "feathers and scales" section. I agree that doing anything additional without peer-reviewed sources would probably be undue/OR. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Dinoguy2, you removed my description for my drawing that said "llustration of Concavenator using its hump as a hypothetical thermoregulatory device" claiming the theory isn't discussed in the text, but the end of the first paragraph under Description clearly states "but the Spanish scientists who discovered it noted it could also be a thermal regulator." I think this is enough to include it in the caption. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops you're right, must have missed that bit. I'll undo it. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin name[edit]

“Concavenator corcovatus means "hump backed hunter from Cuenca".”. Really? My Latin isn’t good, but how do you get Cuenca from that binomial? Neals384 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking it directly from the paper, that is entirely correct;

"Etymology. Concavenator from Conca (Latin), for the Spanish province of Cuenca, and venator (Latin), a hunter; corcovatus (Latin), refers to the hump-like structure formed by the elongation of two presacral vertebrae"

So it seems that is the intended meaning of the name. Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)