Talk:List of informally named dinosaurs

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


What is meant by this? I think we could have a more precise title. Anyhow, good initiative! FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit confused by the title. Would "invalid" not be a simpler way to state it? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess what is meant is unavailable name, but that is still a bit opaque. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I used the ICZN term unavailable, so I guess that could be explained in the article. Basically an invalid nomen nudum is "unavailable", whereas nomen dubiumand nomen oblitum are also invalid, but are "available". Basically the shortest wording I could find on a nomen nudum or equivalent that excludes nomen dubium. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If we use the term "informally named", we could also add stuff like Lori, the archbishop, and the "Shake and Bake theropod", as well as those placed under specimen numbers or made up names like "giant Patagonians titanosaur" we had once. If we call it "list of unnamed dinosaur taxa", like the category[1], we could maybe even add those pesky species without genera. FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess unnamed works well, now to move the article hahaha. Once one more person comments. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
People might flinch at the term "unnamed" when the dinosaurs listed do have "names". So perhaps "scientifically unnamed"? FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah alright this kindof brings around why I used "unavailable" originally, because its the most concise wording for what I thought we would be having. We could try "List of informally named dinosaurs" which could also be interpreted as nicknames etc? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"Unavailable" would exclude nicknames, so yeah, informally named could be good, but then it doesn't seem to cover something like the "unnamed Patagonian titanosaur" (former article title for Patagotitan) or "North Carolina dromaeosaur", whose name seems to be made up for the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I would be in support of using "List of informally named dinosaurs". I would further propose that "List of unnamed dinosaurs" redirect here, since it's technically accurate but just too misleading to be the primary title. "List of dinosaur nomina nuda" would also be a redirect. Would anyone object to either of these?
Redirects are fine. But be prepared for a big task of retargeting the redirects for all the articles that have so far been merged here once the article is moved. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we limiting the list to genera? If the wording is changed to List of informally named dinosaurs then we can also include informally named specimens and species, not simply genera. The redirects suggested above seem fine. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Also, I think we should use the more well known names like "Lori" rather than specimen numbers, where that article is placed now. Do we also place garbage like Amphicoelias "brontodiplodocus" here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well thats certainly a nomen nudum so I'd say yes, unless we'd rather discuss it on Diplodocidae (since its far too broad for just Amphicoelias). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuff to add[edit]

Some informally named genera have already been redirected to family articles, but it would probably be better to redirect them and merge them here. It will be a mess to find them, but some could be located through the contributions of Extrapolaris, who redirected a bunch of them. It seems there are also some informally named genera that never got a Wikipedia article, such as Wulatesaurus, Saltillomimus, and Sabinosaurio, what should we do with them? There is also Saltriosaurus, which has grown sizeable, though most of it seems to be WP:original synthesis, using sources that don't even mention it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Coming Attractions in Dinosauria?" post at the Equatorial Minnesota blog also gives a good overview of what could be added:[2] Also see the "Where are they now" series of posts:[3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been going through the list of dinosaur genera and adding them in sections here even if there is no content. Over time I will manage to add in or verify the information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, some of the articles that have already been redirected to family articles can have their info rescued by looking at their earlier revisions. Perhaps when this list is completed, the "official" list of dinosaurs might not need to list invalid names anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through the list now and every taxon I could find I added, except for Saltriosaurus because of how large that article is. Not sure how to handle it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It should be cut down. The paleoecology section isn't needed here (I copied it to the formation's article), the intro duplicates the article body, and much of the rest seems to be synthesis, some unsourced entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Redirected Saltriosaurus. This titanosaur mount[6] is apparently based on "Xinghesaurus", an informal name I can't find any reliable references to, only blogs it seems. But it would seem to fit the criteria for inclusion here? Same goes for stuff like "Ronaldoraptor" and the "Zuni coelurosaur". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Xinghesaurus does appear in the theropod database (with no entry, but with a place on the cladogram) and Olshevsky's list (but not in a single DML post, surprisingly), so I gave it a really short entry as an example of what inclusion of such taxa would look like. Should we implement taxa like this? Also, could someone check my work on the two references? I'm not entirely sure I did those right, I'm not used to citing websites. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me, if nothing more than a sentence or short paragraph can be cobbled together, that shoudl be fine, as this is just a "list" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And this list in Spanish Wikipedia can serve? They are only mentioned, but I can see several names there that are not on this list. Super Ψ Dro 09:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If sources of some kind can be found, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking briefly at that Spanish list, at least some of the names on it not found here are because of a different scope. Ugrosaurus, for example, is a validly coined junior subjective synonym of Triceratops, albeit a very obscure one (from the eighties no less, they really had no excuse on naming this one). Rejected name Tetragonosaurus and nomen oblitum Tylosteus are also there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of unavailable dinosaur genera[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of unavailable dinosaur genera's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "norellmakovicky1999":

  • From Velociraptor: Norell, Mark A.; Makovicky, Peter J. (1999). "Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis". American Museum Novitates. 3282: 1–45. hdl:2246/3025.
  • From Deinonychus: Norell, Mark A.; Makovicky, Peter J. (1999). "Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis". American Museum Novitates. 3282: 1–45.
  • From Dromaeosauridae: Norell, Mark A.; Makovicky, Peter J. (1999). "Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis". American Museum Novitates. 3282: 1–45. hdl:2246/3025.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 05:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Lists of unavailable genera[edit]

One question, will this kind of list only apply to dinosaurs or also to all other prehistoric organisms? Super Ψ Dro 13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, Cinizasaurus and Cryptoraptor were placed outside Dinosauria by Nesbitt et al. (2007) due to their lack of dinosaurian characters, so they should not be in this article, just mentioned in Archosauriformes and Archosauria respectively. You mistakenly placed "Unicerosaurus" in this article, when in fact the specimen informally dubbed "Unicerosaurus" is a specimen of the fish Xiphactinus and should be mentioned in that article. "Stereosaurus" has never been considered dinosaurian in any work listed on Google, so shouldn't be on the list.


  • Nesbitt, Sterling J.; Irmis, Randall B.; Parker, William G. (2007). "A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5 (2): 209–243. doi:10.1017/S1477201907002040.Extrapolaris (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
As for the kind of list, I don't think anyone is planning to make one for other groups. But most other groups don't have this many articles for invalid names either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Cinizasaurus and Cryptoraptor were once in Dinosauria, so I followed the list of dinosaur genera and included past referrals. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems "Unicerosaurus" should be merged into Xiphactinus then? Because we won't cover names here which have been concluded to be the same as specific genera, as far as I understand. FunkMonk (talk)
I was assuming we would be covering those, with them not being added yet since they hadn't had articles before. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess it would be best to remove Unicerosaurus, I did not mean to have this list including any taxa that have been certainly referred or named to something valid, we could always add a single-sentence summary and a {{Main article}} for those sections if we do keep them? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Could an equal list be made for the pterosaurs? I counted in total 7 nomen nudum in their list. Super Ψ Dro 17:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, maybe bring it up at WP:PALEO and see if one can be made for other sauropsids, because I would presume Suchia has plenty as well, but probably not as many as Dinosauria. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mention at genera list[edit]

I added this article to the "See also" section of List of dinosaur genera, but should it also be mentioned somewhere in the beginning of the article, before the list itself? Presumably at the end of the "Scope and terminology" section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also wonder if we should remove informal names form the main article once they are all covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I would keep them in, since that's supposed to be a record of every dinosaur name. Taking these out because they're on another list too (one with a different purpose) seems to defeat the point. We should probably de-link them all if we add a link to this at the start, though. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks guys for putting this up, this is impressive – I didn't know there are so many of these informal names. I have however some questions about the scope of the list. The current title is "List of informally named dinosaurs". However, the list includes descriptive names (e.g., EK troodontid), and I would argue that such dinosaurs are not named (i.e., "unavailable" according to the definitions of the ICZN) at all. It also seems to include nicknames given for specimens (e.g., "Lori"). This does not necessarily mean that the specimen nickname is meant to apply to the new species; a second specimen of the new species might get a separate nickname. So I see two options: We could keep the lemma as is, and exclude specimen names and descriptive terms alltogether. Or we rename it "List of unnamed and informally namend dinosaurs". If we choose the latter, however, I think it should also include new species which are just known by the specimen numbers of their main fossil (anyway, the presence of a nickname such as "Lori" or a descriptive term such as "EK troodontid" does seem to be a poor criterion for inclusion to me, because it has nothing to do with its actual relevance or importance). These are just very quick, instant thoughts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally, names like "Lori" and "archbishop" are "informal" names, in the common sense of the word (see also Category:Informal personal names), though not in the taxonomic sense (if I understand the objection correctly). But I feel it is good to be inclusive here, just so we can catch as much as possible... FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hm, but still, I find the title confusing. It somehow suggests that "naming" is used in the biological sense, particularly since the introduction is talking about unavailable names. The title furthermore seems quite restricting, implying that it is dealing with informal names of potential taxa only, not with names for individual specimens (the potential new genus the specimen "Lori" might belong to has no name if I understood correctly). I agree we should include specimen names though, and I can't really think of a better title … maybe "List of not formally named dinosaurs" (= every dinosaur that is without a formal name)? Somehow convoluted wording though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel the current title perfectly describes what you're looking for. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I had a suggestion earlier of "list of scientifically unnamed dinosaurs", which might be more precise? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this is better, although "scientifically unnamed" looks a bit constructed. As an alternative, maybe "List of invalid and unnamed dinosaurs", by stating in the lead that "invalid" refers to "objectively invalid" names only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Can't say I have strong feelings about this, but at least the current title is concise. Maybe more people will chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
True, just leave it as is until somebody comes up with a better idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"Abdallahasaurus" et al.[edit]

The various names from Maier (2003) were never intended as serious taxonomic names, but as informal field names for various specimens, and shouldn't be presented as potential names. Honestly, at most they only ought to be mentioned on the pages of the actual dinosaurs they represent. For reference, they include:


  • "Abdallahsaurus"
  • "Blancocerosaurus"
  • "Ligomasaurus"
  • "Mtapaiasaurus"
  • "Salimosaurus"
  • "Wangonisaurus"


  • "Issasaurus"
  • "Mtotosaurus"
  • "Nyorosaurus"
  • "Selimanosaurus"


  • "Mohammadisaurus"


  • "Nteregosaurus"

J. Spencer (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why they were resurrected here, but yeah, they should just be redirected then. Seems like a pretty baffling idea to give these names to specimens which already have numbers... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems only "Abdallahsaurus" and "Blancocerosaurus" had entries here, now redirected. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On a related note, it seems many of Malkani's dubious Pakistani titanosaurs have been synonymised (by himself):[7] Not sure how to deal with it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Zunityrannus" probably named Suskityrannus[edit]

Newly described by Nesbitt et al: [8] (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect DOI, and I can't find any scientific article using the term. More details please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Bad DOI? Try a direct link: [9] (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems correct, and the Suskityrannus article has already been created. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yup, article is up now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)