Talk:Stegosaurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

First paragraph comment

I don't believe "as big as a testical" is the proper term to use when stating the size of Stegosaurus' brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.215.8 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian Translation?

"Brute-face"??? When did the Native Americans (note punctuation!) get to meet one??? [unsigned]

Taxomony

Somebody should check the taxonomy - what class are stegosaurs considered to have belonged to? Is Ornithischia the class? Or Dinosauria? Or the rather more boring Reptilia...? -- Oliver P. 03:18 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've changed it to the standard taxonomy. Reptilia isn't a very good class, since it is clearly paraphyletic, and there is some move away from it. Diplodocus lists Archosauria, which is a very cool alternative. On the other hand, the class system for vertebrates is so horribly entrenched that it will be some time before any changes to it become at all standard. Judging by the mangling of Magnoliophyta, we have a lot of conservative taxonomists here, who might want to keep the standard system, though I personally would rather not. Alas, stupid taxoboxes make things so simple when they are and so complicated otherwise. -- Josh Grosse

Thanks for the explanation. Since it's been about fifteen years since the waning of my dinosaur obsession, I've become a little out of touch... -- Oliver P. 04:16 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

length?

how long were they? Kingturtle 03:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• GEEZ! i asked this question a year ago, and it still remains unanswered in the article! Kingturtle 08:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because you didn't add it :p. Let's see: the lego sculpture is 14 ft long, and there are a couple references to 14 m, but I have no idea what their source is. I added a more traditional answer to the article. 68.81.231.127 17:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I was wondering were does the 12m lengths come from? Walking with Dinos said it, but I havn't herd of any evidence for it. They could have been confused with a Dacentrurus hip thats something like 1.5 m wide. Reading the article it says that the tail spikes reach 3 feet in length. Scaling a Gregory Paul skeletal drawing of Stegosaurs Stenops to have 3 feet spikes (excluding added horn) gives a measurement close to this; is that were it came from. If there is evidence, then witch species is it? Thanks. steveoc_86 1:55 19 November 2006

Tooth?

Stegosaurus tooth

the (picture) of a tooth or a plate. It looks more like a plate to me. Does anybody know? --βjweþþ (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a tooth; the picture crops the long root off. None of the plates have such serrations along the edge. CFLeon 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the correct illustration Is this an illustration of the correct tooth? The article says they were small and peg-like for eating plants, but this tooth looks like it is serrated to cut through meat. Also, there is a picture of a skull on the right side of the page with the teeth clearly visible, and they don't look anything like this illustration. Bgovern (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It only shows the crown[1], which should probably be explained... FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When lived?

Resolved

In this article there are no information when stegosaurus lived. (sorted)Cas Liber 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Elevated tail

At some point, I think in the 1980s, it was determined that the stegosaurus's tail did not drag on the ground, as was commonly depicted, but rather was elevated. Does anyone have any definitive info about when and how this discovery was made? — mjb 07:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometime after the 'Dinosaur Renaissance' of the mid-'70s. Robert Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies is probably the earliest major work (1978). CFLeon 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Stegosaurus had the capability to elevate its tail so that it is above the ground. People thought that it dragged its tail because it seems that it would sometimes want to be lazy, but I guess it was easy for it.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the image of dinosaurs dragging their tails was proposed in the late 1800s, and for a stegosaurus, I am guessing that its tail wouldn't provide much use for defense if it didn't even have the energy to get it off the ground.--Dinoexpert129848 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

'Thagomizer'

The 'thagozmizer' is mentioned twice, including in the Introduction (which is really unnecessary detail). It probably actually belongs in the Popular Culture section, since the origin is a popular comic panel. CFLeon 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necissarily, the term has been adopted by professionals. It's just this side of legit.Dinoguy2 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My main complaint was in the duplication, actually. However, scientists or dinosaur enthusiasts using the term informally does not make the term official, especially when going through the wiki history, it looks like one or two users trying to popularize a term. I've deleted the duplicate entries; a detail like this does not belong in the introduction, and the later sentence just was too clumsy without a major rewrite. In return, I've added a section in Popular Culture that explains the origin of the term and preserves the joke. I think this is a reasonable compromise. It's just a joke, although certainly many words have been adopted with less reason and currently there isn't a better name for the body part. Please, if you can find any sort of professional publication using the 'thagomizer' term, let us know.

Sounds like a reasonable comprimise to me. Dinoguy2 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

'Roof Lizard'

Perhaps a comment should be made that when Marsh coined the name, the plates were thought to lie flat & overlapping on the back like the shingles on a roof, making the name more apt than it seems nowadays. CFLeon 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I seem to remember an illustration of this floating around, which would be public domain by now and pretty interesting to use in the article.Dinoguy2 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(done, just need the illustration now)

That was a useful suggestion, as I had always presumed the name derived from stegh meaning pointy stick. Online etymology explains that stegos was originally associated with the meaning to cover (as with a roof), and that metaphor for the stegosaurus armor segments was interlocking roof tiles; the same page also cites stegh in other uses. The emphasis here is not on roof as in "lizard of the roof" or "lizard with a roof". It translates more transparently as roof-tile lizard or "lizard with roof-tiles". MaxEnt 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's plates could have been used to cool itself down, taking the heat from its body, to its plates, and then taken out.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Plate Arrangement

One of the major subjects mentioned in books and articles about Stegosaurus is the plate arrangement. The arguement has been a major one in the history of how dinosaurs are reconstructed and the entry should have a bit more detail on this point. There are basically 4 possible plate arrangemnets:

• 1) The plates laid flat along the back, like armor. This was the initial thought by Marsh and why he gave the name 'Roof Lizard'. As more and complete plates were found their form showed that they laid on edge, not along the flat and this arrangement was unlikely.
• 2) The plates were in a paired double row along the back. This is probably the most common arrangement in pictures, especially earlier ones (until the 'Dinosaur Renaissance' in the '70s). (The Stegosaurus in the 1933 King Kong has this arrangement.) However, no two plates the same size and shape have ever been found with the same animal.
• 3) Two rows of alternating plates. By the early '60s, this seems to have become the prevailent idea, mainly because the one Stegosaurus fossil with plates still articulated indicates this arrangement. An objection to it is that this situation is unknown amongst other reptiles and it is difficult to understand how such a disparity could evolve.
• 4) A single row of plates. One of the original ideas, dropped at some point fairly early on (apparently because it was poorly understood how the plates actually were embeded in the skin, and it was thought that they would overlap too much in this arrangement. It was revived, somewhat modified, in the '80s by an artist (Stephen Czerkas), based on iguana dorsal spines and is currently thought to be the most likely (at least the last I've heard.)

(main sources for the above are:

• Edwin Colbert; Dinosaurs, Their Discovery & Their World (1962)
• Stephen Czerkas; "A Reevaluation of the Plate Arrangement on Stegosaurus stenops" in Dinosaurs Past & Present, vol 2 (1987)

CFLeon 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a few minor issues, this should be included in the main article, as it gives a very good summary of the alternative hypotheses over time. I'd just (p)oint out that, as far as I know, number 3, not 4, is currently the most widely accepted view (I remember this being supported by articulated specimens, but I don't have a cite).Dinoguy2 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After the recent discussion about tail spike arrangement, it would seem the taxobox image is outdated? It also seems a bit hunched. Should perhaps be replaced by the S. ungulatus skeleton image? FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, seemed a bit too conspicuous for me (even a crappy Jurassic Park Facebook game gets it right!). But I also added an image of the famous "Sophie" mount. That one has a wrong tail as well, but it is not seen in the Photo... FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Did the new paper somehow overturn the findings by Carpenter? The Sophie specimen doe snot seem to have horizontal spikes? FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Sophie mount seems to have sort of obliquely arranged spikes, not flat horizontally but not vertically either. I'm not sure this necessarily contradicts Carpenter, who was disputing the old vertical arrangement. Carpenter's hypothesis is based on the orientation of the spike bases, not anything about articulated specimens, but that in itself is dependent on what the underlying soft tissue was like. I think there's a good bit of wiggle room here. Not that the Sophie mount is perfect - Revan's 2011 thesis points out that all of the SMA specimens (Sophie plus the two Hesperosaurus mounts) likely have too many cervicals and that no articulated Stegosaurus preserves more than 10, so the necks are possibly too long. I've been doing quite a lot of stegosaur research lately for an illustration project and I can pretty safely say no accurate Stegosaurus mounts currently exist, so we should work with what we have and maybe note their issues if a reasonable source does. Fingers crossed the USNM and YPM remounts get it right. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. So stuff like this[2] may not necessarily be incorrect after all? FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That arrangement actually looks close to Carpenter's description! I think it has been altered from the original mount (that's a cast of the AMH mount, which has its own problems. It seems to literally combine the tail plate morphologies of stenops and ungulatus one in front of the other. And of course the tail base is angled down instead of up). Anyway not sure why the image was flagged based on spikes, they're closer to horizontal than even my new restoration is ;) A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting Carpenter as saying the spikes protrude straight laterally when in the paper he shows them curving/angling slightly dorsally (see fig. 5C). Looking at that figure, allowing for some extra soft tissues would get them pointed dorso-laterally. And looking at things like S. sulcatus, unless those are shoulder spikes, there must have been a pretty extreme amount of soft tissue around the distal tail. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout

Does anyone else have loads of white space on their browser, now? Do we need the paleobox? - Ballista 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was trying to get the box with the green drawing next to the contents box but got tired and went to bed (I am in Australia). I find this a common problem if your page has lots of sections and the first bit is short - blame the content box...Cas Liber 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

awkward construction

"most specimens never exceeded. . ." They never did, or most didn't.

(OK, fixed)Cas Liber 09:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

OK folks, please add tasks here (there isn't much on the collaboration page).

1. - expand on 2nd brain. Incl refs.
2. - expand on short forelimbs and gait
3. - old images of Stegosaurus are off-copyright (?) as they are over 100 years old - historical versions of plates to be added.
4. - I am trying to look into species status. Carpenter seems to hold S. ungulatus as valid currently though will probably sink into S. armatus once that is reviewed.
5. - (for some Colorado folk) - photos of formation/strata/rocks where Stego fossils found.
6. - Should we be trying to do away with the bulleting, in 'Popular culture'? - Ballista 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think so. We can just make it:

   *several paragraphs

   *instead of a bulleted list.

   *the FAC reviewers mentioned this on Psittacosaurus.

   *--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• [[3]] - this image is over 100 years old. It says the library (check home webpage) has copyright - is this true? Cas Liber 13:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have asked Ken Carpenter for stuff. I note the nice image in the taxobox disappeared so there is an OKish one of a skeleton. Would be nice to get a restoration. Cas Liber 23:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What did happen to the taxobox image? It was a green life restoration, as I recall; one is definitely needed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am presuming it was a copyright issue. Fingers crossed...Cas Liber 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On commons there's this funky sculpture from some Jurassic Park in Poland (must see it when I visit the rels next.......) which is vibrant and pretty cool looking. I reckon if a really good drawing/painting comes along (like the green one we had but with copyright given), then the sculpute can go down to pop cult bit and where to see... Cas Liber 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic. I went to Commons and chose out this exact same photo for use on this page. When I hit "save page", it gave me an edit conflict message. Turns out you had just added the same photo, and in the same place (taxobox). I think it looks quite nice; it's a suitable replacement for our missing green Stego image, IMO. I didn't see anything else on Commons that's really appropriate: most of the other "Stegosaurus" there are actually other genera, and the rest appear to be those old public-domain prints, which are fine in a history section, but I'd prefer not to have them in the taxobox, if at all possible. I agree this one is very vibrant and life-like.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Derivation

Hi Cas, Dinoguy, Dudo, Firsfron, Sheep, Spawn or anyone else with the specific info. - Does anyone have the original citation for the naming of this dinosaur? It occurs to me that 'plate lizard' might be a more appropriate anglicisation (depending upon the original paper, of course). - Ballista 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The original paper was Marsh OC (1877). A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the Rocky Mountains. American Journal of Science 3 (14): 513–514. Hope this helps!--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - probably would help, if I knew how to get hold of it! Any ideas? - Ballista 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You could ask on the Dinosaur Mailing List? Someone there might have it...--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my Greek-English Lexicon, στεγη="roof of a house, or a covered room or tent". The very similar neuter noun στεγος can also mean "funeral urn"..Cas Liber 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cas, you are right (as usual), and that agress with Liddell & Scott - however, I was thinking of roofing tiles, like the bony plates on Stego's back. However, looking more closely, one meaning of the verb 'stego' is to fend off or ward off (an attack), which is also a very likely contender - we need that original tract, to sort this. - Ballista 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't notice that. Quite clever really and much more apt. Would be interesting to see what he originally wrote. I'll post a request on the dino mailing list :) Cas Liber 21:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that, when it was discovered, it was thought that the plates laid flat along the animal's back, hence "roof" lizard. An early reconstruction i can't locate for the life of me depicts it almost as a giant pangolin.Dinoguy2 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope your posting succeeds, Cas. Yes, Dinoguy, thanks for the reminder, that was an accepted theory at the time and the 'roof' name certainly fits with that. Let's hope the article turns up. - Ballista 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Found the image in question. I was mistaken--the pangolin thing was a later interpretation. The original description contains a skeletal restoration that has an essentially modern plate arrangement.Dinoguy2 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The pangolin comparison is a good analogy; I hadn't heard that one before and Marsh never used it as far as I know, but it's evident that that was his original idea when he coined the name. Realize that 14 years elapsed from his naming the first bits found to the paper with the reconstruction. By 1891, with more material, he had changed his thinking and his skeletal restoration shows this. (This is, as far as known, the first illustration of Stegosaurus as a whole animal, as opposed to individual bones or teeth. It however shows a single row of plates, which you earlier have claimed is obsolete.) The actual 'pangolin' ILLUSTRATION is slightly more recent, about 1895 if I remember correctly (I'll check when I get home tonight). So the 'pangolin thing' isn't a later interpretation, it was the first, although apparently the only picture dates from when the idea had become obsolete. The picture is question is reproduced in both Colbert's Dinosaurs (1962) and Dinosaurs Past and Present vol 2, given above. Marsh's article is pretty easy to find, my local college library has a copy. CFLeon 08:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The illustration in question dates from 1899. The artist was Frank Bond, surpervised by Dr. W. C. Knight (U of Wyoming), according to Colbert 1962, p 155. The picture is reproduced as Colbert's Plate 68. CFLeon 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your local college is cool - I was in University of NSW (Sydney's 2nd biggest uni) and the stuff there was pretty scant. Got a scanner?Cas Liber 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Diracodon valid? If some eminent palaeontologists (in particular Bakker) considfer Diracodon to be a valid genus, shouldn't a separate entry be written for Diracodon?--Gazzster 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be makin' a page yet. Will look into it. I thik it is a nomen dubium. cheers Cas Liber 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, most paleontologists think Diracodon = Stegosaurus. I'm not sure what Bakker's current stand is, but he's a notoriously overzealous splitter (see his numerous new genera for specimens of Allosaurus, his continuing use of Brontosaurus, etc.) and so shouldn't be considered representative of paleontology in general on this point. It would also be pretty confusing to the general reader, as all the famous specimens and reconstructions of Stegosaurus would need to be moved. In my opinion, not worht it for an hypothesis which is not widely accepted, if anyone still accepts it at all.Dinoguy2 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref

• DEBUFFRENIL V, FARLOW JO, DERICQLES A (1986). "GROWTH AND FUNCTION OF STEGOSAURUS PLATES - EVIDENCE FROM BONE-HISTOLOGY". PALEOBIOLOGY. 12 (4): 459–473. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)--Stone 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• The evolution and function of thyreophoran dinosaur scutes: implications for plate function in stegosaurs

Russell P. Main, Armand de Ricqlès, John R. Horner, Kevin Padian DOI: 10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0291:TEAFOT]2.0.CO;2 --Stone 09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on paragraphs

Thought I'd make a plan here rather than do it straight off as there have been so many edits recently:

Under subheading 'skull', move first para into description and second para can slot into next subject on '2nd brain'

I am mindful of other commnets of it being too listy so thought this was a good idea - the first para is mainly anatomical anyway. thoughts?Cas Liber 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the more I looked at it the more it jumped out at me....Cas Liber 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How many have been found?

The intro paragraphs say Stegosaurus is known from "numerous" remains. It would be an interesting add to the article to mention how many specimens are thought to have been found. Tempshill 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is already covered in the Stegosaurus#Discovery_and_species section: around 30 Stegosaurus armatus, around 50 Stegosaurus stenops, 1 Stegosaurus longispinus, and the six dubious fossils mentioned in the nomen dubium subsection. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I changed "numerous remains" to "about 81 remains" in the intro, since I think it's better to avoid vagueness. Tempshill 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Description: Paragraph 2: Native American Name

Article says nickname was "though mother". Makes no sense to me. Is this a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.77.117 (talk • contribs)

Description: Paragraph 3: Limbs:

Reference to "all eight limbs" having lilypads. No other accounting of more than four limbs plus head and tail. No explanation of lilypads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.77.117 (talk • contribs)

Both examples were simple vandalism and both were reverted. Scottmsg 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Call

'Stegosaurs are known to make a distinct "desu" sounding call.' I am by no means an expert, but I am 99.9% certain that we could not know the noise a stegosaurus made, if any. Can anyone confirm? Kombucha 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That was probably a nonsense edit. It has since been removed from the article. Thanks for pointing out, though. (I can't find any information to back up that claim, either.) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mating

http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=63

Sorry, but someone had to link it. Relax, it's not NSFW. Seriously, though, It does seem like it's kinda in the way - any thoughts? --Falos 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute link! Anyway, mating positions are speculative at best and don't belong in this article (because there's no paper I know of which mentions it). Could be why they're extinct. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Stegosaurus armatus; S. longispinus

Galton and Upchurch (2004) have synonymized Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. sulcatus, and S. duplex with S. armatus. The authors also consider S. affinis to be a nomen dubium and follow the synonymy of Diracodon laticeps with S. stenops. The placement of Stegosaurus longispinus in Stegosaurus is also followed. Add this reference below to the Stegosaurus page:

P. M. Galton and P. Upchurch. 2004. Stegosauria. In D. B. Weishampel, H. Osmólska, and P. Dodson (eds.), The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 343-362.

done! ArthurWeasley 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stegosaurus laticeps, the earliest name for Stegosaurus stenops

Change Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 to Stegosaurus laticeps (Marsh, 1881), now placed in its own subgenus within Stegosaurus, Diracodon Marsh, 1881. This recommendation is proposed on the grounds that Stegosaurus laticeps has been used as a valid name since 1899 by Ostrom & McIntosh (1966) and Bakker (1986). For this reason, there will no petition to have the ICZN suppress Stegosaurus laticeps in conservation of S. stenops.

Bakker, R.T. 1986. The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction. William Morrow, New York. 481 pp.

Ostrom, J.H., and J.S. McIntosh. 1966. Marsh’s Dinosaurs: The Collections From Como Bluff. Yale University Press, New Haven. 388 pp. 72.194.116.63 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 16.18 21 March 2007

Stegosaurus laticeps cannot be used for S. stenops because the holotype consists of two fragmentary dentaries. These dentaries may belong to S. stenops, but this cannot be proven because the locality also produced S. ungulatus. Further discussion can be found on pages 97-99 in Carpenter, K., and Galton, P. 2001. Othniel Charles Marsh and the myth of the eight-spiked Stegosaurus. P. 76-102, in Carpenter, K. (ed.) The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. Anky-man 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Anky-man

Antorbital fenestrae in Stegosaurids

A new user has edited this article to say that Stegosaurus had a small antorbital fenestra, the hole between the nose and eye. I'm not finding anything which verifies this: one of my books specifically states they didn't have antorbital fenestrae, and Palaeos.com's Stegosauridae page shows many skulls, all without antorbital fenestrations. I've reverted for now, but am certainly willing to look at evidence which supports the idea. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The presence of an antorbital fenestra is seen on the original skull of Stegosaurus stenops in the Smithsonian collections. The skull is slightly crushed, thus reducing the vertical size of the fenestra. It's presence was first noted by Sereno and Dong (1992: The skull of the basal stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii and a cladistic diagnosis of Stegosauria; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12(3): 318-343; see figure 10A). Its presence in S. stenops was later verified by Carpenter et al. 2001 from a second skull (Carpenter, K., Miles, C.A., and Cloward, K. 2001. New primitive stegosaur from the Morrison Formation, Wyoming. p. 55-75, in Carpenter, K. (ed.) The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. See Fig. 3.4).

Anky-man 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This was exactly the type of source I was hoping for. Is this fenestra limited to S. stenops, or has it been found in the other species as well? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The presence of the antorbital fenestra is known in Huayangosaurus and Hesperosaurus, the only other stegosaur genera known by skulls. It is a plesiomorphic character among thyreophorans.

Anky-man 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Anky-man

Taxonomy of Stegosaurus armatus; S. longispinus

Regretably, as Carpenter and Galton (2001) noted, the remains of the holotype S. armatus has not yet been fully prepared. What has been cleaned lacks any diagnostic features that would allow it to be separated from either S. stenops or S. ungulatus. As Carpenter and Galton acknowledge, it is possible that the name S. armatus supercedes either S. stenops or S. ungulatus, but at present this cannot be determined. Altough Galton and Upchurch was published 3 years after Carpenter and Galton, the manuscript by Galton and Upchurch was written long before Carpenter and Galton (Galton, personal communications). As of today's date, preparation is still not completed.

Reference Carpenter, K., and Galton, P. 2001. Othniel Charles Marsh and the myth of the eight-spiked Stegosaurus. P. 76-102, in Carpenter, K. (ed.) The Armored Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press. Anky-man 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Anky-man

frustrating ins't it? I keep checking the Morrison Museum website every once in a while to see whether it has been excavated and studied yet.......cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thagomizer comic?

I removed the template for the wikiworld cartoon since the cartoon was taken directly from the thagomizer article, not this one. "Thagomizer" appears twice in the article, once in a subheading, the other in a link to the actual thagomizer article. It does not appear anywhere in the text. Sheep81 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an on-going problem (see above). Some fans of Larson's comic insert the reference whenever and as many times as they can, claiming its 'official' acceptance. One mention is enough, as long as its origin is mentioned. CFLeon 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Stegosaurus fan club

When is the next meeting :) ? Seriously, I have tried to remove some of the original research/commentary/unsourced material here. Thanks, --Tom 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Size comparison image

The text says that it's head was 1m of the ground but this image has it as 2. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Shock,horror.--Gazzster (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I get very annoyed when there is contradictory info on dinosaur size. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this has to do with the position of the head--held high or low, or if Carpenter's 1m stat was based on the very largest specimen as the diagram is. Anybody have the original paper on hand? It's probably on his site but I don't have time to follow up just at the moment. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Where would his site be? 122.105.220.129 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of his papers are online here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

His site has been down while it is being moved to a new server and the site expanded. I agree that the size comparison is way off, but I have noticed that with a lot of popular books. For some reason, the emphasis in these books is on the possible largest size (based on very fragmentary material) of a particular species, rather than a representative size. Probably all of the dinosaurs on Wiki suffer from this over exaggeration.Anky-man 12:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful to make a figure with several different specimens represented, say a juvenile, a couple of well-known adults, and one of those extrapolated giants. J. Spencer (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, folks!

                                             tfGj:  jGDDf,     ,,
                                    ,,:     :GLLGDLLDGDGGGj   jLLj.   :
                                   :DDDEDft,fGGLGDLLEDDGGGDL.fLfLDG :fDf
                                    GDDGDDWKLDLLDGLGDDDDGDKKLLGfGLGLDDGD;
                              :LLGGjfDGDDGEKDfGGLGGLGDDDEDKDGLGLLGLLDEGGDf
                              LGGGGDDDEEDEELGfGGLDLGEGEKWDLGLGLLLGDGELGGD: :ti
                         :,,,:;GLGGGDGGDKEKKGGLDGDGKDEDGKEfGLELDLDLGEGDEK.tDfG;
                         fGDKWDGGGGGGDGEEGLDGLjjtt;;;itttjjfjLLGEDDDGKWELGGLLDGjLL
                         GDDEKLLLGDDDDGLtttiiii;;;;;i;;ii;iiiiiitjfLGKtfLGGGGDEGGG
          .   .      .jGDDEEDKKDGGLLttttiiitttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;itifGDGDDDDGGj ..
   .:   , i   i.     LGLGEGDDDGLftiittjfjjtjttttttii;itjjjiii;;;tiii;iiiitLGGGDED;tGf,
    ;,   tf.  i,  jjjLGDDGDGLtiii;itiijLLLfjttittttii;itffjjttttttiitittiii;tff:fLGDED,
     it   Gt. jj ;DDWGfffji;;iitttttjtffGEGffjti;;;ii;iijffjt;ttttiiitii;iii;;itDDEEEGif:
 :   if,.GfG;fj,;fjjjttiiiitiiiiijjtjtijDEDGjjtti;;;;;;iLjt;iii;;tjttttii;tiii,;jfLiiGEEii
 .,;tjLLjjjjjttiiitt;;;iiiittttjttjfffLDEEEDGfjjjii;tttijLii;iiitffjjt;,;,iijtiiii;;tfLfiL,,,..
        .:,;itjjjjjffLLLGLLGfffLLjfjttfEEDEEEDDGjfLtiiiiitGjftiitLjjtfjjtii;ti;i;,;iittttttjjLfttti,
                                       :tLGDDDDDDfjfjtiittDffjjjfLLDDLiiij;ttjitiiiiiittjfLLLLLLj;ii
                                         ;DDGDDEDDGfjffjt;DELfGLGDEEGtttitfGGGLGLjfLLLLfjtii;:..
                                       :jDDDEEGGGEDDfjtjtiLEDDDDEEEGftttiGDDDEGLfi,:..
                                      :LGGGDDDL,,itGGjjjjjfffLGDDDDGLjiii;;GDEDfii,
                                     .LGGGDft;     ,GLjjti.     :,jGjti;   .LDGfti;,.
                                    :LGGGj:         iGftii:       .Gjti;      ,tLfjji:
                                   .LGDG.            .Gftt.        iLii;:        ;GLjt.
                                    GDGf.             jftt;         Lfjt,        :DLjt,
                                   ;GjGj,            ,GLttji:      .DLtii,       ;fffLt
                                     DtED;             KGt;EtG      DDf;KiG          E

95.133.98.183 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Now normally we'd remove material that is irrelevant to article improvement...but that is pretty cool.... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

...As long as we aren't inundated with ASCII dinosaur art on all the talk pages.... Firsfron of Ronchester 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice in the ASCII art article! ArthurWeasley (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay, mea culpa for deleting it. I just pulled up changes on my watchlist and saw gibberish in the popup, so I removed it. J. Spencer (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Head 1m above the ground

It says "the head of Stegosaurus was positioned relatively low down, probably no higher than 1 metre (3.3 ft) above the ground"; however, every image in the article (even those with bones, it seems) shows the head twice higher than that. 95.133.106.112 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

how very observant of me :( 95.133.106.112 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plural?

Interesting style of writing that doesn't reveal the proper plural for the genus. Of course, going more general, one could refer to stegosaurs, but what about a group of those of the Stegosaurus genus? 68.83.72.162 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A group of Stegosaurus could be referred to as Stegosaurus (plural same as singular, like deer or trout), or as stegosaurs. If it's a group of animals that appear to be members of Stegosauridae, but you're not sure what genus, they can be called stegosaurids. If it's a group and you're *really* not sure what they are (the time machine has a broken chronometer and you have no clue when you are), they can be called stegosaurians (from the order Stegosauria). J. Spencer (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Stegosaurus species

Maidment et. al. (2008) consider Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. duplex, S. stenops, and Diracodon laticeps synonymous with S. armatus. They declare Stegosaurus sulcatus a nomen dubium as it lacks autapomorphies or a unique character combination.In addition, S. longispinus is considered a nomen dubium because the holotype is presumed lost, while S. affinis and Hypsirophus seeleyanus are nomina nuda because no description was provided for either species. Maidment et. al. go further by considering the type species Hesperosaurus and Wuerhosaurus congeneric with Stegosaurus armatus. This taxonomic scheme has been followed by Mateus et. al. (2009).

O. Mateus, S. C. R. Maidment, and N. A. Christiansen. 2009. A new long-necked 'sauropod-mimic' stegosaur and the evolution of the plated dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:1815-1821

Susannah C. R. Maidment, David B. Norman, Paul M. Barrett and Paul Upchurch (2008). Systematics and phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 6 , pp 367-407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hey everybody,

Due to the high level of IP vandalism on this article, I asked the folks over at page protection, and it's semi-protected now. It expires in 1 month.

Just letting you guys know :) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Most dinosaur articles would probably benefit from being semi-protected indefinitely... FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason this was getting all the vandalism because it was "the pea-brained, dumpy-looking dinosaur," and people wanted to make it look even more stupid. I'm sure now that this is protected they'll all go running to the Triceratops article now...:P Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Genus but not species

I was just wondering why Stegosaurus, along with all other dinosaur genera, has an article for the genus but not for each species. The African bush elephant and African forest elephant both belong to the genus Loxodonta, but both have articles of their own instead of just being lumped together in a big article called Loxodonta. So, why isn't this the case for dinosaurs, not to mention the countless other prehistoric animals with an article on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the only species dinosaur paleontologists ever talk about is Tyrannosaurus rex, although that's slowly changing. Most prehistoric reptiles are monospecific, so an article on the species is the same as the article on the genus, more or less. Also, in this particular case the type specimen of S. armatus has never been fully prepared, and S. stenops and S. ungulatus have been used in tandem as a temporary arrangement until such time as we get an actual specimen-level reanalysis of Stegosaurus (sounds like a doctoral project to me). Thus, there is a nonzero chance that we don't know jack about the actual species diversity of Stegosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Diracodon

Carpenter and Galton don't say that Diracodon laticeps is referrable to Stegosaurus stenops, they just consider it referrable to Stegosaurus sp.

Stegosaurus sulcatus appears to be a valid species based on the width of the bases of the dermal spikes (Galton 2010). Bakker (1988) believed that the spikes of S. sulcatus probably belong on either the shoulder or the hip region because the bases of the spikes are too shallow to belong at the end of the tail and Galton (2010) concurs.

Carpenter (2010) has disputed the referral of Wuerhosaurus to Stegosaurus, noting that the holotype of Wuerhosaurus differs enough from Stegosaurus to be retained as a distinct genus.

Carpenter, K. 2010. Species concept in North American stegosaurs. Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103, 155-162.

Bakker, R.T. (1988). Review of the Late Cretaceous nodosauroid Dinosauria: Denversaurus schlessmani, a new armor-plated dinosaur from the Latest Cretaceous of South Dakota, the last survivor of the nodosaurians, with comments on Stegosaur-Nodosaur relationships. Hunteria 1(3):1-23.(1988).

Galton, P. M. 2010. Species of plated dinosaur Stegosaurus (Morrison Formation, Late Jurassic) of western USA: new type species designation needed. Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103, 187-198.68.4.61.168 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Is Stegosaurus longispinus valid?

Olshevsky and Ford (1993) consider Stegosaurus longispinus to be a species of Kentrosaurus (as Kentrosaurus longispinus) because the spines of the holotype (UW 20503, formerly UW D54) are similar to those of Kentrosaurus aethiopicus in length. However, this taxonomic proposal has yet to be confirmed by an examination of UW 20503 and comparison with Kentrosaurus. Most of the holotype of Stegosaurus longispinus was destroyed when the waterpipes of the University of Wyoming burst in the 1920s (Southwell and Breithaupt 2007), which explains why Maidment et. al. (2008) considered S. longispinus dubious and noted that the holotype was lost. Olshevsky (1991) considered S. longispinus to be synonymous with Stegosaurus ungulatus based on unpublished work by Robert Bakker, but this action has also not found acceptance in the paleontological community. Hopefully, many elements of the S. longispinus holotype may have survived (Breithaupt, pers. comm., cited in Galton 2010), since a photograph of the femur included in UW 20503 was published in Foster (2007). Therefore, S. longispinus may still be a valid taxon following Galton (2010), although its validity requires redescription of the holotype and comparison with other stegosaurs.

Galton (2010) does not consider S. ungulatus to be conspecific with S. armatus since the holotype of the latter is undergoing preparation at the Morrion Museum of Natural History (Mossbrucker et. al. 2009). As reported by Mossbrucker et. al. (2009) Preparatory work on YPM 1850 suggests that S. armatus is distinct from other stegosaurs (incl. S. ungulatus, S. stenops, S. longispinus) in having mid-caudals with taller and more robust neural spines. If so, S. armatus and S. ungulatus are distinct speices, although confirmation of these differences requires a full description of YPM 1850.

Southwell, E. & Breithaupt, B. 2007. The tale of the lost Stegosaurus longispinus Tail. 67th Annual Meeting. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27, 3, 150A.

Olshevsky, G., and Ford, T. L., 1993. The origin and evolution of the stegosaurs: Gakken Mook, Dinosaur Frontline, v. 4, p. 65-103.

G. Olshevsky, 1991, A revision of the parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings 2 pp. 1-196

Foster, J. (2007). Jurassic West: The Dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation and Their World. Indiana University Press. 389pp. ISBN 978-0-253-34870-8.

Mossbrucker, M. T., Bakker, R. T., and Prueher, L., 2009, 'New information regarding the holotype of Stegosaurus (Marsh 1877).' Symposium on Stegosauria Abstracts, Aathal, Switzerland, p. 9. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Stegosaurus duplex; S. affinis

As a side note, the holotype of S. duplex (YPM 1858) was originally considered to be a specimen of Stegosaurus ungulatus by Marsh (1879) but later described as a new species distinct from S. ungulatus based on a sacrum (YPM 1857) referred to S. ungulatus by Marsh (1887) (Carpenter and Galton 2001). Galton (2010) considers S. duplex to be a valid species since YPM 1858 comes from a different locality than YPM 1853 (holotype of S. ungulatus) (Ostrom and McIntosh 1999).

Stegosaurus affinis and Hypsirophus seeleyanus are nomina nuda, while S. madagascariensis is an indeterminate ankylosaur (Maidment et. al. 2008). The classification of S. madagascariensis extends the distribution of ankylosaurs to Madagascar.

Ostrom, J. H. and McIntosh, J. S. (1999). Marsh's Dinosaurs: The Collections from Como Bluff. Yale University Press, New Haven 1-388. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Size

Is there any evidence for the claim of 12m Stegosaurus? if there is I'll add them back if someone brings it, for the momment I'll remove mentions of it along with the 4m tall claim that is equally unsourced. I even question the 9m claim, the largest femur that we know of, is 1.33m, from an (obviously) large and old individual, using Greg Paul Stegosaurus stenops reconstruction it ends up measuring about 7m long and just short of 3m tall at the tallest point of the dorsal spines, if this is the largest we have how come the 9m is so spread in books and the web? that'll mean an animal twice the weight of the already large individual represented by that femur, more exagerated is the 12m claim as that'll be 5 times as big!

I'm pretty sure that an average adult Stegosaurus would only be around 5-6m long, though, I'm not gonna put that without sources. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Extra: Gregory Paul's reconstruction of the holotype of S. stenops is around 5.6 m. (not counting the last spike), if USNM 4934 is an adult and the 7m above is an old, large adult... well, I think it's easier to say it this way, is there any evidence on the literature, other than popular books to support that any of the species of stegosaurus commonly grew to 7 m. let alone 9 m. in length? Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else to add. Galton (2001) reports the biggest known femur for S. stenops as belonging to the specimen USNM 4936, at 1190mm. Carrano (2006) lists the length of the biggest known femur for S. ungulatus as belonging to the specimen YPM 1853 at 1348mm. Using Gregory Paul's skeletal reconstruction of USNM 4934 (whose femur is 1080mm) they end up at ~6.2m and ~7.0m respectively. It would of been nice if Holtz had listed a reference for including 9m in his index because I'm unable to find it elsewhere and that makes me think that such specimens don't exist and the scale and the article should be changed.

In case the response to this is that the article says that the 9m species is S. armatus, Holtz list doesn't specify species and I'm unable to see if "The Dinosauria" actually says that, but I've gathered that S. armatus is undiagnostic and is the reason there has been a petition to the ICZN to change the type species to the holotype of S. stenops, also, the only material currently referable to S. armatus is YPM 1850, the holotype, mentions of large size of this species might be due to the previous inclusion of YPM 1853 in S. armatus. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Stegosaurus longispinus renamed?

While surfing the internet, I happened to come upon a publication regarding stegosaurs and basal thyreophorans (http://dinoweb.narod.ru/Ulansky_2014_Dinoclass_Stegosauria.pdf). In the publication, Stegosaurus longispinus is given the new generic name Natronasaurus (in honor of the county in Wyoming where it was first discovered), but I am wondering if the publication is a real one or a hoax. If the publication is for real, then Stegosaurus longispinus will be removed from the page and moved to a new page titled Natronasaurus.72.194.115.252 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Well, there is no accompanying justification, which would make it a nomen nudum at best... Unless that PDF is just part of a larger work. Also, is it a valid venue for publishing names? FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait no longer. A new paper whereby Natronasaurus is described as a new genus for Stegosaurus longispinus is now available: Ulansky, R. E., 2014. Evolution of the stegosaurs (Dinosauria; Ornithischia). Dinologia, 35 pp. [in Russian]. [DOWNLOAD PDF] http://dinoweb.narod.ru/Ulansky_2014_Stegosaurs_evolution.pdf. Now should be the time to create the new page Natronasaurus for S. longispinus.72.194.115.252 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Note what Ben Creisler said on the DML, though: "The stegosaur publication has proposed new generic and specific names given in quotes based on species or material described by published researchers. There is no description to distinguish the proposed new stegosaur taxa from existing defined taxa, no museum catalog specimen designations for the material, and no list of the original references in full form. The proposed new names would appear to have no formal status. The proposed name "Sinopelta" is also preoccupied." FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The first publication does not describe the taxa. However, in the second publication (a followup of the first), most to all of the taxa are described. For example, Andhrasaurus is described in fair detail, along with some other genera. I believe than new combinations do not require a description, but I'm not certain. Anyways, the publication mentions no Zoobank id's, but I think this might be a little big to try and deal with here. IJReid (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it is still a ICZN rule, but new names have to be published on paper to be valid. Online only naming doesn't count. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is probably not an area to mess around in. (If you know something is amiss but you can't tell if it's the spirit or the letter that's being skirted, it's a problem.) My immediate instinct is that these names are on about the same level as "Albertogorgon" and "Hecaicursor" from the Dinosaur Mailing List. J. Spencer (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

On this note: Natronasaurus FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are moving an species to a new genus you definitely need to demonstrate that there are characters that differentiate the two species at the generic level. Reading the relevant parts of the paper, he only gives brief descriptions of the differences, longer plates, very large spike, and says that Gilmore lists the other differences, it is not a new idea and based on gross morphology it does look more like Kentrosaurus but I don't think this name will have any validity, there most be a reason why previous workers didn't create a new genus for it (I suppose it has something to do with the fact that the holotype of Stegosaurus stenops is undiagnostic beyond family level) but also, is this a peer reviewed publication? Ben Creisler says the journal belongs to the author. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the nomenclatural validity of the name, the quality of the research it is based on, is absolutely irrelevant. It suffices that some traits are mentioned with the purpose of differentiating the animal. What matters is whether the formal criteria for a valid publication have been met. Since 2012 electronic publication is allowed. And peer-review has never been a necessary condition. However, there are two important restrictions.

I. Article 8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures (...) 8.1.3.2. widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout

Putting an article pdf on your private website does not make it an "edition" (and arguably not even "widely accessible"), even if you pretend you are operating a magazine. Such a site diachronously lacks persistence and synchronously lacks dissemination. In other words: it might suddenly disappear and relevant people (i.e. palaeontologists) don't know about it. It is not an "edition" in the usual sense of the word. And there is no serious assurance that the pdfs won't change in content.

II. Article 8.5. Works issued and distributed electronically. To be considered published, a work issued and distributed electronically must (...) 8.5.3. be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred

No such evidence is presented in the pdfs referred to above.

Conclusion: the names are not valid. They are not nomina nuda — plenty of description is available — but nomina non rite publicata. If they are not mentioned in some "real" secondary publication, as a subject they simply fail the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. The subject is primarily the concept, not the dinosaur it refers to — which, as any dinosaur taxon, is obviously notable :o). Existing articles − we now also have a "Eoplophysis" — had better been made redirects or renamed to the original species.--MWAK (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

More from the DML, Ben Chreisler: "This blog posting in Spanish mentions the various new taxa of stegosaurs proposed by Russian free-lancer Roman Ulansky, whom I mentioned on the DML for an earlier self-published item. He has now self-published more short pieces in late 2014 claiming to give the proposed names formal status. However, as noted in the DinoAstur blog above, the status of Ulansky's self-published new stegosaur genera and species appears questionable. The new taxa are all based on the descriptions of species or fossil material published by formal scholars in the field, who may have considered the material nondiagnostic, or for material that may be under study by someone else. Ulansky himself did not examine the fossils. He offers no rigorous definition of the taxa or a phylogenetic analysis, or apparently any acknowledgment of scholarly vetting of his work by experts. Think of the self-published "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" of a few years back that has not been accepted or acknowledged in the formal literature. And maybe even the Raymond Hoser situation in Australia, where the self-styled herpetologist's self-published new names for taxa are being systematically boycotted by career herpetologists, who have called on the ICZN to find a way to render Hoser's names invalid. Bottom line here is that mentioning the above blog post is not meant as a recognition that Ulansky's new stegosaur names are valid or should be used. However, Ulansky registered his names on Zoobank and Wikipedia has entries for the new names. http://zoobank.org/References/5FE177A1-0DA1-4997-83AA-57B12685676D?region=ru

Thomas Holtz: "The Zoobank issue is troublesome. But Wikipedia? That can be dealt with. Wikipedians, to your stations! Make sure that it is clear to any who go to those articles the incredibly problematic nature of these names." FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

""Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus" of a few years back that has not been accepted or acknowledged in the formal literature" For the record, this was an online-only name that was not registered with ZooBank, so it remains a nomen nudum. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So what should we do? Wait? Because it seems palaeontologists perceive their presence on Wikipedia as though they have been "accepted"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Holtz is exaggerating. Now that the names have been correctly entered in the ZooBank, the condition of Article 8.5 has been met. Article 8.1.3 remains an obstacle, but it is not a very tall one as concepts as "edition" and "fixed content and layout" are a bit vague. It could thus be rationally defended that the names are valid. Therefore it is in principle acceptable that they should remain as the article titles for dinosaurs that should have their own article anyway. Certainly the "incredibly problematic nature" Holtz invokes, is simply not there. What he really means is: "I don't like it one bit that any dilettante with too much free time on his hands can create whatever official name he desires". But that has always been the system. Even before 2012, if you really wanted you could have bought advertisement space in your local newspaper at little cost and publish any name you liked. And it would have been valid. Really relevant is the material status of these names. In the case of Natronasaurus it is obvious that a separate generic name should have been created a long time ago. Now it's there for free. Use this opportunity by using the name. Don't start meeping "O horrors! A name that has not been published by Professor X, in authoritative magazine Y, reviewed by his peers Z and W". Be a scientist, not a snob :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I guess we have no choice! FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a difference between names that are unpopular and names that are invalid. See also Megapnosaurus and Scansoriopteryx. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism

A recent article has found evidence of sexual dimorphism in a Stegosaurus species. The species is Stegosaurus mjosi which the article consider to be Hesperosaurus. Ant thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

All the info is at Hesperosaurus (under palaeobiology). Since mjosi is not considered part of Stegosaurus by most researchers, because the plate stuff only applies to that species, and because there have been raised serious doubts about the finding by more established palaeontologists (including Kenneth Carpenter). FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplicated material in the Skull section

Since this is a featured article I thought I'd post this here and let a subject matter expert fix it: in the Skull section some information is given twice. The paragraph includes both the following sentences:

• "The lower jaw of Stegosaurus had a flat upward extension that would have completely hidden the teeth when viewed from the side, and which probably supported a turtle-like beak in life"
• "The jaws of Stegosaurus had flat downward and upward extensions that would have completely hidden the teeth when viewed from the side, and these probably supported a beak in life"

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the two need to be "merged", since there is slight difference in information as well... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been several weeks, so I went ahead and removed one instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Leading sentence

Stegosaurus is a famous dinosaur and to lead the article calling it "a genus of herbivorous thyreophoran" would be confusing to general readers who are not familiar with the term. "Armored dinosaur" is more understandable and is a common name for the clade as can be seen here and here for example. Lusotitan insists on the current sentence. I'd like to know what others think. FunkMonk? Jens Lallensack? MWAK? LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Armoured dinosaur" would be no less confusing as this designation is usually reserved for Ankylosauria. Also, it suggests that the plates functioned as armour, which is contentious. To narrow it down to "stegosaurian dinosaur" is perhaps a bit too obvious (though perhaps a useful reminder that there were more stegosaurians). Using "ornithischian" is an option.

However, "thyreophoran" really isn't confusing. The general reader will immediately conclude "Hey, an animal group I didn't know about! That's why I consulted Wikipedia in the first place: to learn things". The unfamiliar term isn't simply unknown terminology. It reflects an unknown fact. And that is the function of Wikipedia: to make the facts known.--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Thyreophoran" is not confusing, but possibly too technical to be mentioned in the first sentence. I personally would prefer "a genus of herbivorous dinosaur" or "a genus of ornithischian dinosaur"; at the very least we should have the word "dinosaur" included. The more exact classification is better introduced later in the lead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Plated dinosaur? Seems to be a common name for stegosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard that term used by anyone in my life... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to get a good deal of Google hits, mainly used in popular sources, but also in a few technical ones. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Plated dinosaur" is a common term, used e.g. in the 2012 review of Peter Galton in "The Complete Dinosaur": "The Stegosauria, or plated dinosaurs, …". Don't see a reason why we should not use it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against using this term. It lacks precision and applying it in the first sentence suggests it is a useful or relevant concept in science, which it really isn't.--MWAK (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Stegosaurus Size revision

i Now first my points which come from me and RandomDinos discussion on the platform Discord, i have spoke to him multiple times out Stegosaurus mass and i even got him to make a GDI himself to prove this. The GDI image itself is private however i can share our conversation to an extent if needed, random has already stated he isn't surprised with the results. In which he got 8021.05460991kg for S."ungulatus" YPM 1853.. Couger stated that "Neither Matt Dempsey, nor Henrique Paes (randomdinos) have made a book/paper on the topic that can be considered reliable sources" That is not how reliable sources always present... Reliability in terms of things like bite force estimates yea i understand and already stated i can get specific numbers from scaling up which WOULD be considered a reliable source because it directly references the base paper which according to Cougro is reliable.. In turn i don't feel how citing the reference when it comes to illiterate numbers matters especially given wikipedia rules, specifically when the citing of the source is nor copyrighted or any citing to be done whatsoever besides the fact a gdi was done by Henrique Paes who is a well respected and considered reliable person?

Regarding the bite-force estimate i will obtain exact numbers and re edit the page as well as cite my method of doing so. (Edit; will be done when this has been replied to or something)

In summary the Outcome of this is 8021kg & 9.36m & do note this has conservative tissue. Also note, the species YPM 1853 consists of alot of chimeric material. Derpy.Stego (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It comes down to this: can you provide a reliable source, such as from a study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that explicitly states the information that you are wanting to add? Conversations with an expert are not considered reliable sources. Furthermore, it sounds like you are trying to take existing information, and then use some method of scaling to bring it up to a larger size. This would be considered original research, which is not allowed. Take a read through the two wikipedia policies I linked to. They should hopefully help provide some clarification as to what you can and cannot add to a wikipedia article. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

By your logic, no dinosaur GDI is considered reliable, which is absurd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpy.Stego (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)