 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Aquilops appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 December 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
"Early" edit
an early herbivorous ceratopsian dinosaur. But this is a Neocerttopsid, no? It is basal to that line, but not an early (i.e. Jurassic) ceratopsid, yes? Is this an ignorant quibble on my part, or a sensible distinction?--Wetman (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Farke/Maxwell/Cifelli/Wedel Phylogeny under the Phylogeny section of Ceratopsia states (at least at this version) "that Aquilops was a basal neoceratopsian that could potentially be a protoceratopsid, leptoceratopsid, or ceratopsid, although any one of these groups would have a large ghost lineage with Aquilops."[1] I think that is geek-speak for "Well, we think Aquilops was at the beginning of the neoceratopsids, but we don't really know, so other clasiffications might be as a protoceratopsid (early ceratopsid), leptoceratopsid, or ceratopsid because this is really a ghost lineage." Peaceray (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, neoceratopians are a subset of ceratopians. The lead does not state it was a ceratopid. Neoceratopidae is not an existing taxon. In other words: these suffixes cannot be interchanged at will! As regards the "ghost lineage" issue: there would only be a ghost lineage if we assume that Aquilops belonged to any of these higher-level groups, as it would imply, for them, a long history without known remains.--MWAK (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Farke, A. A.; Maxwell, W. D.; Cifelli, R. L.; Wedel, M. J. (2014). "A Ceratopsian Dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Western North America, and the Biogeography of Neoceratopsia". PLoS ONE. 9 (12): e112055. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112055.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
The article needs work edit
It still fails to address some of the most important topics by which all living things are generally classified:
- What exactly does it eat?
- Does it sleep during the day, or night?
- Would it appreciate being held, or would it prefer to walk on its own?
- How well could it have been trained?
- And based on the above, would it make a good pet?
GMRE (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The paper has a Wikipedia compatible license, so you could copy relevant text from it and paste it here with no legal problems. Would take less item than writing long complaints here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let's answer these questions anyway.
- The beak is very pointy and therefore specialised in eating high-quality plant parts. This would also be an absolute necessity to obtain sufficient energy for such a small animal, unable to use a long intestinal tract to process low-quality fodder.
- It had large eyes and might well have been nocturnal.
- Juvenile ceratopians probably lived in youth groups and tactile stimuli might have been used to strengthen bonding. Also, the critter being feathered, you might have liked petting it too.
- It would not have been too stupid as far as herbivorous dinosaurs go. And simple conditioning would go a long way.
- For a non-avian dinosaur it would be quite a good pet. Much better than Amphicoelias (even after its recent down-size) or the low character Spinosaurus. Give it some nuts, mind the potted plants and beware of the beak.--MWAK (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)