Talk:Atrociraptor

Untitled

"Atrociraptor is most closely related to Deinonychus." Based on whose opinion? Atrociraptor is classified in the Dromaeosaurinae; Deinonychus belongs to the Velociraptorinae. Perhaps somebody got their names mixed up, and this was meant to state that it is most closely related to Dromaeosaurus? 75.210.173.183 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Atrociraptor actually been referred to dromaeosaurinae, or was that done as original research based on its relationship to Deinonychus (which has tended to jump between subfamilies is studies recently)? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find hardly anything online that talks about Atrociraptor, at least not its taxonomic status. DinoData claims it is velociraptorine but I'm a little leery of using DD as a definitive source with nothing to back it up... although, if it is in fact most closely related to Deinonychus then the taxobox needs to be revised--obviously it cannot be most closely related to something in an entirely different family. 75.211.103.38 (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Deinoncyhus has variously been referred to both dromaeosaurinae and velociraptorinae. So even if somebody assigned Atociraptor to dromaeosaurinae, they'd probably place Deinonychus there as well. Subfamily classification is extremely variable, especially in dromaeosaurs, which seem to shuffle subfamilies with every new study. I think it's not a great idea to list subfamilies in the taxoboxes at all, but somebody went around adding them a few months ago. I've removed it from here, barring a published referral. Also, you keep referring to "family"--make sure you're not confused on this point--both Atrociraptor and Deinoncychus are most certainly dromaeosaurids, just not necessarily dromaeosaurines. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Subfamily. I know. 75.211.103.38 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

anyone thing there should be a pop culture selection added do to dominion

You know that update it 71.172.160.155 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it. 35.129.185.139 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

An appearance in a single film is not enough for an entire section. It may be noted in the history section, but I'm not sure it's even significant enough for that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

GAN expansion

Copying this over from our former discussion so it doesn't disappear, A Cynical Idealist: I think Atrociraptor is pretty close to GAN (I'll take care of the intro soon), but I have a few questions about the Classification and Palaeoecology sections:

• "Modern dromaeosaurid systematics is dominated by a few phylogenetic datasets which recover slightly different results. One of the most widespread is the so-called "TWiG matrix" (named for the Theropod Working Group)". The source used doesn't seem to say anything other that it using the TWG, so while probably correct, much of the sentence is uncited.

• "The holotype of Atrociraptor is the only fossil discovered from its locality,[26] so it is not known for certain if any of these animals directly coexisted with it, but many of them are known to have been contemporaneous.[1]" Should probably be reiterated here that Atrociraptor teeth are known from other parts of the formation, including alongside Albertosaurus.

• I wonder if there is more in the sources about what the phylogenetic results mean in regard to evolution and biogeography, now the text mainly gives positions without their implications.

This source[1] goes a bit further into biogeography that doesn't seem to be covered? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Could be nice with something about the plant life of the formation as well.

• Not sure why, but the images under classification still seem to push the cladograms down, though they are well free of them? FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "so it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" While this is true, does the source say this explicitly? Not sure if such editor "inference" is ok, might be.

• "dated to one of the upper members of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, preserves several Albertosaurus individuals, which are believed to have been killed and buried during a major storm" Is this the same bonebed where Atrociraptor teeth have been found? Info should be consolidated, then.