Talk:Dilophosaurus

Taxonmy of Dilophosaurus

There are three species of Dilophosaurus: Dilophosaurus wetherilli, D. breedorum, and D. sinensis. Dilophosaurus breedorum was originally identified from new Dilophosaurus material, but it was not named until 1999. Add D. breedorum to the list of Dilophosaurus species.

I've added D. breedorum, and a ref for D. sinenses, which was already in the article. D. sinensis is probably a new genus, however.Dinoguy2 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I am but an anon, but I just HAD to point this out- the contributor above you is in error- D. breedorum was, in fact, erected based on the first of the specimens usually attributed to D.wetherilli to show any indication of the crests the genus is famous for. This new species was proposed by several authors who suggested that the reason that there was no indication of any crests in the holotype specimen of D. wetherilli (a subadult specimen with a badly-preserved head) was NOT due to the state of the skull's preservation but, in their view, due to the fact that that species may not have had any crests at ALL. Thus, based on this (as well as a few other perceived differences) D. breedorum was proposed to encompass all subsequent remains that DO show evidence of the crests, leaving only the holotype within D. wetherilli in their estimation.

However, VERY few authors have accepted this interpretation- many if not ALL of the perceived differences can be explained away by individual variation, the varying ages of the specimens, and the quality of preservation, and thus, D. breedorum's entire EXISTENCE is debatable.

Furthermore, if Wikipedia is going to accept D. breedorum as a valid species of Dilophosaurus, it also stands to reason that you would follow the author's (rather debatable) REASONING for ERECTING the new species, thus rendering all of your material discussing D. wetherilli with the double crests obsolete as per the two authors (Welles and Pickering)'s 1999 assertation.

Thus, D. breedorum's inclusion without any further notation on the subject irks me due to the fact that the existence of D. breedorum as anything more than a junior synonym to D. wetherilli is debatable, and the fact is that this is flat-out IGNORED in the article. That, and I find it hard to understand how you can both ACCEPT Welles and Pickering 1999's assertations and ALSO claim that D. wetherilli bore crests, since Welles and Pickering, as I stated above, assert that that species was most likely crestless- since all the evidence that Dilophosaurus even BORE crests is, in their revision of the genus, now contained in D. breedorum.

As for which I believe, I'm with the skeptical majority- D. breedorum is most likely a junior synonym of D. wetherilli- Welles and Pickering never really gave enough concrete evidence (that couldn't just as easily be- and most likely IS- explained away by a number of OTHER factors we know were there) in order to justify separating all known remains sans the holotype from D. wetherilli and erect a whole new species for them, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.115.101 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Never seen Welles and Pickering (1999), and probably never will. However, it is certainly true that the species is not currently accepted. J. Spencer (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Should Dilophosaurus breedorum even be listed as a synonym here? It appears to not even have been validly published[1], therefore it can not even be a taxonomic synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Footprints

Last I checked, you couldn't definitely ascribe footprints to body fossils. J. Spencer 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Out of all the major dinosaurs in the first Jurassic Park movie, only Dilophosaurus and Brachiosaurus are from the Jurassic Period. A more accurate name would be Mesozoic Park, but Jurassic does sound cooler.

Yeah, but we might have more several species (just didn't see'em), and there might have been more in the boo. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park... Wrong?!

You all know how in Jurassic Park, the dilophosaurus was portrayed as a small predator, with a big frill and toxic spit, and that everyone was ranting about how its all nonsense, about how its all total fiction, and should be shunned as much as possible by the general peoples. What if.... They were right. What if the 2 species of dilophosaurus were actually like that. Frilled Venomspitters...

This is where the odd part of the topic title comes in. Although I don’t believe in it myself, i think i might have found a few pieces of evidence that might actually support Michael Crichton's case. Coz you see, scientists around the world have been wondering what the crests were for. Were they a form of display? Were they like the casque of a cassowary? I think it might hold the key to a frill. The crest may have been an anchor point for muscles which could open and close a frill

And the kinked jaws of all coelophysoid dinosaurs; what’s that all about?! I think it could have possibly have been a space taken up by venom sacs. Secreted much like the saliva of any other animal, which should then be shot at prey with rapid exhalations...

Should I put this in the article? I did but someone deleted it Nrg800 (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you should not. This is nonsense you made up, not something actual scientists have published. Jurassic Park is fiction, and if Crichton is ever proven "right" about venomous dilophosaurs (not that he ever pretended his invention was supposed to reflect the facts in any way, it was just a way to illustrate that we can't know everything about extinct species)... he'd be a modern day Nostradamus ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nrg800, you can't post it now, but if you somehow get your theory into a scientific journal, you could post it. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park is pure fiction. Plus, I'm not sure if Dilophosaurus was like that even within the context of the story. InGen could have decreased its size, and they also filled in the gaps with DNA from modern amphibians and reptiles. The Dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park could have had its genetic code mutated with Frill-necked Lizard and Cobra DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.209 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nrg800, Crichton didn't come up with the idea of the frill, Spielberg's team did; read the book. The fictional frill is not the same thing as the crests which give the animal its name, so you don't want to confuse the two. Crichton did come up with the idea that the Dilophosaurus was poisonous, as were other species resurrected by the geneticists in the novel (such as the Compsognathus).

Best regards, theBaron0530 TheBaron0530 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Material removed from article

I removed Ngr800's stuff (as displayed above), it's original research (not allowed in Wikipedia) and is written in the wrong style for an encyclopedia.......
Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this material isn't encyclopedia-worthy. I've left the user a welcome message to let him know a little more about what should be included in Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Timescale

The article now shows Dilophosaurus as Sinemurian to Pliensbachian, with the fossil range box covering all of both of those quite long stages. It's obviously preposterous that Dilophosaurus was extant for both stages and we strive to be anal about details around here...I've always been under the impression that the North American fossils dated to the early Pliensbachian (circa 188 MA) but I don't have a source handy on that. What's the deal on this then, if any? Forescore68 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I can find, all Dilophosaurus specimens (except obviously "D." sinensis) come from the "Silty Facies" of the Kayenta Formation, probably Sinemurian in age, but I don't know if it's been precisely dated. I suppose the best thing to do would be to list the range as 193 (the midpoint of the stage) plus or minus 3 Ma ago. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Kayenta Formation (and the rest of the Glen Canyon Group) is a bit of pain for dating, as there's not much there useful for relative or absolute dating. In fact, if I remember correctly the Sinemurian thing is based on the presence of Scelidosaurus-like scutes (assumed to be Scelidosaurus), and the upper limit of Pliensbachian is based on the Navajo Sandstone which was assumed to correlate to the Portland Sandstone of New England because both were supposed to have Ammosaurus (the Navajo Sandstone doesn't) and the Portland Sandstone was thought to be Pliensbachian-Toarcian in age based on dinoflagellates or something at the time the correlation was made (turns out that the base of the Portland Sandstone is more or less at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary and the entire extent is probably not more than a few million years). The moral of the story is not to correlate using Ammosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a paper in 2014 estimating the Dilophosaurus bearing portion of the Kayenta formation to 183.7 +/- 2.7 Ma. I'm updating the wiki to match, but I'm open to other suggestions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264003786_The_age_of_the_Kayenta_Formation_of_northeastern_Arizona_overcoming_the_challenges_of_dating_fossil_bone DinoGarret (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to have a closer look later. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This[2] seems to be the actual paper that abstract you linked turned into, so I'll try to use that as source. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

DinoGarret, I've now looked at the study I linked above, and while it does say the entire Kayenta Formation is Sinemurian-Toarcian, Dilophosaurus itself is "only" known from the Sinemurian–Pliensbachian part of it. Adjusted the article accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There was a previous paper that was able to reduce the age of the formation to around 1.5 Ma, and alocate it in the Lower-"Middle" Pliensbachian ("Magnetostratigraphy and paleopoles of the Kayenta Formation and the Tenney Canyon Tongue") Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is stated in the paper, but I've shortened the bit so it makes more sense for this article (I didn't see what you wrote specifically claimed). FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change it back

I edited this article a few hours ago to say that Dilophosaurus was a large theropod instead of just a theropod, but someone deleted that. Most of my dinosaur books say Dilophosaurus was one of the first large carnivores, and 20 feet long seems pretty big if you ask me. I have added that part again and I don't want to see it changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.209 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it, but the facts of the matter are:

• Dilophosaurus was not all that big of a theropod. 6 m long and maybe 500 kg in mass are good for somewhere in the middle when carcharodontosaurids, tyrannosaurids, and spinosaurids pushed double that length and several times that mass. It was certainly big for its time, but not all that unusual in the scheme of things. If you were to put in a sentence with a reference to the effect that Dilophosaurus was large for an early dinosaur, that would make more sense, at least to me, who performed the undo (speaking as someone who probably sees at least one inflated prehistoric reptile a day) (addition 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)).
• "Seems pretty big to me" is not a valid argument.
• "I don't want to see it changed back" is meaningless, especially when one of the major principles of Wikipedia is consensus.

Your fervor is appreciated, but you might find it helpful to check around and see how things are done here before you leap in. As far as I'm concerned, we're better off not having any additional description there because it's so subjective. J. Spencer (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was especially large, but it is still quite large by Early Jurassic standards. I mean, an elephant is considered big today, even though many creatures from the past were much larger. Another example is Anomalocaris, it was truly gigantic for an animal from the Cambrian even though it was little over a metre in length. I think "large" is more of a relative term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.209 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And I can also find examples of it being called a large theropod. I just ran into this: Greg Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, p. 58, has "first large theropod we know of". I'm just uncomfortable with the subjective nature. J. Spencer (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus definitely doesn't compare to such huge theropods as Tyrannosaurus or Spinosaurus, but most people agree that it is on the larger scale of carnivorous dinosaurs, especially when compared to other contemporary theropods such as Coelophysis or Megapnosaurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.209 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fur?

The model from the Polish Geological Institute that's pictured in this article looks like it's covered in hair. Is this accurate? I've never heard of a dinosaur with hair before. Feathers, yes, but hair? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

They were probably trying for simple fur-like feathers; if you go back to before the discovery of the big complex feathers of various Yixian dinosaurs, dinosaur art with feathers usually had these hair-like filaments (see practically any illustration of a small theropod in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World). J. Spencer (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Such hair-like monofilaments wouldn't be unheard of for something so basal anyway. Tianyulong has both fur-like and quill-like filamentous integument, which may or may not be homologous with feathers. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Frills And Spitting Venom

We all know that Dilophosaurus was one of the first predators on the Mesozoic Era, these creatures lived in the beginnings of the Jurassic, but we have seen that in popular culture, they are presented with frills like those of the Australian Frilled Lizard and with the ability to spit venom to blind it's prey.

Could there be a chance that Dilophosaurus may have had one of these characteristics for survival? Maybe the frills were for frighting away bigger creatures, Maybe venom for a hunting advantage or blinding predators. I don't know if it could be possible but I would recommend posting a Section of the possibilities of frills and spitting venom on the Wikipedia Dilophosaurus article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Marín (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

" Dilophosaurus was one of the first predators on the Mesozoic Era ... " - uh, no - it lived in the Jurassic, not the Triassic. 98.67.1.164 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the whole frills and venom thing were completely made-up fictional features from Jurassic Park. There is no reason to think they were real--they were made up out of the imagination of writers, not evidence from fossils. Adding a section on frills would be like adding a section about the possibility that Triceratops was made ill by eating certain kinds of berries and subsequently developed pustules on its tongue. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, or a section in the Velociraptor article describing the possibility that Velociraptor possessed the ability to open doors and set traps for non-existent (at the time) humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SGDS is what?

Image caption says "Depiction of Early Jurassic environment preserved at the SGDS"

The term "SGDS" doesn't seem to be defined anywhere in the article, and I'm not seeing any likely hits elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Folks, it's probably not a good idea to use semi-technical terms in articles without defining them.

-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, which we apparently do not have an article for. J. Spencer (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I don't feel embarrassed that I didn't know this. -- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fish eater?

Dilophosaurus is stated to have a weak bite and would have difficulty holding on the struggling prey. but it has what appears to be a Fish-trap like on Baryonyx and relatives, so does this open up the possibility that it ate fish? and was large so it could bully other predators out of kills like Spinosaurus?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are even larger predators known from the time and period. Anyhow, unlike with some spinosaurids, there is no direct evidence of fish eating. And we can't write it if scientific papers haven't proposed it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Dilophosauruses jaws were not all the way connected that is why some scientists say it ate fish, others say it was able to take on the biggest plant eaters of all time- the prosauropods

Classification

I removed the following from the classification section:

Dilophosaurus may be a primitive member of the clade containing both ceratosaurian and tetanuran theropods.

The clade containing both Ceratosauria and Tetanurae is Averostra, which was named by Paul (2002). I could not find evidence that researchers assigned Dilophosaurus to Averostra and therefore I could not support inclusion of the above statement.

The material assigned to Dilophosaurus has been assessed in over a dozen different studies and the following is a summary of the results that I gathered:

• assigned to Coeluridae by Welles (1970)
• assigned to Podokesauridae by Russell (1984) and Carroll (1988)
• assigned to Halticosaurinae by Paul (1988)
• assigned to Halticosauridae by Welles (1984), Chatterjee (1987) and Hu (1993)
• assigned to Coelophysidae by Novas (1991), Novas (1992) and Paul (1993)
• assigned to Ceratosauria by Gauthier (1986), Rowe (1989), Rowe and Gauthier (1990), Benton (1990) and Pérez-Moreno et al. (1994)
• assigned to Ceratosauridae by Knoll et al. (1999)
• assigned to Neotheropoda by Rauhut (2003) and Yates (2005)
• assigned to Coelophysoidea by Holtz (1994), Sereno (1997), Sereno (1998), Sereno (1999), Holtz (2000), Carrano and Sampson (2004), Tykoski and Rowe (2004), Carrano et al. (2005), Naish and Martill (2007), Ezcurra and Novas (2007), Ezcurra (2007), Ezcurra and Cuny (2007) and Carrano et al. (2012).

It appears that the consensus over the years, and of late (2007-2012) is that this genus is a coelophysoid. Five other studies from the 80s and 90s assigned Dilophosaurus to Ceratosauria. This is noteworthy and will be included on the article page as an alternative classification.

Consensus based on sources older than 10 years or so is pretty useless when it comes to phylogeny, as the older the study, the less relevant taxa could have been included. For instance, no studies before 2003 could have included Zupaysaurus or Dracovenator which are very similar and usually clade with Dilophosaurus. Most early studies did not code Dilophosaurus and "D. sinensis separately, if they coded sinensis at all. As Mortimer notes on The Theropod Database, though, studies finding dilophosaurs closer to tetanurans only weakly find them outside coelophysoidea, so this is not a certain outcome. So they may form a grade ancestral to both tetanurans and ceratosaurs, with some lcoser to coelophyoids, with some as true coelophysoids, tetanurans, and ceratosaurs, and where Dilophosaurus itself falls is therefore highly uncertain without better studies of related taxa.

Note that most workers who find dilophosaurs as averostrans will not explicitly refer them to that clade by name as many workers are reluctant to recognize clades based on apomorphies, as most of Paul's 2002 names are, and Paul used this clade as a synonym for what most people call Neotheropoda anyway. Ezcurra & Cuny (2007) re-defined Averostra as Allosaurus + Ceratosaurus but this doesn't seem to have been widely adopted. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

D. sinensis is now a synonym of Sinosaurus

According to this paper, apparently: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-013-5765-7 So relevant material should be moved there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many sections?

Anyone agree that several of the subsections should be merged? Single sentences and short paragraphs do not warrant sections. It also makes the article much longer, without any additional content. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm thinking of putting the history section before description, which has become customary in dinosaur articles, but I think the ichnology section is too confusing for most readers to move before description. So I wonder where I should leave the ichnology section, after description, or even after classification? Jens Lallensack, maybe you have input, as our track expert? FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is difficult. The ichnology section is basically about ichnotaxonomy and the question what tracks might be assignable to the genus, so it naturally belongs to the "History of discovery" section (although that section is only partly about history, but very much about taxonomy). However, it is really of secondary importance, and should not come too early. It should definitely come before Paleobiology, since that section also has quite a bit about tracks. Maybe have the ichnology section as a main section on its own and place it before (or after?) the Systematics section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I also thought of making it its own section. I'll do that and put it after classification, because the subsequent paleobiology section is also related to interpretation of the tracks to some extent. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hopi snake dance, note tridactyl track motifs on their costumes

• And speaking of tracks and long sections, I just expanded the culture section[3] after finding what I thought was a really interesting source that discussed the Dilophosaurus fossils and attributed tracks in the context of Native American culture, mainly Navajo. I may have gone overboard, but I think it's more interesting than the usual pop culture crud. What do you think, Jens Lallensack, is it undue weight? I thought you might find it interesting, as you are interested in tracks, but also in myths it seems. After reading the source I summarised here, I found some photos of Hopi tridactyl track decorations on costumes, very interesting, and the idea that they are based on observed dinosaur tracks is pretty cool. Of course, all these tracks are not relevant to Dilophosaurus itself, but pretty much all Early Jurassic theropod tracks have been attributed to Dilophosaurus after all, and those are in the areas these peoples lived... FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Highly interesting, thanks for that! I only wonder if the last paragraph is maybe too convoluted. A lot of different things are put together there, subjects change suddenly, making it a bit difficult to read. Maybe it would help to put the info into strict chronological order to get a common thread? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering whether splitting the last part of the last paragraph off into a new paragraph, since it is mainly about the controversy over the Arizona state dinosaur and the illegal removal from the reservation? And another thing, I wonder if those last paragraphs should be first in the culture section, as they seem more "significant"? On the other hand, the Jurassic Park appearance is probably what most readers would be looking for first. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Geekgecko, this[4] edit of yours was reverted. It appears most of the info you added was already present in the article, so please check for that when you add text to articles so we avoid redundancies. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, correct me if I'm wrong but is there any mention of the fact that Dilophosaurus is not actually known from CT despite being adopted as the symbol, but that it's so well-ingrained that the track makers are still referred to as "dilophosaurids" in other literature? I had seen the relevant section under Cultural Significance but I still added that info since I didn't see it and thought it was worth mentioning. I also thought a mention of the McMenamin (2021) study was valuable as it indicates at least one large theropod present in the region was not actually Dilophosaurus, although apparently it is not thought to be the Eubrontes track-maker. Geekgecko (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It specifically states a couple of times that this is based on the tracks, and where body fossils of the actual genus itself are actually found is also stated. But I haven't seen a source that specifically states no body fossils are found in Connecticut, but I assume this is because it goes without saying, given the two former points. Note there's an entire section about assigned tracks already. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dilophosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504013424/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dilophosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lusotitan (talk · contribs) 01:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like too try my hand at this review; it's my first one, but having participating in reviewing Achelousaurus for FA I feel confidant enough to try a GA review. That said, January is a busy month for me, so I apologize if I'm a bit slow initially. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah it should be fine, I'm sure you know what a GA looks like by now... The intention is also FAC later. FunkMonk (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a random comment, but I noticed D. breedorum is not mentioned in the taxonbox as a synonym, and I couldn't find anything on it in the text. If it is in the Discovery section I would suggest it was placed chronologically below the Dilophosaurus naming paragraph. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed it; since it is a nomen nudum, it is not a valid name, and is therefore not even valid as a synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it shouldn't be italicized in the article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 13:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Gay 2005 italicizes it (keeping it in parenthesis), though, in the only peer reviewed article I know of that even mentions the name. Can't say whether that's incorrect or not. Mortimer doesn't italicize it, though, so even though it's "just" a blog, I could maybe go by that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point is it's not a valid scientific name and so it shouldn't be italicized; nomina nuda usually aren't. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, along with some things brought up here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Any news on this, Lusotitan? Elasmosaurus is soon passed at FAC, so I'd like to get this one ready in time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll probably start tomorrow afternoon, after last exam is over. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

For some reason in the days since I reserved it I've lost all the drive to do this, is it possible to revoke reviewer status? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Too busy? Would it help if you got more time? It should be possible to ask an admin to reset it at the GA talk page.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dilophosaurus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Will start reading soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Starting with the description part …

The description part is mostly based on the old description of Welles. It would add to the article to synchronize it with a more recent description (e.g., Tykoski and Rowe, 2004). Some problems that appeared:

• The use of the term "pectoral vertebrae" is slightly problematic. According to the review of Tykoski and Rowe, 2004, p. 55: "Welles (1984) labeled the tenth cervical and first four dorsal vertebrae in Dilophosaurus as pectorals, recognized by the position of the parapophysis straddling the neurocentral suture. This convention has not been widely adopted, and we divide the theropod presacral series into only cervical and dorsal regions".

I changed the numbers according to your quote, does it look right? And added a citation to Tykoski/Rowe, though I don't have it... FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Also, it appears questionable to state that sacral vertebrae are "dorsal vertebrae between the hips", as dorsal vertebrae are defined to be presacrals.

I've cut out the parenthesis, the text makes it clear the sacrals run the length of the ilium, so that should indicate their position to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Tykoski and Rowe (2004) question that there are only four sacrals in Dilophosaurus and Liliensternus, stating that this was based on "subadult or incomplete individuals".

I've cut the number out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• The description lists many features with are typical for many basal theropods (e.g., shape of the atlas, posterior excavations of the cervical centra). It would be nice to know which of these are really characteristic, or even autapomorphic, for this genus.

Here again the age of the paper is probably a problem. Maybe I should add a sentence that sums up what actually distinguishes Dilophosaurus, as I recently added at the end of the description of Nemegtomaia? Though there seem to be at least two or three recent diagnoses, which are not entirely consistent, if I recall correctly... Or maybe it's better to just note which features are unique whenever they are mentioned, as in other articles, since Nemegtomatia doesn't have multiple sections in the description, and maybe isn't a good model for this much longer one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now stressed when a feature is unique (which only appears to be a handful). FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• According to Tykoski and Rowe: "In Dilophosaurus, serrations are on at least the second and third premaxillary teeth but absent on the fourth (Welles 1984)". This appears to be an interesting feature not occuring in related genera, and could be added.

Added. Welles describes the teeth in a pretty confusing way, I found. And his writing is generally a bit convoluted, so it was sometimes hard to consolidate different statements from different parts of the paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Other comments/questions:

• Hindwards and below, the premaxilla formed a wall for a gap between itself and the maxilla called the subnarial gap – I don't fully understand the formulation. What does "formed a wall" mean? How do the terms "gap" relate to the absence of teeth? It does not become clear what the difference between the "gap" and the "pit" actually is.

I find Welles a bit convoluted on this, but it seems the pit is within the gap. As for "wall", I think "border" could be a better way of saying it, but I wonder if that would be veering too far from the source? I'll quote Welles on this here (p. 144), maybe you can make more sense of it: "Posteroventraly it forms wall for the gap and pit between it and the maxilla (herein termed the subnarial gap and pit). The gap is formed by the failure of the premaxilla to meet the maxilla on the side of the face, by 23 mm, and the pit is a deep excavation inside the gap that is formed equally by the two bones. The pit lies entirely behind the premaxillary tooth row, and is walled medially by a downward plate from the posteromedial process, the ventral keel of the premaxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at the sources – I am quite sure that the "gap" only refers to the gap in the upper tooth row, the absence of teeth. "Pit" is referring to the indent which is formed by the anterior border of the maxilla and the ventral border of the lateral surface of the premaxilla; both borders form an acute angle. And "wall" means this medial sheet of bone of the premaxilla which, in lateral view, lies behind the pit. Are you sure with your wording also termed a "kink", "notch", or diastema? The gap is a diastema, yes, but "kink" and "notch" I think might be rather other terms for the nubnarial pit? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure "subnarial gap" (according to Welles) is just the gap between the premaxilla and maxilla; in the 2000 Ceratosaurus paper, the gloss says "subnarial gap - gap between the premaxilla and the maxilla on the side of the face", and Welles 1984 has a similar gloss. Note that it doesn't mention the teeth. The gloss then says " subnarial pit - cavity inside the subnarial gap, extending into the premaxilla and the maxilla". So how I read it, these are two features, the first of which results in a gap in the tooth row, and the other is an extension within the subnarial gap, which seems to be visible on this image[7]. But I can see Tykoski/Rowe say "This relationship creates a subnarial gap, or diastema, in the upper tooth row", which may be why things are muddled. I'm inclined to go with Welles, who seems to have invented the term "subnarial gap", though later authors seem to have imprecisely used the term as a synonym for diastema. As for the alternate terms, Paul says "It is odd how extreme the kink between the premaxilla and maxilla is". On the other hand, Naish says "a prominent notch in the upper jaw's toothrow". Therefore I have now separated the "notch" and diastema explanations to only explain the gap in the toothrow, though this may be too much interpretation on my part. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• The nasal process (backwards projection from the premaxilla) – "nasal process" does not necessarily refer to the premaxilla. Also, the premaxilla has two backwards projecting processes, one above the naris and one below. This could be a bit clearer.

Welles refers to the nasal process as singular in the section about the premaxilla (p. 144), so I wonder how to get around this? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What I meant is only a minor issue, as the reader may not know which of the two processes you are referring to. What about "The upper of the two backwards extending processes of the premaxilla was long and low, and formed most of the upper border of the elongated naris" or "The premaxilla had two posteriorly directed processes forming the anterior portion of the elongated naris; the upper process was long and low and also formed most of the upper border of the naris." or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I took your first option, though as noted below, Welles refers to the upper process as the "nasal process", while Tykoski/Rowe refers to the lower one as the "premaxillary process", but not sure whether this is just due to overall different terminology, or different terms for each process. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Tykoski and Rowe actually refer to the lower process as the premaxillary process, so I guess each has its own name after all? FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Seen from below, the premaxilla had an oval area that contained alveoli (tooth sockets). – As the premaxilla usually containes teeth, better write "contained the alveoli". Maybe "The underside of the premaxilla containing the alveoli (tooth sockets) was oval"?

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Would be nice to know how much the nasal and lacrimal are contributing to the crest, respectively. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the only specimen preserving crests has never been described (apart from in a short diagnosis by Caranno and co. 2012, a full description is presumably in the works by Padian, who requested that Tykoski did not describe the crest in 2005), it is not possible to say yet where the sutures lie... Unless we dig up Stephan Pickering's obscure article[8]... FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I guess the main problem here is that I seem to have overlooked the existence/significance of Tykoski and Rowe, 2004... Do you have it digitally? FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It does seem Tykoski/Rowe 2004 was once quoted in the article[9], but not for any actual info, it was just placed after a citation for Tyskoski 2005, and a sentence about that paper... So it may have been removed when I started cleaning up citations, there was a lot of redundant stuff not attached to any unique info... FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tykoski and Rowe, and the other reviews of the book, are very valuable as sources as they put the old description into modern context. In my opinion it is always good to state something like "Uniquely for this genus …" or "as in the related …" or "as in other basal theropods …", as this is important information. I sent it to you per mail! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing now with the review (more comments later):

• Link to hypodigm does not lead to an article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed, and I think it's sufficiently explained in the parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The second paragraph in the section "Motion" is a bit hard to follow.

• They found that Dilophosaurus would have been able to hold its humerus almost parallel with its scapula, but not more horizontal than that. – I didn't read the paper, but is is possible to formulate it more clearly and readable for laypeople? Like "They found that Dilophosaurus would have been able to stretch its arm so that the humerus is almost in-line with the scapula, although the humerus couldn't be elevated beyond this point" or something similar?

The source says this: "In these taxa, the humerus can retract to a position nearly parallel with the scapula, but cannot protract further than a subvertical position". Maybe I've "translated" the last part wrong, what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this way around, got it. But I don't understand your wording "but not more horizontal than that"; when pulled backwards to a subparallel position with the scapula, it would already been more than horizontal? What about "Dilphosaurus would have been able to draw its humerus backwards until it was almost parallel with the scapula, but could not move it forwards to a more than vertical orientation" --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Took your wording, my reasoning was that "parallel with the scapula" was basically the same as "a subvertical position". FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• It reads like the authors are contradicting themselves in the two studies cited. The elbow could approach full extension, but not achieve it completely, and not flex at a right angle. and the elbow would have been close to a right angle – how to make sense of this?

The first source says "the elbow can approach but not achieve full extension and right-angle flexion" and the second says "the resting orientation of the elbow is close to a right angle and the resting orientation of the wrist is such that the hand exhibits only slight ulnar deviation from the antebrachium". So I assume the confusion is because my wording seems to preclude the right angle flexion entirely, so I've reworded that. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• In 1984 Welles interpreted the fact that three individuals were found closely together, and the presence of criss-crossed trackways nearby, as indications that Dilophosaurus traveled in groups.[2] Gay agreed that they may have traveled in small groups, but noted that there was no direct evidence for this, and that flash floods could have picked up scattered material from different individuals and deposited them together. – It is slightly confusing that you first talk about evidence from tracks, and in the second sentence apparently about evidence from body fossils (it is not possible to wash together footprints). Did somebody suggest that Dilophosaurus traveled in groups based on body fossils? If yes, I would add it here. If not, there is no need to reject a claim that has not been made, so maybe just delete that last part of the sentence?

Welles used the closely associated fossils (see beginning of sentence) and tracks as evidence, but Gay rejected the body fossils as evidence, I've clarified that by saying "bones" instead of "fossils", better? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issues apparent in the remainder of the article, great stuff. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed some issues, but also left some questions where I'm unsure. I'll look for what I can add from the sources you sent me now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Now it should be ready for check... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I answered the questions, rest looks good! One more thing: Weems did not suggest a quadrupedal locomotion for the Culpeper Quarry tracks; only 10 impressions were identified as manus impressions (with manual digits in an habitually hyperextended position, as speculated by Weems), and these were thought to have been made when the animal stopped; Weems stated that the trackmaker was fully bipedal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed two issues above and added a question. As for Weems, are you sure? He specifically says "The manus prints associated with Kayentapus suggest that the manual digits normally were hyperextended during quadrupedal walking", "if the fingers of the manus were held in this position while walking in quadrupedal pose, Dilophosaurus would have made manus prints of only its metacarpal pads", and "this was not an unusual behavior for these dinosaurs while resting on their front feet. Rather, this was their normal method of quadrupedal progression.". FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looks very good now, I'm going to pass it quickly. As for the Culpeper quarry tracks, Weems 2006 writes on page 370: "Fewer than ten examples of manus prints were found associated with the thousands of pes prints of Kayentapus minor at this site. These were invariably associated with short segments within trackways where an animal either slowed (as indicated by abnormally short pace lengths) or came to a full stop and dropped onto all four feet." and "Within the twenty trackway segments documented on the lower level, only two stopping and/or slowing points with manus prints were found in trackway K-2 […] The sarcity of these prints indicates that the track maker of Kayentapus minor normally was a bipedal animal that dropped onto four feet only occasionally when it was progressing very slowly, standing still, or resting." So stating that the Culpeper trackmaker was quadrupedal is perhaps too much. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And thanks back! I will send this to FAC now, bit I'm still a bit confused about the Weems issue. So he is not saying the trackway itself shows quadrupedal locomotion, but uses it to demonstrate that theropods could theoretically move quadrupedally in the way he describes? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I can only find this statement, Jens Lallensack, but it doesn't seem to rule out quadrupedal locomotion: "The scarcity of these prints indicates that the track maker of Kayentapus minor normally was a bipedal animal that dropped onto four feet only occasionally when it was progressing very slowly, standing still, or resting." To me, it seems that the tracks in question are the exception he mentions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for taking ages to respond. You are right, I partly misread your sentence, it is basically correct as you are referring to a single trackway from a quarry. But still, I perhaps would have stated that Weems thinks it was only able to move quadrupedally when moving very slowly, and that this would be rather the exception. There are some other bits on the ichnology part that I miss – am I allowed to add a bit? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course! FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Per our guideline on words to watch on Wikipedia, it is frowned upon to cast doubt on assertions by using words such as "claim" for them. Neutral verbs such as "say" and "state" are preferred. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please use some variation instead of just writing the same word ("said") over and over, we also have to think about good writing. Subpar writing will be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Subpar writing is using incorrect, controversial, and unnecessary words instead of correct words. If you think there should be variation (which I don't personally see the need for) then fix it yourself instead of blind-reverting into a subpar article version that is not neutral and in violation of our policies. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There are 314 instances of "was" in this article. Is that something you object to as well? "said" and "say" are normal and common English words, they are natural to repeat often, and appear abundantly in all kinds of articles with no objections. Where is the policy/guideline that mandates variation in this regard? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but "claim" in a perfect word to use here, simply because evidence for paleobiological hypotheses tends to be weak, and we have to make sure to add ambiguity to the information. The word is especially useful when discussing controversial ideas or ones that have been refuted by others. WP:Claim says you should be careful with using these words, bu that doesn't mean they are forbidden. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Noting" and "pointing out" can indicate instances when a reference is made to data that are uncontentious within a certain scientific discourse. The argumentative structure of the statements by a certain scientist then is dependent on that status. In such cases, replacing the terms with "said" would make the scientific debate unintelligible to the reader.--MWAK (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the word "was" is not comparable at all, since it does not have any relevant synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

These subject matter experts are making good comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7821:500:89E5:393B:60D6:5436 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wording

Where you say "a distinct feature of this dinosaur" (Description, 2nd para) I think you mean "distinctive". The latter word is a stronger form which implies the feature is seldom if ever found elsewhere. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, did the change. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Head height?

The "Cultural significance" section claims that the true head height of Dilophosaurus is about 3 meters (10 ft), but the diagram in the Description section, which depicts the largest specimen along with a smaller one next to a human figure, shows that the animal was no taller at the head than the average human (i.e. ~1.7-1.8 meters), which incidentally would make the Jurassic Park dilophosaur being a subadult much more convincing. Which one is right? MarqFJA87 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The JP making of source is just informal, not scientific; we can't know what an exact head height would be anyway, since it depends on the pose of the animal and its neck. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

New paleoart

We need new paleoart to reflect the new evidence--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What new evidence? The shape of the crest is still unknown, and most of the new material described has no impact on external appearance. Brian Engh just tried out an alternate hypothetical shape for the crests in his restorations, but this is all we have to go by:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The link seems broken Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the skull reconstruction at the bottom of this article:[11] All those skull elements have been known since the 1960s. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The new discovery has impact as it shows the animal to be much bulkier and larger--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Again, most of what is known of Dilophosaurus has been known since at least the 1960s, the bones didn't suddenly become larger over time. The only new bones described in the study seem to be leg and hip elements, not exactly something that would change its overall appearance. That Brian Engh[12] has chosen to reconstruct the crest a certain shape and give it some kind of display feature on the throat is just artistic license on his part. But the basic features don't differ much from the restorations we already have. I don't see how this[13] restoration shows it less robust than his, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is Engh's more schematic drawing[14], doesn't seem to differ much from the 7 m estimate we already mention and show in the article. He seems to have drawn the visible eyeball as filling out the entire eye socket, leaving no room for the sclerotic ring (only the part of the eye within the inner diameter of the ring should be visible in life), which is inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually another point I wanted to make is that Dilos crest is now an expansion of the antorbital fenestra (as the study uses Brians artwork to demonstrate). The subnarial notch seen in most restorations has been heavily exagarated by damage done to the specimen, acoording to the paper and the resotorations of the skull in the paper is seen as much more broad and is no more a quick debit like in Spinosaurs. I get your critisms of the new restorations being less thin and more thick and the seclerotic ring being too large (that ones a big miss on Brians part) but the new restorations show these other features that had never been properly examined before.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's good to list some specific issues so they can be evaluated. I need to summarise the redescription at some point for this article, by then it would be easier to discuss. I'm not sure I see any difference in the subnarial gap that would be visible in life glancing at Engh's drawings. It appears that he doesn't draw the gap as going all the way up to the nostril, and that's probably the pathological part, but that's not shown in any life restorations either. It does seem he reconstructs the crests a bit more inset in relation to for example the maxilla, but that's also something that probably wouldn't have been visible in life if the area was filled out with some sort of soft tissue as he indicates. But some of our restorations may be a bit problematic in showing a sort of "bridge" dividing the maxilla from the crests, could perhaps be fixed. The main differences I see are that the little spike at the back of the crests is reconstructed as extensions of the lacrimal bones, which appears inconsistent with some of our restorations, such as this one[15], but I'll have to read the paper closer to see how solid that identification is. Engh also seems to show the back of the mandible as somewhat deeper than in older reconstructions, not sure what that's based on. As is, I'm sure this is not the last word on the shape and construction of the crest, since it is so badly preserved. I think this is[16] our most accurate restoration of the animal, though the visible teeth are of course debatable. We might want to modify the mouth area accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I also agree That this image needs some modification. He's getting the deeper from this passage I believe, this is from the paper-"The subnarial gap was originally conceptualized as a ligamentous articulation in Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Welles,1984). This is one of the characters used to unite Dilophosauruswith coelophysoids (Welles, 1984; Rowe and Gauthier, 1990;Tykoski and Rowe, 2004). Owing to the close articulation of the premaxillae to one another and the robust, interlockingarticulation of the anteromedial process of the maxilla to themaxillary process of the premaxilla, this joint was strong and immobile. We note that the subnarial gap is now known to be present in other dinosaurs, including coelophysoids (Raath,1977; Colbert, 1989; Rowe, 1989), Tawa hallae (Nesbitt et al.,2009b), Eoraptor lunensis Sereno et al., 1993 (Sereno et al.,2012), and some heterodontosaurids (Sereno, 2012)."--Bubblesorg (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a section about this could be created at WP:Dinoart. As far I can see, the things that need modifications are mainly features of the crests (the spikes at the back should come from the lacrimal bones, there should be no border between the maxilla and the crests), with perhaps some addition of lips. I'm not sure the rest of the body is really changed with the new description. Also, there does not seem to be any difference in how the subnarial gap is reconstructed, they only state it did not result in as weak jaws as previously thought. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, do you want to start it or should it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, I started summarising a bit from the paper's description, which is why I got a clearer idea what it says about the subnarial gap. I'll probably get a clearer idea about what it says about the crest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've now summarised the most important stuff from the redescription. There isn't really much that would change our ideas of life appearance, other than the "spikes" at the back of the crest seem to be interpreted as just being the broken bases of the rest of the crest (which many of our restorations already show). But it is of course only an interpretation that those spikes wouldn't be there, we won't know until a complete crest is found. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since the redescription was recently given a CC license, I've updated the imagery accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)