Talk:Muttaburrasaurus

earlier comments

Why is this image so dark? The duplicate image on Commons [1] is so much brighter. My only guess is that when the image was resized, it was also darkened considerably. On my monitor, this image is hardly viewable.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. If the darker version exists on Wiki and lighter on commons, both with the smae name, whoever uploaded it will have to re-upload the brighter version to wiki.Dinoguy2 01:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've sent a message to the original uploader. Hopefully, we'll get a response. He does appear to still be active (last message was a few days ago).--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work 'behind the scenes'. - Ballista 07:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to re-upload the image, and answer comments on the talk pages, without any success for the past couple of days. If this edit works, I will try re-uploading the image yet again. Figaro 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The brighter image has now been successfully uploaded. Figaro 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Figaro! Much better.Dinoguy2 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Smart! Thanks - Ballista 03:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New 'Popular culture' entry query

I wondered why the use of the word 'would', in this new entry in the 'Popular culture' section:

"A Muttaburrasaurus character would also be featured in the third "The Land Before Time" sequel."

I'm not 'up' in TV/film stuff, so don't know if this is referring to past viewing or possible future viewing. - Ballista 04:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm........not sure. have to look on the tapes.....I have them somewhere.......Cas Liber 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this [2], it refers to the character "Mutt". FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To make it more clear, it should be "would later be" not "would also be," though I would question the notability of this entry at all. What's the relevance to the topic of Muttaburrasaurus? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Muttaburrasaurus so pop?--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that it is so poular because of the fact that it has a large nose, and if you've watched Walking With Dinosaurs, it makes a very interesting sound from that nose.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumb spike?

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Muttaburrasaurus outside of Ankylopollexia? Does it even have a thumb spike? Albertonykus (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell that one has been found; GSP includes one in his life restoration, but not in the preserved bones in the skeletal in the Field Guide. J. Spencer (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Complete" skeleton and the skull

An IP editor recently changed the wording of this article to assert that a complete skeleton of Muttaburrasaurus was discovered by John Stewart-Moore and Robert Walker on Dunluce Station in 1987. The Dinosauria states that no complete skeleton of Muttaburrasaurus has been discovered; just a "fragmentary postcranial skeleton" and skulls; and this site paints the discovery in a different light, with the original discoverers using the skull (no mention of a skeleton) as a doorstop. For now, I am reverting, unless there are sources which confirm that there was more than the skull in the 1987 discovery. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dunluce Skull"

Are there any images available of this skull?142.176.114.76 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Muttaburrasaurus Langdoni

Correct name for this fossil is Muttaburrasaurus Langdoni. Please use the correct name for future reference to it. It is very demeaning to not include the name of the man that discovered this fossil as it is the most complete and only one discovered in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.199.9 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)