Talk:Plateosaurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

clarify

"to which gives its name"? doesn't make sense.

Image caption

I believe the image that we have in the taxobox is in fact from Münchenstein in Switzerland. Does anyone know for sure? I have asked the photographer & await response. - Ballista 06:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I now have the definitive answer, from the photographer: "Hi Ballista, this picture definitely is from Switzerland, and the picture was taken in the de:Grün 80 park. This park is located near Basel. I visit this park every other week or so... regards, --Keimzelle 17:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)" so shall alter caption accordingly - Ballista 05:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"desert-like land"?

"The natural environment of Plateosaurus was desert-like land in Europe." We should be able to clarify more exactly here what is meant by this "desert-like" environment, and/or to link to an article on such an environment. -- Writtenonsand 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I was perplexed by this sentence but was leaving it until I looked into it a bit more before deleting off-hand.Cas Liber 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good point. We could elaborate, within the article but, for now, I have linked to the Desert article. Howzat? - Ballista 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in the Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures by Ingrid Cranfield it states Large heards...underwent seasonal migrations during the dry season in search of water and also they were found in two deposits in germany of many skeletons and the theory is they died in flash floods. But no statement on the environment. How do we know? Enlil Ninlil 05:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

'Tis a matter for looking atthe original material where this was suggested and working it out whether it was a good deduction or not..Cas Liber 09:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sander 1992 details the taphonomy nicely - no flash floods, but miring in mud. I have seen too many skeletons in a resting position to believe anything else either. HMallison (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Plateosaurus engelhardti & P. longiceps

The demonstration that Plateosaurus longiceps is distinct from P. engelhardti is based on the data below:

1. engelhardti is more heavily built and quadrupedal than longiceps.

2. longiceps has a longer head, longer legs and arms, and a higher degree of bipedalism than engelhardti.

3. engehardti is known only from Bavaria, Germany, while longiceps is known from other areas of southern Germany, France, Switzerland, and Denmark. (OK, this is in now)Cas Liber 06:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

4. longiceps is lighter than engelhardti in terms of weight.

Cite?Dinoguy2 14:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is in Dinosauria 2nd Ed 2004, just hadn't gont round to this dino yet. Cas Liber 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Synonyms of Plateosaurus

Plateosaurus has gone in the past through eight generic synonyms: Dinosaurus Rütimeyer, 1856, Gresslyosaurus Rütimeyer, 1856, Dimodosaurus Pidancet & Chopard, 1862, Pachysaurus Huene, 1907-08, Pachysauriscus Kuhn, 1959, and Pachysaurops Huene, 1961. However, research by Peter Galton in 2001 showed that these genera are nomina dubia. Gresslyosaurus Rütimeyer, 1856 (incl. Dinosaurus Rütimeyer, 1856 [pre-occupied Fischer de Waldheim, 1847]) has been re-instated by Moser (2003) and should be placed in a separate page. The type species is Gresslyosaurus gresslyi (Rütimeyer, 1856) [originally Dinosaurus] (Gresslyosaurus ingens Rütimeyer, 1856 is a synonym).

Moser, 2003. Plateosaurus engelhardti Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha) aus dem Feuerletten (Mittelkeuper; Obertrias) von Bayern. Zitteliana B 24, 3-186.

Mortimer (2006, online) recovered Gresslyosaurus as the sister taxon to Plateosaurus, found Sellosaurus to be more primitive than Gresslyosaurus or Plateosaurus, and demonstrated Efraasia, Plateosauravus, and Ruehlia to be outside Plateosauridae. The phylogenetic and taxonomic status of Dimodosaurus and Pachysaurus (incl. Pachysauriscus and Pachysaurops) is yet to be resolved.

Mortimer, M., 2006. http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Nontheropods cladogram test.html

For these reasons, update the Plateosaurus page. 72.194.116.63 15:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demrijian 07.35 20 February 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Plateosaurus is the new collab with 6 votes

Nominated 7th May, 2007;

Support:

1. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Dropzink 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
4. ArthurWeasley 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Dinoguy2 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6. M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• A triassic prosauropod about which a stack has been written. On the con side, there ain't much in the article yet...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've been wanting the group to work on this one for quite some time. We have no prosauropod articles that are in good shape (which, I imagine, is partially because the scientific status of the group is messy right now), but a good collaboration could fix many of the problems with this overly short article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, Platy is a good idea! Dropzink 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, a triassic dinosaur for a change. ArthurWeasley 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have much in the way of papers here, but it's a tripple threat--loads of info/studies, prosauropod (unrepresented group), and Triassic (unrepresented time period). Also the most well-known member of its group to the general public. Dinoguy2 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Phylogeny

There are basically two phylogenies for early sauropodomorphs. There's Yates (paraphyletic Prosauropoda), and then there's Upchurch/Galton (somewhat more monophyletic Prosauropoda).

References

If anybody can get their hands on this, that would be magical.

• Upchurch, P., Barrett, P.M., and Galton, P.M. 2007. A phylogenetic analysis of basal sauropodomorph relationships: implications for the origin of sauropod dinosaurs; pp. 57-90 in Barrett, P.M. and Batten, D.J. (eds.), Evolution and Palaeobiology of Early Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77. Palaeontological Association, London. (Upchurch/Galton phylogeny)
• Barrett, P.M., and Upchurch, P. 2007. The evolution of feeding mechanisms in early sauropodomorph dinosaurs; pp. 91-112 in Barrett, P.M. and Batten, D.J. (eds.), Evolution and Palaeobiology of Early Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77. Palaeontological Association, London.
• Bonnan, M., and Senter, P. 2007. Were the basal sauropodomorph dinosaurs Plateosaurus and Massospondylus habitual quadrupeds?; pp. 139-155 in Barrett, P.M. and Batten, D.J. (eds.), Evolution and Palaeobiology of Early Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77. Palaeontological Association, London.
• Bone histology and growth of the prosauropod dinosaur Plateosaurus engelhardti von Meyer, 1837 from the Norian bonebeds of Trossingen (Germany) and Frick (Switzerland). By N. KLEIN and P.M SANDER <-- from the same volume

Other stuff:

• Yates, A.M. (2007). Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of _Aliwalia rex_ Galton. Historical Biology. (for the most recent Yates phylogeny... ask Sheep for this if you need it)
• Yates 2003. The species taxonomy of the sauropodomorph dinosaurs from the Lowenstein Formation (Norian, Late Triassic) of Germany. Palaeontology. (species taxonomy... ask Sheep for it)
• Prosauropod chapter in the Dinosauria II
• Moser, M. 2003. _Plateosaurus engelhardti_ Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha) aus dem Feuerletten (Mittelkeuper; Obertrias) von Bayern. _Zitteliana_ B 24, 3-186. (monograph on P. engelhardti... hard to find, in German, and 183 pages long... don't ask Sheep for this one see here)
• Galton 2000 - redescription of type
• Galton 2001 - species taxonomy (abstract here)
• others... please add here

Taxonomy

For the person who has too much time on their hands: scroll to Plateosaurus. Going to the Paleobiology Database and searching on Plateosaurus is also useful. How the names all relate to each other, and the various permutations they've gone through, baffle even the most detail-oriented. J. Spencer 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Plateosaurus engelhardti

Does Moser (2003) recognize as valid only P. engelhardti? I read that the supposed differences between P. engelhardti and P. longiceps are due to diagenesis.

Moser M. 2003. Plateosaurus engelhardti Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha) aus 125 dem Feuerletten (Mittelkeuper, Obertrias) von Bayern. Zitteliana B 24: 188.72.194.116.63 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 16.21 26 July 2007

Comparison to Coelophysis - why?

"The skull of Plateosaurus was deeper than that of Coelophysis — i.e. a stronger, deeper head than most prosauropods". Coelophysis was a theropod, not a prosauropod. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery & History needs more/better information

Insufficient and incorrect information on where (France!) and how much material has been found, and what it has been assigned to. Especially the remark on Frick is misleading (there was much stuff found much earlier, see Sander 1992). Various very important publications with helpful data are not cited (Sander 1992, Huene 1926, etc.), which contain important taphonomic and osteological as well as behavioural information. I can update this soon. Please list here what I should also include, while I'm at it.

Huene, F. v. 1926 Vollständige Osteologie eines Plateosauriden aus dem schwäbischen Keuper. Geologische und palaeontologische Abhandlungen -- n. F., Bd. 15, Heft 2 Sander, P.M. 1992 The Norian Plateosaurus bonebeds of central Europe and their taphonomy. PPP 93:255-299

HMallison (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"to-do" list of outdated and missing stuff, errors, inaccuracies and so on

I am preparing a major re-write at mid-September to bring everythig up to date. Please add anything else I should include

- Spezies: Sellosaurus gracilis was moved by to P. gracilis by Yates ?2003. Galton's work that retains P. engelhardti and P. longiceps is somewhat problematic; many researchers do not agree (e.g., Sander 1992; Moser 2003; Mallison 2007) and view P. longiceps as a junior synonym. Therefore, the article presents a consensus that isn't there.

- Description: mass given is much too small, the body is not front-heavy at all (Mallison 2007), source for cheek pouches is missing (?Paul)

- Discovery...: history of Trossinen and Halberstadt excavations is very short and superficial. Frick info grossly incomplete. French finds at Poligny not mentioned.

- missing references (aside from those mentioned above): * Meyer 1837, original description is not linked at first mention, but only later.

- Species: the taxonomy is murderously complex, and thus not really suited for wikipedia, but Moser 2003 should be referenced. He details it all. Also, as above, there is no "two species" consensus, and Sellosaurus gracilis is no more.

- Paleoecology: special taphonomy is detailed in Sander 1992, along with history of interpretations. Statistics shows nicely that finds are not a herd (i.e., not extinction event).

- Posture...: why should the mass suggest quadrupedality? T. rex is heavier and nobody want that beast on all fours. Recent work (Mallison 2007 etc.) should be mentioned.

- Popular culture: there is a mount of an original in Halberstadt (Museum Heineanum).

HMallison (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose we could make an article like Species of Plateosaurus to deal with the taxonomy. It would be a hair-puller, though. J. Spencer (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I always wanted to work on this article, getting it more in line with Massospondylus, but was always scared off by the history, junior synonymy, etc. I'm thrilled that someone with an expert background will be working on this article. The Classification section right now is rather anemic, and should be expanded to include relationships among the members of Plateosauridae. Also: Meyer 1837, is first referenced at the correct place: at the first mention in the body of the text (we try to keep references out of the lede, per Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations). I'm here to help where needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

* alright, me stupid :) citiation is indeed correct. I'll gladly yell for help, btw, so be warned ;)

I agree that relationships would be interesting - I might finally find out what they are! To be honest, it is a chaos, because so many of the beast are so extremely similar in the entire pelvis and the hindlimbs, as well as the dorsals.... so everything happens in the forelimbs, and this is where we appear to see an adaptive radiation. OUCH - there is no proper resolving this. Cranial characters I do not trust too much, because they are so highly dependent on biting forces. Again, if we see an adaptive radiation.... no clearing this mess up. Yates 2007 did a pretty good job, but Remes 2008 finds that manus pronation abilities comes in two forms, which are distributed wildly across Yates' tree. This does not really indicate that we have a good understanding of the phylogeny. Similarly, the "species of Plateosaurus" is indeed a minefield. In the Berlin cellars is material called 'Plateosaurus' that is probably either a Riojasaurus-like animal, or a very early sauropod. And then there is Ruehlia, and that lot. How about we clear the rest of this one here up, and then think about an extra part about the taxonomy?

Remes, K. (2008) Evolution of the pectoral girdle and forelimb in sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia): Osteology, myology and function. PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Yates, A. M. (2007) Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. – Historical Biology 18 (4): 1-31. HMallison (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plateosaurus quenstedti

I saw a specimen labeled as such at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin (have a picture of it), but this article has no mention of it. Is it just a synonym, and of what? FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's a synonym of P. engelhardti [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that too, but I'm not sure where it says it is the same as P. engelhardti? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In DinoData code, everything following >> is a synonym of the name/authority preceding the >>. Though, DinoData also seems to include P. longiceps as a synonym so maybe that doesn't help since this article treats them as separate species. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Further digging: Paleobio says it has been sunk into both, though I don't have the papers handy, so don't know if Galton 1984 considered longiceps distinct or not. [2] I'd refer to Galton 2001, which discusses the specimen, to suss it out. Have to see if I can get the paper later. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moser (2003) sinks them all into P. engelhardti, with good reason :) ATM, P. looks monospcific in the Knollenmergel, and the older Löwenstein Formation finds all go into one species, too, which Yates (2007) returned into P. as P. gracilis (formerly Sellosaurus), in parallel to Huene (?1946). So: two species, with distinct temporal distribution. I am busy re-writing the entire article right now, btw, discussing these assignments. HMallison (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronated hands on images

Mounted skeleton of Plateosaurus at the Ottoneum Museum of Natural Science in Kassel, Germany.

Mounted cast of a Plateosaurus engelhardti skeleton.

Plateosaurus trossingensis

Another issue with the article is that many of the skeletons (including infobox one) and one restoration show pronated hands. I will replace these soon, after the rewrite mentioned above is done, but I was thinking whether the first image on the right is within range? The hands face down, but the radius and ulna do not seem crossed. On the next image, the arms look fine, but it seems like the femurs are pushed so far back in relation to the hips as to be implausible (they would dislocate). Is it so?

If those images are removed, we are left with skull images only, but I found a new image, last one on the right, is it alright anatomically? The legs and hands look fine to me, and we don't have anything better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, where to start..... My publications still sit with the reviewers, one of whom disloacted his shoulder and cannot type.... Otherwise, things would be easy, and we can't have that.

Regarding image 1: this is nothing but the old SMNS mount, which got kicked out for the big special exhibition/exhibition re-design. The hands point down because - can you believe this? - radius and ulna have been EXCHANGED in the elbow. I kid you not: the radius is on the medial condyle and the ulna on the lateral! Which does flip the hand 180°.

Image 2: Can't tell from this perspective. I can point you to http://palaeo-electronica.pangaea.de/2009_2/185/fig_14.htm, though :) From here: http://palaeo-electronica.pangaea.de/2009_2/185/index.html

Image 3: This is AMNH 6810. Aside from the spreading metatarsus and metacarpus, this mount is fine (done under von Huene's supervision - I could title my pubs 'and Huene was right 1', '...2' and '...3' ;). It is P. engelhardti, btw, because P. is monospecific (Galton ?2001, Yates 2003, Moser 2003).

I can (later, once the papers are out) add better images, based on CT scans of GPIT1, the very best complete skeleton ever found. Yes, better than SMNS 13200, the 'de facto' holotype! See above linked image ;) Also, the Candian Museum of Nature and Science (or whatever) has a very nice new mount (guess whom they asked for advice ;)). I will try to get pics. Let's do this together! :) HMallison (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add, but I want to thank Mr. Mallison for his dedication to anatomical accuracy. Abyssal (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Really cool to have a professional on the project! Seems like the first image needs to be kicked out immediately, and I'll add the last one... I'll also see if I can find more images somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Go slow! I have very nice images of GPIT1 (the best specimen), as well as the new (erroneous, but better-than-most, Stuttgart models). Give me a few days and I can email them to you / upload them for editing, if that's OK. You can find my Email by googling me ;) I'd really appreciate help with the images!

@Abyssal: ;) If only ALL professionals would write about their area of expertise ;) Tx for all your contributions; we really need 'paleo nerds' here! So many fossils, so little time - what would we do without the 'wannabes'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMallison (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those images would be very appreciated! You can upload them here on Wikipedia, if you get trouble I'll help, and I can then transfer them to Wikimedia Commons where they will be usable for all language Wikipedias. By the way, I have this[3] picture of a prosauropod shin bone from Greenland (Jameson Land peninsula, there are also some tail bones) taken in a Danish museum, and I see that Plateosaurus has been found in Greenland in the provenance section, might it be that the shinbone is from Plateosaurus? The museum captions only say "prosauropod", but they have a Plateosaurus skull cast next to the fossils. Could be nice to have the bone image in the provenance section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger, wilco! Re Danish image: no can tell - the tib is not really the most telling bone anyways, and this one is not in that great a shape. I have repeatedly kicked the butts of the people working on this material, and the paper was supposed to be 'submitted' about 18 month ago, but so far the responsible curator has not heard of any submission (for permission of use), thus I suspect nothing will come of it. BTW: I love the new pics and their arrangement ;) I'll ask PalEl about using the fig I linked above, and about the coming stuff from the other papers. HMallison (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You say they're writing a paper about the Greenland material? Cool! I thought they were just old, forgotten scraps. I've sent you a mail with image license info, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's very good and new Greenland stuff. However, for some weird reason the people working on it dug out the old plantigrady idea again (Sullivan et al. 2003 A functional assessment of the foot structure in the prosauropod dinosaur Plateosaurus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(3):102A [SVP meeting abstracts]). As I said before: nothing new. Sullivan told me 'soon' this spring, but nothing has surfaced on Gilles Cuny's desk so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMallison (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

total revamp

Part 1 altered just now; note that the refs need formatting corrections (will do that), and that some are missing (there are placeholders in the text for now). I'll get this cleaned up tomorrow, and will then add part 2. HMallison (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

fixed the refs, added more to taxonomy. HMallison (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Part 2 (Taphonomy) added. Some stuff fixed in part 1.

• I know the refs need work (bolding of journal number not uniform, some italics shot), will fix.
• One pic is in the article twice; will fix that once replacement is available. HMallison (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking great. Could maybe become a featured article when done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work so far! Improved 1000% already. Definitely FAC material. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tx, guys!HMallison (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3 added. Rest of Paleobio next, then pop culture and a list of publicly exhibited skeletons and models.HMallison (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More added. Pop culture I will not touch. Metabolism needs a re-write, and taxonomy may have to have some stuff added. Aside from that:

• Please point out redundant passages (they are there) and other errors, so that I can fix that. Some redundancy may be necessary, alternatively, within-article links pointing to the relevant sections. HMallison (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FunkMonk, thanks a lot for your contributions! Now could you please rotate that AMNH front view image so that up is up? ;) HMallison (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image is rotated, might take some time before the thumbnail catches up... FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

yep, works fine now :) tx!HMallison (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:GAN is a good stepping stone to WP:FAC, looking good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd sentence alert - Initially, when the genus was poorly known, it was only included in Sauria, with the possibility of being any kind of reptile. - I know what it is getting at but comes out sounding odd. Needs rewording but an alternative doesn't spring to mind for me immediately. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks - I have read that sentence about a hundred times and got used to it. It is from the old article version, too. I'll give improving it a try.HMallison (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

and, btw, both you and FunkMonk: THANKS for cleaning up all the nonsense and wrong grammar that slipped into my yadda-yadda :)HMallison (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifth-oldest?

"Plateosaurus is the fifth oldest valid dinosaur genus, and the third still valid genus recognized to belong to Dinosauria," is sort of confusing. I couldn't tell if the naming of Plateosaurus or the age of the animal is what is meant here. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's from the old article, I need to check the lit on that before fixing it.HMallison (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Revamp to please reviewer

Please note that I did not edit the text beyond what's indicated in the edit summaries. If there are now any gaps, please fix.HMallison (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

image copyrights

Under German copyright laws, only the exterior, not the interior of museums, is in the public domain. While taking photographs inside is usually allowed when not using a tripod, and sometimes even when doing so, it is always explicitly forbidden (unless the museum expressly permits it) to use the images for anything but "private use". Releasing images for commercial use is not covered. Thus, I am removing all questionable images for now. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin has, to my certain knowledge, not released anything for use on wikipedia. HMallison (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This has been discussed before[4], fossils, and animals in genral, are not copyrightable under any laws. If some interior architecture is visible, this can simply be painted out of the relevant pictures, but I'm not sure such is covered by copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not true! See here: Talk:Diplodocus#image_copyrights Note that your link discusses US museums. last time I checked, Berlin was NOT in the US ;) HMallison (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Awright, I responded over there... FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what was wrong with the CG restoration of two Plateosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see in the alt text the fingers are too long, I'll give it a fix. FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious material

Firs, Dinosauria II was a great idea. I was racking my brain for more example to which I know a goor source - doh! If anybody has examples, please add them!HMallison (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The book is sitting in front of me, so I have no reason not to use it. :) There's an entire table of dubious names in that section which takes up most of a page. Also, thanks for the Agazzis pagination and your other fixes. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in scientific names

I know the GA reviewer recommended the use of non-breaking spaces ( ) in scientific names, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not appear to encourage their use in scientific names at WP:NBSP, and honestly, we haven't used them for scientific names anywhere else in our GAs, FAs, or run-of-the-mill articles. Is there any reason to believe that a reader would be confused by having a P. on one line followed by engelharti (or whatever) on the next? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this one. I can only speak for myself here: I HATE is when there is a X.

on one line, and the species name on the next. Especially when the text it not borken into short columns. The "." registers with my as a full stop, not as an abbreviation sign. it is not such a big problem with Plateosaurus

gracilis, when there is no "." at the end of the line. maybe it is time to alter the MOS? *wink* HMallison (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see where P. on one line and gracilis on the next can be confusing for readers, and am willing to support a change to the MOS if it is proposed, but I probably would not support non-breaking spaces in full scientific names. Dunno how anyone else feels. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll change thins here, and see what it looks like. HMallison (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never been bothered by linebreaks in species names or abbreviations, for whatever its worth. Abyssal (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

P. gracilis Yates, 2007

Shouldn't this actually be von Huene, 1908? Isn't the author of the original species name the one that should be credited? FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ouch, I'll have to have a look at that - but IIRC Huene suggested S. gracilis should be in P., but did not really make this a formal assignment. Thus we should then get P. gracilis (Huene, 1908)...... I'll check. HMallison (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry, forgot about this. (Huene 1907-08) is correct. HMallison (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Towards FA...

A question for HMallison as much as anyone...do we think this article is as comprehensive as can possibly be? If so it is merely a matter of copyedit, format and then FAC....? I am a veteran of the process so can help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The German version underwent a largely very fair and exhaustive review when it was considered for a commendation (which it got, level 'excellent'). Some of the process was, however, gruesome, unfair and quickly degenerated into an attempt to piss me off and insult me. I dealt back in kind (I admit), but even that part helped improve the article. Before anything is done with the English version I want to finish implementing according changes here. That is a matter of a few days, if I find time. HMallison (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. now adding missing alt text for images. HMallison (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask an independent editor for his opinion on the article, have a go at copyediting myself and see where it goes. Yes the FA process can be gruelling but rewarding - it'd be great to see the profile of prosauropods raised by being main paged :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

:D let's rock this boat ;) HMallison (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha (talk · contribs) and Sasata (talk · contribs) are two good natured and thorough scientific reviewers. I have left a note with Ucucha (but he is busy this week) but have leant on both recently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Yates (2010). Does he really completely invalidate Prosauropoda in its entirety? His 2007 paper allowed for the possibility of a small, monophyletic Prosauropoda. I know he's been hacking away at the group for a long time. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the final version either - at least if you talk about the Anchisaurus one. Well, you can go and redefine the Prosauropoda ever smaller and smaller, much as Adam Yates does, but Yates' matrix has a tendency to lump derived animals with short arms and other "prosauropod" traits with them - see Rowe et al. 2010 on Sarahsaurus. There is much convergence to be expected, and so you'll end up getting (depending on how you define them) Prosauropoda based on exactly those characters that tend to be convergent.... oops. In fact, it is the pruned Upchurch et al. matrix that gives Rowe et al. a monphyletic group containing Adeopapposaurus Massospondylus Coloradisaurus Plateosaurus Riojasaurus Lufengosaurus Jingshanosaurus Seitaad, which one could, somehow, define as Prosauropoda.....

AARGH - I hate taxonomy! HMallison (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Update - I have asked David Fuchs (talk · contribs) to take a look, then I think FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Teach me not to check the page history. I see david's been. Okay, HMallison, you're the best person for the driver's seat, so make the nomimnation whenever you want and we'll be right behind you. I am happy to co-nominate if you have trouble with the formating of initiating a nomination but the instructions are not too hard to follow :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to finish up on David's very helpful suggestions tomorrow. HMallison (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(in best pirate-speak) aye aye cap'n :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor changes, but the article seems quite solid to me (dinosaur-ignorant though I am). A few minor things: the piece about the "Schwäbischer Lindwurm" is in the lead, but not the body; Zanclodon is listed and linked in the taxobox, but not mentioned in the article (should that article perhaps be redirected here? It says Z. is a rauisuchian...). Ucucha 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough check! I'll address the points you raised ASAP. HMallison (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into the "Zanclodon" mess - latest paper (Gower & Schoch 2009) says that identifiable material is Batrachotomus kupferzellensis, Schoch on his museum's forum [[5]] says that the name should not be used anymore, and (context) that the genus is a nomen nudum. I do not have access to the Plieninger ref; once I get that I'll update.

- Gower, D. J. & Schoch, R. S. (2009) Postcranial anatomy of the rauisuchian archosaur Batrachotomus kupferzellensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 103-122. HMallison (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I couldn't find the name Zanclodon in that paper. Our article on Zanclodon (which is not sourced well) says that Zanclodon laevis is the type species of Zanclodon and that it is a synonym of Plateosaurus engelhardti—which would imply that Zanclodon is indeed a junior synonym of Plateosaurus. However, it looks like material assigned to Zanclodon is not quite homogeneous, and perhaps some other species are rauisuchians. Ucucha 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1007/BF03022600 says that Zanclodon is a wastebasket for reptilian material from around this time. Some postcranial material is prosauropod (and therefore, possibly Plateosaurus?), but he regards Zanclodon laevis, the type species, as an indeterminate archosaur. [6] similarly says Z. laevis is undiagnostic; Google Scholar does not list any other recent papers discussing Z. laevis.

It seems, then, that Zanclodon itself is not a synonym of Plateosaurus, though some material previously referred to it may belong to Plateosaurus. In that case, it's probably best to just omit discussion of it from this article, which can hardly discuss all the old misidentifications of Plateosaurus material. Ucucha 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Gower and Shoch doesn't say Zanclodon, but from the forum messages I take it that Schoch regards some Zanclodon material to belong to the genus described there, and that some material ascribed to Batrachotomus today was previously assigned to Z. Sorry for misrepresenting that before.

Hmmmm, dinodata lists a bunch of Zanclodon speies as junior synonyms - but based on what authority?. HMallison (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that all the lumped-in non-diagnostic stuff should not be in. I had no hand in the content of the taxobox, IIRC, most came from the old German article and the old English article. I'll see what Moser says, he's the last guy to go through it all. HMallison (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

adding figures

I'd like to add a figure that contrasts the old school and the new reconstructions. I can make such a file, and give the copyright statement, etc., but am a total noob in this regard on wiki. Any volunteer to help me? HMallison (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's the trouble, uploading it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On images

I'm almost finished working my way through the article with comments, but one thing that's bothering me are the images. Even on my relatively low res displays (1152 px. ) some of the images sandwhich each other, and at that size and larger images start interfering with level three subheadings. Looking at the actual utility of the images, some just seems to be for decoration: we have three shots of the P. engelhardti head (well, two plus one with a neck), and two artist reconstructions. Shunting some of these to a gallery section at the very least would eliminate some of the overcrowding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A few of them are seemingly anatomically inaccurate, so a start could be just removing those. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And that's something I don't know anything about anyhow, so yeah that would be a good idea :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Plateosaurus displayed in Naturalis, Leiden

Talking about that, what do you think about the new image on the right here, Heinrich? It has a horizontal back, and the arms appear to be alright.Should it replace the bipedal image in the posture section, or maybe become the taxobox image? FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That one looks pretty good; I'm having a closer looks right now and will try some image editing. As is the skeleton is lost in a lot of background clutter. Maybe it will look good if I remove the background - we'll see.

I'll also have a go at the other pictures and their captions again. HMallison (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspections it is not so good: the sacrum is missing (seems like the mount wasn't finished), the hands are semi-proinated, with the radii not articulating properly with the humeri, and the bone preservation is bad (EDIT: it is from Frick, IIRC; so no surprise there) (tibiae flattened) so that the ankle looks rather torn apart. The scapulae are a bit high, too. HMallison (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the two surviving head shots, because the skull cast one shows the skull best, and the other one has the skull and neck, and is of a real fossil. The mounted cast from Milan should go, and we should find a better bipedal one. I have a very good one from Tübingen somewhere - let's see what I can do about licensing - or we can use a rendered view of my 3D model skeleton. I'll get to work on that.

For a useful gallery section there seem not to be enough good pics on WP currently. HMallison (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, too bad, the posture looked promising though, maybe the fossil itself lacked a sacrum? So the old AMNH one is still the most correct? Tell me what problems you have with uploading (you mentioned something above), then I'll help you out if I can, I'm a Wikimedia Commons admin after all, heheh. And on galleries, that's usually frowned upon for featured articles, images should be incorporated into the main text, so we probably shouldn't have that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, IIRC (I saw this specimen while it was still partially in the ground) there is indeed no sacrum one can mount. So yes, AMNH and (better) Tübingen skeletons are still the best. Mail me (heinrich.LASTNAME(AT)gmail.com - I lost your address) and I will send you pictures; we can do the same routine as last time (you remember why I have problems with pics, I guess, and how we solved that last time). HMallison (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember the routine, heheh, and I just sent a mail, hope it works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Added a few pics that FunkMonk uploaded, moved some - could experienced people please have a look?

- added pic of excellently mounted skeleton to first section

- left skull pic there because it illustrates the skull very well

- size comparison moved down because first section became crowded

- added pic of excellent bipedal mount to "Posture and Gait" section, to contrast old-style SMNS pic

- added lower arm and hand pic, because lower arm plays important role in understanding posture

- size comparison pic now in "Growth and..." section.HMallison (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! One thing I was thinking, maybe I should flip the picture of the arm horizontally? Then it won't squeeze as much text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, i thought about that, too. However, as is the image shows the fossil as displayed, rotating it changes that. I'm not sure.... I am still thinking about adding an explanatory drawing to it, that would double the width. HMallison (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Another thing I was wondering, maybe one of the new images should switch place with the current infobox image? It's good, but it suffers from some window glare among other things. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a real option there - but the current one is nice regarding colors, while the IFGT ones are rather drab.... maybe you or I can play with the color balance a bit. HMallison (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I was thinking of maybe putting the picture of the fully erect Skelett 2 in? That would really get the message across from the beginning, instead of those crouched ones. The colours aren't too bad on that one either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

:-) Go ahead! HMallison (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking good :) HMallison (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghedo has uploaded a few photos from Frick, don't know if any of it can be used: [7][8][9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice pic quality :) The skeletal plaque mount is quite nice, we should look for where it would fit into the article. Same for the hand (this tempts me to add some text on the topic, too) - I'd prefer the first pic. The skull I do not much like, because it is so crushed. I'll hunt my HDD for a better one, though. HMallison (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Schwäbischer Lindwurm

Did a bit of digging on the origin of the nickname and it seems that it was actually coined by G. Richard Lepsius, German geologist and son of the famous egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius in his monography on the geology of Germany (you can check the ref here: [11]. P 450 in a footnote, he mentions these 'Schwäbischer Lindwurm" referencing two books by Quenstedt but none of these books calls Plateosaurus by this nickname: [12] [13]. may be somebody who is more familiar with the German language than me could confirm. NobuTamura (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And to add to the confusion, Quenstedt only made brief mentions of Plateosaurus, Gresslyosaurus and Dimodosaurus, but instead emphasizes on Zanclodon laevis. NobuTamura (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much. I am sure our lib at work has all the sources :) Once you kjnow which of the ten million books to check the rest is easy.... HMallison (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Localisation map?

Can anyone edit [[14]] with the localities? Or maybe there is a map including Switzerland? I tried but failed horribly :( I can get GPS coordinates for the quarries. HMallison (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can have a go at home late tonight (Australia time). I have doen the one on banksia marginata for example. Yes, let me know what you want on it and I will have a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Just realised this is from December....anyway, a combined German/Swiss map I think would be better. We can ask on commons. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Found one -->

ta daaa - all it needs is the locations, and sources for same.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll get to work figuring out how to place the location markers on it, and where to put them. HMallison (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just let me know when you want me to play with the Germany/Austria/Swiss map. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Moser (2003 - I can email PDF) has a nice map, but sadly it includes unpublished data from Wellnhofer's notes, so we can't get coordinates. Best to do is use the map from Moser as a background image to add the locations to the map. I'd NAME only Trossingen, Frick, Heroldsberg and Halberstadt (type locality and the three large sites). Whaddayathink? HMallison (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You da boss -sounds good. Email me the paper and I will whip up a nice map. Wanna choose the colour for the sites? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If I knew your email.... send me one to heinrich.mallison_AT_gmail.com, please. I'll have to zip the paper into a multi-archive zip, too :)

I'd say type locality in red, the mass mortality site as filled circles (black), others as empty circles - OK? HMallison (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

email sent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

sending - will be three parts :) HMallison (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Update

Okay, I've made this map from the paper and the black ones there are the black ones here. WAsn't sure how to do outlining so made the circles pale grey instead. Do you want to put the names of the localities on it? I was going to but then thought it'd look smudgy and indistinct as a thumb...but that might be a worthwhile sacrifice...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

map with type in red, important ones in black, others in grey

I just realised the grey spots are really hard to see in hte thumb - could make them light blue (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great! :) I agree not-too-light blue might be better! Could you also please un-black the localities not named here? Aixheim, Poligny, etc? So that just the listed localities Trossingen, Halberstadt and Frick remain black? I agree that names may look bad on the thumb - is there any way to use one pic as a thumb for another pic, so that we could have a thumb without and a large size pic with names? HMallison (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, rejigged the colours - all blue bar the three mentioned. I will make another version with the 4 locality names. Shall I add anything else like the german states? Shall I make all other countries bar germany and switzerland a slightly darker shade? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You SO rock!

Shading all BUT Germany, Switzerland and France (localities there, too) would be great. For our American friends, county names (Germany, Switzerland, France) would be nice, I guess. Come to think of it, for ALL this would be nice ;) HMallison (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, shaded other countries - but...now what on next? Damn Switzerland has alot of districts....I was musing on whether adding all german counties would make it look a trifle...busy...? Happy to try in any which way but I need to go to sleep now as it is late here (Oz) Casliber (talk ·contribs) 15:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I think it is great as is! Maybe you could add only those states/cantons that have finds? That would be those in the Moser map, plus Aargau for Frick..... I do not know what Departement in France Poligny is in, and the map doesn't show them anyways, so we should forego that..... Again: I think it is perfect as-is! I'll edit the German states and the canton into the main text, so no need to have them in the map.

and a huge, fat THANK YOU!

So hopefully it will be in the snake pit soon then? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess so...... Once I fight my way through that stupid sklerotic ring paper (I expect it to be inconclusive at best, flawed more likely, as far as predictions for non-marine animals from non-extreme latitudes are concerned. Who knows, though.... HMallison (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

with the four localities titled now

actually this might be a better one

Location map template

Please consider using Template:Location map Germany Austria Switzerland in your article, or Template:Location map Central Europe if the locations extend beyond the former. You can figure out how to use such templates by looking at the source of List of cities in Germany by population for instance. --Uzyel (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We are using the first one you indicate, we just coloured in the non-involved countries in a pale brown. There are finds just over the border into northeastern France. The Central Europe template extends eastwards and so is unhelpful as it will just add uninvolved countries to the east. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

CasLiber is right: the map we have is ideal for the localities we have solid data on. There are localities elsewhere (e.g., in Greenland), but as long as we can't plot them anyways we should keep the map as it is. Also, the second suggested map doesn't cover Greenland either. HMallison (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I propose is not using an image to physically put the dots on it and save it as another image, but replacing it with the template that allows to place markers on it by providing only geographical coordinates of the points. The upside is that it is easier to add new markers or move the old, ie. in case of mistake in coordinates. I'm not sure that this is a better solution, I'll leave it up to you. I have just created the template yesterday, so it might be of use for you. --Uzyel (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, now I see what you mean. That is a good idea indeed. However, it is unlikely that anything will change with this map in a very long time, so I guess for now we will leave things as they are. On other articles that do not have good maps yet I will, however, certainly do it the template way! Thanks for creating the template, it will come in handy I am sure. HMallison (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for your map image, I guess the following areas also require shading out for the sake of consistency: Liechtenstein, Denmark (at least the principal islands) and two areas in Poland: the one around Bogatynia and the island of Wolin (south-western and north-western corners of Poland, respectively). --Uzyel (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right, CasLiber was sloppy! HMallison (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(facepalm) d'oh! Well spotted, will do it soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

All synonyms

Are all synonyms of Plateosaurus, genus as well as species-level, mentioned in the article (P. quenstedti isn't mentioned in the text body for example)? If not, having a list could maybe be nice for an overview, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops#Synonyms_and_doubtful_species FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

True - if you want to spend a few years, or commit a copyright infringement by copying half of Moser 2003 ;)

But yeah, because Moser 2003 does contain 90% of the required data, this could be added. HMallison (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Heheh, I don't think one can copyright a list of names coined by others! But to stay safe, the order could be changed, or similar... FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was only kidding: copying a taxonomy list in proper order with citation is entirely legal. HMallison (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION: there is no table or proper list in Moser 2003! AARGH! All he does is state:

Zu den jüngeren Synonymen von Plateosaurus engelhardti MEYER1, 837 gehören die früher als separate Arten geführten Dimodosaurus poligniensis, Gresslyosaurus robustus, Gresslyosaurus torgeri, Pachysaurus ajax, Pachysaurus giganteus, Pachysaurus magnus, Pachysaurus elianus, Plateosaurus erlenbergiensis, Plateosaurus longiceps, Plateosaurus plieningeri, Plateosaurus reinigeri und Plateosaurus trossingensis. Eine ausführlichere nomenklatorische und taxonomische Revision wird an anderer Stelle (GALTON in Manuskript, MOSER in Vorb.) zu finden sein. Neither of those two papers have seen the light. HMallison (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be done using this as basis? http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=38644 I've made the synonym list collapsible, so it will not intrude so much. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

grossly not up to date, ignored Galton's synonomyzing :( HMallison (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Size comparison

As pointed out during the FAC, the size comparison illustration does not appear to be an accurate rendition of Plateosaurus. In comparison with the other illustrations in this article, the limbs are not properly placed and postured, making it look awkward and unrealistic. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to fix, can you be more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, compared to the other images on the page, in the silhouette the back legs are too far forward, too bent at the knees, and the feet are flat on the ground; the forward limbs are too far back and postured oddly, and the tail looks a little too thick and low at the base. If you were to blacken out the "Sellosaurus.jpg" image, for example, it would be a closer match to the skeletal mounts. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said over there, I'll cook one up, but it will take a few days more. I have a real life, you know ;) HMallison (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but please leave the tags in place until they addressed. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, AFAIK no citing sources in lead - but I'm fine with leaving it in until tomorrow or so when I add a section below. That P. erlenbergensis mess kept me from doing it tonight. HMallison (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what the tag is for actually, yes, perhaps the image is too stylised, but not downright incorrect, but that's subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, please allow me to explain. Per WP:CITELEAD, some citations are allowed in the lead and the "verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". Since the chronological content in the lead is not covered by the article body, it does not allow me to place the tag in the article body. Per WP:FACR 1c, claims such as this should be "supported by inline citations". In addition, per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. Hence, having content in the lede that is not in the article body would seem to go against this policy.

Sorry to be a nuisance about this; I didn't realize this act would be so controversial. My primary concern is with the chronological information. I placed this comment on the talk page because the tag I added to the image included a link here, so I felt some clarification was appropriate. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about now?[15] I made it more similar to this image[16] FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement, yes. I suppose that most people won't notice that the hips are too far forward. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, they won't if I change it! A silhouette is very easy to fix, so come up with any suggestions you like, no reason to leave any mistakes in. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Emailed you a source file for a perfect silhouette (GPIT 1) HMallison (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That'll help a lot, since the basic image was very inadequate[17], and the skeletal was copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"broadway"??

What the heck is "broadway" supposed to mean in this context? It doesn't make too much sense, despite having been on the article for more than a month. I don't find that translation listed in classical Greek dictionary... AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed in the Etymology section of the article. it seems that nobody knows why it was named that but "broadway" is the best translation. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How can it be the "best translation" when the average typical English-language speaker would have no idea what the word is supposed to mean in that context?? AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking... translation from other languages doesn't depend on the reader's ability to understand the meaning. "Dino" could mean "terrible", but maybe more appropriately "fearfully great" or "awesome", whether or not we know why (hint: the meaning of the word "terrible" has changed drastically, in English, since the time the word "dinosaur" was invented. Back then it meant something like "awe inspiring in a negative way", today it means "really bad". Same for "awful"). Either way this was the finding of a published research paper on the subject, not my own opinion. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WHAT THE HECK IS THE WORD SUPPOSED TO MEAN IN THAT CONTEXT???? I have no idea whatsoever, and consulting an English-language dictionary doesn't help. If someone who knows some ancient Greek, and can consult Liddell and Scott has no idea, then the average English speaker will be hopelessly lost. AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Before you swear, read what you swear about. The article cites a sources, and the source says it is the best translation. That the freakin' source may be fuickin' wrong matters not, because wikipedia boneheadedly forbids original research, using such a broad definition that you must turn your brain off while writing articles. Before you YELL AT PEOPLE for no reason, stick your foot in your mouth and choke on it, please. HMallison (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- your complete and utter incapability to answer simple basic obvious questions, and your childishly immature hostile attitude when your incapability to answer simple basic questions becomes clear, certainly reveal your personal inadequacies, but they do nothing whatsoever to change the basic obvious fact that when you look up the word "broadway" in standard English dictionaries, there is no meaning listed which is remotely relevant. Since obviously you guys don't understand what the word "broadway"[sic] means either, it makes me wonder what else you don't understand, and why this article ever achieved featured status in the first place. If its blatant shortcomings in an area which I understand pretty well (linguistics and ancient classical languages) are any indication, it really doesn't deserve such exalted status... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you add an ad hominem attack to the ignorant rant. Well done! Your bragging about your studies just indicates that you are a bad student - how else would you be totally incapable of unsderstanding what I wrote in reply to your impolite rant? HMallison (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start the personal attacks, and I didn't choose to descend to your level of content-free and fact-free purely juvenile taunting, so from any reasonable point of view I'm way ahead of you... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is "broadway" is referenced and HMallison is sticking to what the sources say as our policies dictate. So don't jump down his throat. Dude. I've not seen the sources, but perhaps something is lost in translation? Moser was writing in German, so is "broadway" the translation of a German term and the meaning hasn't transferred across? As someone who understands linguistics "pretty well", perhaps you could offer some assistance? Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is jumping down whose throat?? All I want to know is what the word is supposed to mean, and I'm being met by an attitude of non-cooperative obstructionism and stonewalling, accompanied by HMallison's colorful, but juvenile and immature, taunting. If there's any relevant valid useful information available, I can use what expertise I possess to help interpret that information, but there's really not much I can do if no one knows what it's supposed to mean, but people other than me are not willing to admit that they don't know... Meanwhile, nonsense such as accusing me of "swearing" for using the word "heck"(!) does nothing to create a constructive atmosphere for collaborative article improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know what the word is supposed to mean, go ask the author of the source and quit spamming here. Nobody asked you to help, so don't pretend anyone did. it was you who came barging in here with an impolite post. And yes, Mr. Linguistics, heck is a swear word. HMallison (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that you have no concern with facts or evidence, and your only response to someone who points out obvious glaring problems is to launch into the childish and juvenile taunting which you seem to be such a master of. AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You raised a reasonable point at the start of this thread, but now you're acting like a bit of a prat. It's about how you present your questions. Sure, you started out reasonably enough, and I'll happily agree with you that "heck" isn't swearing, but sentences typed in all caps on the internet are generally considered shouting, and that's not always a useful way to approach discussions. And then "childishly immature hostile attitude when your incapability to answer simple basic questions becomes clear" isn't likely to gain a helpful response. The same goes for the hyperbolic statement that "If its blatant shortcomings in an area which I understand pretty well ... are any indication, it really doesn't deserve such exalted status".

(Back to the issue this thread is supposed to be about) As I said, I wonder if it's a matter of losing some meaning in translation as we're going from Greek to German to English. HMallison, is this possible? Nev1 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - it is well possible that Moser mistranslated, or didn't realize the term was ambiguous. OTOH, it is entirely possible that he intentionally chose this term to make clear that the Greek term was ambiguous. HMallison (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Who's the bigger "prat" -- someone who is trying to find out what a word included in the article actually means, or those who are perfectly content to repeat some mumbo jumbo formula that they don't understand, and then turn resentful when someone asks about its meaning? Sorry if you didn't like my use of majuscules, but I used them to call attention to the fact that there was a complete lack of responsiveness to the basic question (viz. "What does 'broadway' mean here?"), and I don't regret doing so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Learn to read. You are still whining to the wrong people. None of us came up with the word. Go read the cited source and whine to its author. HMallison (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that your "contributions" to this page consist solely and exclusively of childish immature taunting which raise absolutely no points of substance which anyone need bother to consider? If your talents run in the direction of fact-free flame wars for the sake of flame wars, then you may find 4chan or SomethingAwful to be a more congenial environment than Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"WHAT THE HECK IS THE WORD SUPPOSED TO MEAN IN THAT CONTEXT???? " What part of "nobody knows" is hard to understand? The person who named it is dead. They didn't write down what they meant in that context. Nobody will ever know. The end. And whether it translated as "broadway" or "flat" or "plate" does not matter--none make any sense in context because the skeleton is not flat, or plated, or found near a road called Broadway. Who knows what he meant? nobody. Your question has no answer. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If no one understands what "broadway" means in this context, then it is not the best translation of the Greek word -- as Dinoguy2 claimed it was on "17:53, 17 January 2012" -- so that "broadway should be radically excised from this article and be replaced by something that is the best translation. I thought it extremely obvious that this word had no relevant meaning in ordinary English or standard dictionaries, and so MUST be explained, but it seems that some people must be repeatedly bludgeoned with the facts before they will even begin to grudgingly acknowledge this. AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not me claiming it is. That's a published scientific source. If you have a published source to dispute that, fine. Otherwise you're wasting your time arguing this. As we all are. This is Wikipedia so there's no argument to have. If your opinion is not in print it does not exist. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dinoguy2 -- It's nice to have sources, but one particular scientific journal article or book doesn't rewrite the English language and change the basic meanings of words. Since the word "broadway"[sic] has no relevant accepted standard meaning in the English language, therefore the special meaning assigned to it here MUST be explained. If there's no such explanation, then the word "broadway"[sic] is left hanging in the void, with no one knowing what it's supposed to mean -- which makes a complete mockery of any claim that it's somehow supposedly the "best" English translation of the Greek word... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for scientific names of a certain vintage to lack detailed etymologies (which is how we got the incorrect retro-etymology "single horn" for Monoclonius), and even in modern publications it can be hard to figure out exactly what an author intended. Sometimes we can say how a name translates, but can't explain why an author chose it. Sometimes someone has to go back, years later, to try to figure out what a name means. It's just something that happens. (and if you think that's bad, try some old-time locality information!) J. Spencer (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The main issue here is the meaning of the English word "broadway"[sic]. The meaning of the original Greek word would be relevant for evaluating which proposed English translation is the best -- but if "broadway"[sic] has no ascertainable English meaning, then the assertion that it's the best translation is meaningless gibberish. AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Will you finally plug in your brain and realize that you need to make this point elsewhere? Either with Moser, or better in a citable publication. HMallison (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, but it's really not an unreasonable demand to ask what a word used very prominently right at the beginning of this article actually means. Saying that the word is used in a scientific source is nice as far as it goes, but it's simply not enough if no-one else has the slightest idea what the word is supposed to mean -- and only someone with the mentality of a "cargo cult scientist" (as opposed to a real scientist) would pretend otherwise... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Nobody here is named Charlie.

2) The lead has the term in it because it is properly sourced, to the exact page, in the article.

3) The article cites a source - it is not my fault that the source says this. If you think the source makes no sense or is wrong, find a better one, or publish something citable.

4) personal attacks and insults have already earned you a WP:AN/I. I suggest your stop and apologize. HMallison (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad for you that you were the one who first chose to launch personal attacks, and that you've frequently descended to a level of childish and puerile tauntings which no-one else has attempted to rival. We'll see how that works out... AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It that a template you are pasting your ad homs from? Just interested to know......

In other news, a guy I know from Canada is in the process of writing something citable about the Moser translation. Let's hope he gets it out soon. I am not happy with Moser 2003 as the last source on this, as I think he was a) wrong and b) chose a bad translation). HMallison (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better for everybody all around if you had chosen to introduce some smidgeon of facts and actually addressing the real issue before this point of the discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your posts stopped having the semblence of being contructive a long time ago. Do yourself a favour and find something else to do. MMartyniuk already explained the issue, insisting that HMallinson repeats it is ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

it seems you are still incapable of reading this: "The article cites a sources, and the source says it is the best translation." That's more than enough fact to answer your initial question. HMallison (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've separated it into two words. Closer to the meaning of πλατεια in Greek and probably what Moser intended with "breiter Weg". I too realize that "broad way" (or "broadway" for that matter) are not really accurate translations, but they're the closest we can get and still have something relatively easy to relate colloquially for the English equivalent. But I also acknowledge that "broadway" is not a word. Though "Broadway" is, it's a proper noun and doubtful to be the original intended meaning. Hope that settles it.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's highly likely that you are correct. However, Moser's paper.... well, see for yourself: [18]

Because the text cites this source, and because there is no source we could use for "broad way lizard", I believe you should revert your edits. Not that I like it, but the wikipedia rules are what they are :( HMallison (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. If anybody thinks "broadway" vs. "broad way" is a big enough error (which is silly IMO), the whole section should be deleted rather than introduce original research or unpublished corrections to verifiable sources. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly it is a typo, a mistranslation, or by habit due to the ease by which compound words form in the German language. We do not know and any speculations would be OR. But we do know one thing - "broadway" is not an English word.

And there are other sources mentioned by Moser himself - Schmidt 1938 and Old Greek dictionaries. The original meaning of πλατεια is clear and attestable from other sources as well as from Moser himself. Notice his original mention is "broad area" and "broad way", and only in the second mention does it become joined together. By understanding both Schmidt's "broad area", Moser's "broad way" and "broadway", and the meaning of πλατεια itself, we can reconstruct the intended meaning. We are not restrained by having to repeat verbatim the author's words as we would have been if they had been discussing the binomen. This is simply the English equivalent of the Greek words used in the binomen.

It's etymology, and etymology would be useless if we just parrot a "variant" of the author that is meaningless while ignoring the source of the author's conclusion. This is a case of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BLUE. We do not follow sources blindly. His explanation and his own sources make it clear what the intended meaning is. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a REPEAT typo on two pages separated by ~150 pages? I rather believe Markus Moser's English is lacking. HMallison (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then feel free to add those sources! Please follow the formatting for both the page call-outs and the ref entry in the list. Alternatively, give me the pages in the sources here and I will check them and add them if correct. :) HMallison (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You're missing the point. They are the sources that Moser used and thus citing Moser is enough in itself. Haven't you ever discussed etymology in another taxon article and explained it in your own words using other sources? I certainly have many times. In cases like this, you do not need a source that explicitly tells you that this word has that specific meaning. Not being a discrete proper name, you can reword it to retain the same meaning intended by the author. If a source for example says that Megalosaurus is from Greek μεγαλο- ("great") and σαυρος ("lizard"), I'm sure you'd agree we can reword that to say Megalosaurus is from Greek for "great lizard", from μεγαλο- ("large") and σαυρος ("lizard") don't you?

Nevertheless, I've used generic dictionaries to attest the meaning of πλατεια (which is a cognate of modern Italian piazza and Spanish/English plaza). I have already given one before, mind you, but I've added another. And as you have a copy of Moser's work, try and check the reference section for Schmidt and if you have academic access maybe find it (I don't have both). -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't researching the etymology in an external source and using your results to modify the conclusions of another source the definition of OR? At best, we should bring together conflicting etymologies (Megalosaurus = "great"(source1) or "large"(source2)). Not do our own research to determine that "large is a better translation than "great" (which are synonyms anyway!). MMartyniuk (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As Dinoguy2 says, I'd consider this OR. Not because I think it is, but because I think wikipedia thinks it is. And you are, after all, latering a verbatim quote from the spelling it has in the source to a different spelling.

Many thanks for adding the sources! HMallison (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course researching etymologies on your own is original research, IF we didn't already know what the author originally intended it to be. But when the intended meaning is already known, why exactly can't you reword it then? Is the information so important that it must be repeated verbatim? As you've already pointed out, they are synonyms. We've preserved the intended meaning while making it read better (or in this case - making it understandable). These are, after all, simply definitions. Definitions we can reword as necessary as long as we're not changing any facts by doing so.

Have you lost any information by substituting "large" for "great" or "big"? No. I quote Moser:

Vollrath (1959: 57) assumed Plateosaurus was named for its flat teeth, which is impossible as Meyer (1837, 1855) had no tooth material. Nevertheless the word stem of Plateosaurus is "Plate-" and not "Platy-", as recognized already by Schmidt (1938: 134, "platé g[reek], breite Fläche" [broad area]). The Old Greek dictionary yields πλατεια (broad way) and the supposedly intended meaning is therefore "broadway lizard".

Looking only at the end sentence while ignoring the rest of what the author is saying is like putting down "cccuttlefish squid" diligently in an article because one source had a missed typo that said: "'"Sepioteuthis comes from Greek σηπία (sēpía, 'cuttlefish') and τευθίς (teuthis, 'squid'), therefore it means "cccuttlefish squid"."

Using a source is both reading and understanding the material. The author makes the source of his conclusion very clear. If understanding is OR, I shudder to think of what OR we're doing by summarizing and paraphrasing studies. If we aren't required to understand what we are reading and if we can't even use a source and make it make sense, why do we even bother writing articles so they're understandable to laymen?

OR does not mean we're forbidden to think. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is also a deeper problem in that Moser clearly errs in thinking that Plateosaurus could only be derived from plateia, not from platys. In fact, as Ben Creisler pointed out long ago in his "Dinosaur Translation and Pronunciation Guide", the combination with platys can be made via its genitive form, plateos. Result: Moser, known to be factually wrong in this respect, can no longer be considered a reputable source on this point and the translation given in the first article sentence should be again changed to that given by most reputable sources: "broad". Which has the added benefit of much greater prima facie plausibility. To what extent this complex situation should be explained in the etymology section, I leave to your discretion ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have access to Creisler, but if you do, please do add the information to balance the different interpretations. I too think "flat"/"broad" is far more likely than "broad way". Moser is still a reliable source, but paleontologists are not quite linguists. Even so, we can not introduce new interpretations unless one of them has specifically done so already.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know that was in there! Ben is currently writing something up for the DML; I wanted to wait for that to have a good, citable source against Moser 2003! HMallison (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, this part of Creisler's work has never been published in a printed form. Until recently it was accessible via Jef Poling's site but that is now sadly defunct. There still is a mirror though: http://web.me.com/dinoruss/dml/names/dinop.htm However, I wasn't arguing that we should trump one source with another. My point is that on those occasions we force ourselves to choose between sources — as when we want to give a single translation of the generic name in the first sentence (perhaps we shouldn't want to in the first place?) — we are also forced to make an independent judgement about what is the best source. Once we know that a certain source is factually incorrect we can no longer validly decide it is the more correct one.--MWAK (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Creisler has posted to the DML, I'll fit this in here as soon as the message can be accessed in the archives HMallison (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ben Creisler for his erudite and highly useful account of the matter!--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[disclaimer: this is a personal hypothesis] The adjective πλατύς, genitive: πλατέος, has as second of two meanings, according to the 1943 Greek-Dutch (red) Geerebaert dictionary: "wijd verspreid" (idem "wijdverspreid"), meaning "widespread". This may make sense since remains were found at 50 localities.[/disclaimer] The feminine noun πλατεῖα in the same source translates to "broad way, street". But if this last one was the intended meaning, then this veggy-beast would have been named "Plateiasaurus" instead :-) 83.101.67.8 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why I removed the part on Griebeler et al. 2013

An edit was made to add text based on Griebeler et al. 2013 [19]. This edit selected only one of the models used in that paper. Specifically, the age at sexual maturity was given as 13 year, and searching through the original source leads to one of the two best modeling methods; i.e. the editor here made a very biased selection of the results without giving any reason. In fact, the age of death derived from this model (19 years) is in direct contradiction to the main text of Griebeler et al., which states: "an age at death of the individual of 16 years, which coincides well with an age at death between 12 and 21 years that is suggested by bone histology".

The Griebeler et al. paper was therefore misrepresented by the edit. Thus, I removed the edit. I will, once I find time, add a correct representation. HMallison (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

New paper on juveniles

Searching PeerJ for a diplodocoid article I became aware of, I uncovered: Hofmann R, Sander PM. (2014) The first juvenile specimens of Plateosaurus engelhardti from Frick, Switzerland: isolated neural arches and their implications for developmental plasticity in a basal sauropodomorph. PeerJ 2:e458 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.458 This article is the description of the first Plateosaurus juvenile, and will probably make a great extension to the article. l am not a greatly knowledgable about sauropodomorphs, so I will leave the addition to anyone who wants it, specifically Heinrich Mallison. IJReid (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed interesting - I know the article but not the material. Given that the neural arches are bigger(!) than many adult skeletons, I am a bit at a loss on what to conclude: developmental plasticity or several species or even genera? I am still musing..... will add this one day, but right now I do not really know how. HMallison (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Probably Meaning"

The opening line of this entry has the phrase "probably meaning...". However, can we not be sure what the latin means? Are we not sure what the scientists meant when they named it that? It is latin or greek. Here is a page where some roots are mentioned, including "plateo."

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/etymology.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by PawnOfGerald (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is when we have to interpret the meaning conveyed by these words. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)