This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
dinosaurs and
dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
What is the authority for calling this a titanosaur and a saltasaurid? I have seen several references to it as a camarasaurid.
Srnec17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Salgado and Coria (1993)
[1] discuss the fact that, while originally considered a camarasaur, they find it to be a titanosaur. All current phylogenies I've seen (this site
[2], etc) follow this.
Dinoguy220:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Yah, definitely. I completely forgot about this with a whole bunch of stuff happening in life, but if it is nominated, I will be very happy to review it. :)
IJReid (
talk)
15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Would be cool, because the image is free. But does that mean that the mount is exhibited without that part? Maybe it's too heavy?
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I presume that the Japan mount includes material not in the above image, as comparisons between JAime's skeletal and the mount seem to imply material missing from that region. One of them could be a cast also.
IJReiddiscuss17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Acta Palaeontologia Polonica
Seems like Palaeontologia Polonica
[3] has been confused with Acta Palaeontologia Polonica
[4] in the refs! Though the names are similar and they are associated, they are different journals. Only the latter is CC licensed, sadly.
FunkMonk (
talk)
13:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"The hips were composed of three bones each, namely the ilium, ischium, and pubis bones." Since this is common to most tetrapods, isn't it a bit odd to point this out?
I think the entire sentence is necessary, as long as you make clear that the bones in the following sentences are part of the hips.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd expect the place the holotype was found to be mentioned closer to the beginning of the discovery section, before info about its transportation from there? Especially since other locations are mentioend earlier, and the reader has no idea of where it is in relation to the excavation locality if it isn't mentioned before.
"belongs to the Nemegt Formation, the youngest of the three geological formations of the Nemegt Basin. Altan Ula IV is famous for its abundant vertebrate fossils. Other important dinosaur finds from this locality include the troodontid Borogovia[17] and the ankylosaur Tarchia.[18]" Isn't this more relevant under Age and paleoenvironment than under discovery?
"According to different authors, the formation is late Campanian to early Maastrichtian, early Maastrichtian, or middle Maastrichtian in age." Perhaps it should be mentioned that these are in the Cretaceous?
By the way, what will you do if Nemegtosaurus is found to be a senior synonym? Perhaps prepare that article so merging will be easy? We had the opposite problem with Apatosaurus, since Brontosaurus was split right during the FAC... Pretty incredible, they had a hundred years to do it.
"Like other sauropods, it would have been characterised by a small head sitting on a very long neck and a barrel shaped trunk carried by four column-like legs." Only described lie this in intro, should also be mentioned in the article.
Hello FunkMonk and Reid, thank you for the comprehensive review and all the fixes! I think our article is much better now. I'm still waiting for the last book that might contain additional information on the discovery of the skeleton, when I have it we can go to FA I think. To answer the remaining questions:
Unfortunately, Borsuk-Bialynicka (page 2) did not elaborate much on why she things scavengers did the "gnawing traces" and not hunters.
Regarding Nemegtosaurus: If a new skeleton would be found demonstrating that Opisthocoelicaudia was synonymous with Nemegtosaurus, that would be a mess. We would have to move all the content to the lemma Nemegtosaurus. I hope it never happens, as I prefer the name Opisthocoelicaudia (way cooler than Nemegtosaurus). I don't think we can do anything right now to pave the way for a possible merging in the future. It will not happen during FAC, I'm very convenient about that :) --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see where s.o. pointed out that the IPA was wrong, but the 1st pronunciation at the YouTube link Jens provided was exactly what I would expect for a Latinate word, so I transcribed that. Added the link not as a RS, which it isn't, but to provide readers who don't know IPA with a sound file. The 2nd pronunciation is odd faux Latin, though. If you're going to pronounce caud "cowed", then you might want to pronounce coel "coil", and we'd get into all sorts of arguments over whose Latin pronunciation is preferable. Better to just use the 1st (assimilated English) pronunciation. —
kwami (
talk)
18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah I've read it. The discussion about the synonymy is really more about them being possible synonyms as opposed to probable synonyms. In any case, we should be ready in case they get formally synonymized without opposition. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
A lot of stuff there that should be mentioned in this article in any case. We already discussed this when it weas just an abstract of course, but in the small chance
Jens Lallensack hasn't seen the published paper, there's a ping...
FunkMonk (
talk)
17:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It should be noted that unlike what
Extrapolaris stated in a recent edit summary, the two genera have not been formally synonymised in this paper. All it says is "The opisthocoelous caudal centrum is diagnostic of Opisthocoelicaudia, and its shared presence in Nemegtosaurus suggests the two taxa are closely related, possibly even synonymous. However, caution leads us to wait until more of the holotypic skeleton of Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis is excavated sometime in the foreseeable future". Interestingly, it also says "Saurolophus angustirostris, which may be the senior synonym of Barsboldia sicinskii"...
FunkMonk (
talk)
07:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
And in case someone missed it, here is the newer paper claiming the two were distinct after all:
[8] The two papers should hopefully be covered in the article before it reached the main page...
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply