Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Many paleontologists note that the point at which sauropodomorphs and theropods diverged may omit sauropodomorphs from the definition for both saurischians and dinosaurs. To avoid instability, Dinosauria can be more conservatively defined with respect to four anchoring nodes: Triceratops horridus, Saltasaurus loricatus, and Passer domesticus, their MRCA, and all descendants. This "safer" definition can be expressed as "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Sauropodomorpha + Theropoda".[14]

If I have not missed something, this whole paragraph is flawly and should be removed. The cited paper (PDF, p. 613–614) only states that few (not many) paleontologists regard Sauropodomorpha to be closer related to Ornithischia than to Theropoda. It has nothing to do with excluding sauropodomorphs from dinosaurs or the definition of dinosaurs. That definition only prevents that Sauropodomorpha might fall within Ornithischia. Excluding Sauropodomorpha from Saurischia is a minority opinion though and may is out of place in this overview article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, though i'm sure someone somewhere has proposed that sauropods are outside Theropoda + Ornithopoda, this is not a view more than a few people would espouse and is not supported by any study i'm aware of. Whether or not a definition is "safe" is a matter of opinion. Owen did not regard sauropods as dinosaurs when he coined the name. We place them among dinosaurs due to phylogenetics, same as birds. If it turns out they're not dinosaurs, tough. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Might it be sensible to add a reference to pseudoextinction in the intro? After all, the Dinosauria are the prime example for the phenomenon and indeed adduced as such in that article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I know many editors will disagree with me when I suggest that the descent of birds from dinosaurs is not yet an established scientific fact beyond reasonable doubt. But even if this was not the case, there's not really anything special to say that one class of animals is descended from another. Gazzster (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"the descent of birds from dinosaurs is not yet an established scientific fact beyond reasonable doubt."

I guess Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis, Microraptor and Velociraptor don't prove birds are dinosaurs then. Not to mention the presence of feathers down to basal Dinosauria, at least, if not Archosauria (since crocodylians carry the feather-making gene), the clavicles and wishbones found in many theropods, the avian lung system in theropods, the same bone type in avian and non-avian theropods, the same hip structure, wrists, feet, vertebrae, hands and organic tissue in both, the fact that pretty much all coelurosaurs and possibly pterosaurs and ceratopsians share feather-like integument, the fact that _their very tissue_ is most similar to each other all doesn't prove that birds _are_ dinosaurs, then, Gazz? If birds aren't dinosaurs, then why would the two groups share so many characters, esppecially the same lungs, tissue, bone type, hips, wrists, feet, vertebrae and hands? Birds don't share nearly as many traits with any other group of sauropsid then they do with dinosaurs, so tell me: what group of sauropsids other then dinosaurs could birds be descended from? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think his dissent goes deeper than that, if you look at the last part of his comment. It seems to be about evolution itself. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Read my comment again. As for the ancestry of birds, I am not making one judgement or the other. I am simply saying, it is not an established scientific fact. It is in fact still disputed. I'm not disputing it, the scientific community is. But I'm not here to debate the controversy. I am offering my opinion that because of the debate, and because it would be as commonplace to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs as to say mammals evolved from synapsids or hominids from primates, this article doesn't merit a link to pseudoextinction. But do disagree with me if you wish.Gazzster (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The objections of a few malcontents doesn't equal "dispute" in palaeontology, the field this topic is more concerned about then geology, physics and other sciences. Biologists and palaeontologists are the two more important groups of people to consult regarding dinosaurs (palaeontologists moreso, as biologists tend to be heaped in modern animals rather then prehistoric species like non-avian dinosaurs). Majority is birds are dinosaurs, and the few who don't agree have their spotlight already. Let me repeat this; majority and consensus is that birds are avian dinosaurs. If you have a solid source refuting it through and through, maybe I'd give, but the only person really trying to get the BAND idea out in the scientific literature (what matters here in WP:DINO) is Alan Fedducia, and thus it's a minority. The BANDits have their representation, we don't need to cater them further then we already have considering the only dispute comes from either Fedducia himself or fanboys unaware of the massive morphologic and physiologic evidence to the statement and only object to the idea of a feather-laden Velociraptor or Tyrannosaurus. Besides, Fedducia's an palaeoornithologist anyways, he's not a palaeobiologist or palaeontologist, he's a palaeoornithologist. I'd trust most palaeoornithologists to know the characters that connect birds and dinosaurs as much as a man claiming to have found a living non-avian dinosaur. Again, look at the characters I stated connected birds to dinosaurs specifically;

"the clavicles and wishbones found in many theropods, the avian lung system in theropods, the same bone type in avian and non-avian theropods, the same hip structure, wrists, feet, vertebrae, hands and organic tissue in both, the fact that pretty much all coelurosaurs and possibly pterosaurs and ceratopsians share feather-like integument, the fact that _their very tissue_ is most similar to each other"

How many of those traits can be found outside Dinosauria, excluding the feathers (also excluding Aves)? As well; Fedducia has yet to find anything to support his claim in original research, even when Prum asked him to find the fossils. Nothing but "Protoavis" (which was likely a more basal archosaur or even a composite fossil) exists to support him. So far, all he's done is complain at other's work being "wrong" without proving it is. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely the scientific consensus that birds evolved from dinosaurs, that should not be in question here. The point about pseudo-extinction is a semantic and taxonomical question (not what the pylogeny is, but how to express it), and as such could well be here, if there is a suitable reference for it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please translate that into English? This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Non-experts should be able to read this and get some understanding. Instead, non-experts will read this and not understand much if any of it. This is very non-accessible. Please fix. The reason I ask is because I can't translate it...Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This might be a big job, actually. Translating it to something understandable would basically be "lots of little tiny bumps and knobs on specific parts of various bones not seen in the same spots in other archosaurs". MMartyniuk (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Abyssal (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe this should be forked off into its own article, so that if someone *really* wants to know about the specific differences, that person can go look, but the lay person who only has a passing interest can know that there are differences, and leave it at that. You know, summary style. Hires an editor (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Striving to use language everyone can understand is always a good thing, particularly for people working in science. Wikipedia is for the layman. If the anatomy article is non-translateable, I think Hires an editor's suggestion should be considered. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is for everybody. It simply presents the known facts. Anyone can partake of them to the limit of his understanding. In this case, if this information truly could not be rephrased, it should nevertheless not be split off, because the synapomorphies are so essential to the concept "dinosaur". However, I'll try to use more common words — and indeed, that might not be a bad idea for specialists also!--MWAK (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many changes have been made since the above discussion, but agree that a concise summary of synapomorphies before the detailed list would be helpful for the general reader. Also, keep in mind that by emphasizing the synapomorphies of Nesbitt, the content could potentially be biased (most recent doesn't always equal most right), although I take no issue with the traits mentioned and the subsequent discussion of other proposed synapomorphies is appreciated. In many scientific fields there are multiple opinions or conflicting minutiae, and rather than arbitrarily choosing one or the other as the definitive Wiki source (or exhaustively listing every possible hypothesis), a common ground should be sought that is compatible with most sources, even if it requires omitting some "facts".--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

synapomorphies", but your edit summary says that "a synapomorphy does not have to be shared by all members of a group". Isn't that inconsistent? If I say that sharp teeth are common to members of the cat family, am I not saying that all (intact) cats have sharp teeth? The Free Dictionary defines "common" as "Belonging equally to or shared equally by two or more". In that sense, aren't many plesiomorphies common to taxonomic groups; fur to the squirrels, for example? Are these traits also synapomorphies? Peter Brown (talk

) 16:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That was utterly inconsistent and a lamentable consequence of my, against my better judgement, pandering to the layman ;o). I'll correct it immediately.--MWAK (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

But if I understand things correctly, a synapomorphy (say, hair in some mammals, teeth in birds, legs in snakes, possibly feathers in some non-avian dinosaurs whose ancestors did have feathers) can be lost again in a some of the members of the group. Therefore the assertion in the edit summary strikes me as entirely correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are one of the most fascinating animals that are extinct.When a paleontolagist finds fossils it is a 70% it's a dinosaur fossil! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.pryor.was.here (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No. By far the most common fossils are sea animals, non of which were dinosaurs. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hesperornithes are sea animals, as well as dinosaurs... Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest Dinosaur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.166.166 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

See: Dinosaur size.--MWAK (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked multiple pages on here and they are also wrong.

I am referring to the "66 million years ago." I have no Idea where this page (and the others) got 66 million from. The date most people seem to think is 65 Million and that is likely that they're just rounding up then telling people who never heard when it happened. The REAL answer is just over 64 million.

• It's printed in books.
• It's on the Internet (easier to find than 66 million).
• I grew up learning it was 64 million and I don't appear to be 2 million yet.
• A giant asteroid stuck the earth 64-65 million years ago, believed to be what caused the mass extinction.
• Scientist (calling them that because I just forgot the titles of the people who do that job) are finding new fossils all the time and with better technology they're able to more accurately pinpoint when it happened.

Please change it. 58.111.71.31 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your last point is a very good one: scientists indeed are constantly improving the dates. That of course also means that numbers you grew up with, may become incorrect. The often stated 65 million years for the K-T-event has become a 66 million years by recalibration in 2012 (we have not yet entered the phase where only minimal adjustments take place). There is an International Commission on Stratigraphy "officially" determining the best dates. A nice chart can be found here: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2013-01.pdf Enjoy!--MWAK (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Curses, you beat me to it, MWAK. :P But yeah, 66 is currently the date; I have no idea where you got 64 from, IP; it's been 65 for a long time; 66 since 2012. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, don't you think that there is a chance these books and websites you found may be outdated? Science is constantly changing; it may have been 64 once, but the current estimate is 66. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecherry (talk • contribs) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bible states God made creatures and then, a few days later, man. Isn't there a possibility man may have been around with dinosaurs? Lovecherry (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't mean to sound insensitive but a literal interpretation of the bible is highly unlikely. I'm not saying that the events of the Bible never happened or that God doesn't exist mind you; I'm just saying that even if the Bible is factual, its interpretation of the age of the earth is incorrect.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the Bible actually never says when the Earth is created. Do you mean when they say "Long Long Ago" or "Before Time"? If so, this could be anywhere from one million years to 10, 000. My point is that, though science is excellent today, the age of the dinosaurs is constantly changing. Forgive me for kind of bringing this off topic, but don't you think that you should consider the Bible's word to be maybe a little accurate? Again, it does not say when the earth was created, and if you prove me wrong, I'm very sorry. --Lovecherry (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't directly say how old the earth is, but from what it does say the most common estimate is about 6000 years ago, and considering that the earliest known Dinosaurs are about 231 million years old; most likely the "7 Days" mentioned in Genesis were actually a much greater span of time which is possible and considering that God is a multidimenisonal immortal being what he/it/she calls "7 Days" might be 2 billion years to us Humans.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But, what you're saying is that, if God really does exist, than he probably made the earth in 2 billion years or so. However, if God really was real, than it would be possible for the earth to be created in seven days. My point is that if you don't believe in God as a powerful, immortal being then you're pretty much saying he is imperfect or just as powerful as humans. I just think that if you believed that God does exist you'd believe him to be very powerful and thus able to make the world in seven days. Lovecherry (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying God is imperfect or impotent, i'm saying that even if he could have created an entire world in 7 days he just didn't; for reasons that us with our temporary mortal lives will probably never understand. Keep in mind that the Bible wasn't written all at once, it was added to by several different authors over hundreds of years (Thats why the Bible has 'Books') by normal men.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you state that over hundreds of men have written the bible, isn't that enough proof that God does exist? I'm not trying to get you to believe, I am just trying to say that there is a chance of God making the world in seven days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecherry (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do suppose it is possible, but I think it's best to agree to disagree with subjects like this.--65.96.242.22 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, but I will let the other person know, I asked if it is possible, not if it is truly real. I guess that would be inconsistent on my part for asking a question that the answer to would be yes, since anything is possible unless it is disproved, and cleary, there is a possibilty the Bible is true (for me I believe it but saying it is absolutely true would be biased). However, I did not ask if you could put that it is true, but put what the Bible states, not as a fact, but something to be considered. --Lovecherry (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Man was and is around dinosaurs - they're called birds. However, the Wikipedia Talk Pages are not a Forum, but are only to be used to discuss the use of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article(s). This conversation does not conform to those guidelines, and should end now. 71.75.60.27 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I know Wikipedia Talk Pages are not forums, but I didn't bring this topic up to discuss my opinions, I suggested placing that there may be a possibility that man were around with dinosaurs, and not birds, though they are dinosaurs as well, and if it is necessary to put it. I you still think I should I will end this conversation. Lovecherry (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we have a note saying "(225-66 mya (non-avian dinosaurs))" on the timespan? User:Raptormimus456 (Talk page) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is Nyasasaurus...--MWAK (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

And Qinornis, a possible Cenozoic non-avian avialan dinosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the last occurrence of a "non-avian" dinosaur again depends on the definition of "avian". It's quite possible other lineages outside of Neornithes survived beyond the K-T-event. Then again, it seems a bit affected to call Ichthyornis a non-avian dinosaur :o).

Maybe, but no more than calling Sarcosuchus a non-crocodilian pseudosuchian... affected or not, it's true ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Most taxonomists, and practically every non-specialist using the word "dinosaurs", don't include the realm of modern birds in the group. Imagine the following snippet of discussion:

-"Unfortunately, my friend, all dinosaurs are long since extinct, and this is a fact."

-"No, they're not. Look at that crow over there."

And birds actually play a minimal part in the article. The infobox really should make the distinction between the old reptiles and adapted birds, whether these are capable of flying (as the vast majority are) or have moved to a swimming or running way of life. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"practically every non-specialist" Why should anyone care what non-specialists think? A lot of non-specialists probably also consider whales to be fish or Pluto to be a planet. The word specialist implies they know more or have more current information than others. The goal of education or an encyclopedia specifically should be to inform non-specialists what specialists currently believe in an understandable manner. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Specialists don’t go to Wikipedia to get their information, in fact they only marginally contribute directly to WP. Not even students of zoology or paleontology use Wikipedia that much to find what they want for their studies; they go to textbooks, scientific journals, lectures and other academic sources. The target group of WP is the general public, not specialists. And if you think there is any "consensus" among all taxonomists these days on birds being dinosaurs, you’re sorely mistaken (no one is disputing that Archaeopteryx and the like were dinos, but that doesn't immediately translate to all Cenozoic-era birds belonging within the group, any more than mammals would belong to the clade fish because our distant predecessors ultimately derived from early marine fish species). 83.254.151.33 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to treat fish as a clade, you would have to include humans. Nowadays "fish" is just an informal term for vertebrates more primitive than tetrapods. Abyssal (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"The target group of WP is the general public, not specialists." Which is why places like Wikipedia need to translate what specialists are saying in a way understandable to non-specialists. How is the fact that non-specialists use Wikipedia not an argument that Wikipedia should contain outdated information? Is the role of an encyclopedia to reinforce misconceptions the general public think they already know? Should we list Dimetrodon as a dinosaur because that's what most people think, and mostly only specialists know otherwise? A vast majority of dinosaur paleontologists (the only specialists whose opinion should matter in an article on dinosaur paleontology) consider birds a subgroup of dinosaurs. The fact that some taxonomists who primarily work in other fields classify them otherwise is irrelevant and should be relegated to a footnote at best in this article. An article on vertebrate classification may treat it differently, sources permitting. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Could someone do a section on geographic distribution of Dinosaurs? seems like it should be in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.169.9 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For what geological time? If it's the present and birds are accepted as belonging within the clade, it would cover practically the entire planet except the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. If you're thinking of let's say 90 million years ago, it would be worldwide as well, but with a radically different outline of the continents and oceans. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly would we need this, anyways? It's established in the article that dinosaurs span the whole world, so it's not like the geographic distribution would be any different from a world map. :/ Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change 0 Ma to 66 Ma From Iikehamandcheese (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Done I am no expert but from what I can tell from respective Wiki pages, the age of dinosaurs ended with the end of the Cretaceous period, 66 Ma. The infobox said it ended with the Holocene, which is the period that continues to present day, and so the date range ended wuth 0 Ma. This doesn't make much sense as dinosaurs do not walk amongst us. changed both the infobox and the date range Cannolis (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done. I am an expert on dinosaur ages and classification, and unless birds are not dinosaurs, dinosaurs lived to present day. Birds are the closest relatives to dromaeosaurs, and dromaeosaurs are theropods. So unless birds evolved from crocodiles or pterosaurs, all of theropoda would have to be outside of dinosauria for dinosaurs to become extinct 66 million years ago.

talk

) 13:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but the "Age of Dinosaurs" (more generally called the Age of Reptiles) is considered to have ended 65 million years ago - they no longer "rule" today. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)\

However, even thought they do not rule, they are the most common land vertebrates, and still exist. IJReid ^discuss 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As it is, the taxonomy is lacking. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Clade: Dinosauriformes Clade: Dinosauria

there should be more categories included, at least Class: Sauropsida, and maybe some others from this paragraph I took from the classification article:

"Benton classifies all dinosaurs within the Series Amniota, Class Sauropsida, Subclass Diapsida, Infraclass Archosauromorpha, Division Archosauria, Subdivision Avemetatarsalia, Infradivision Ornithodira, and Superorder Dinosauria. Dinosauria is then divided into the two traditional orders, Saurischia and Ornithischia. The cross (†) is used to indicate taxa with no living members."

I tried to edit, but I can't seem to deal with the taxobot. I only have a basic knowledge of editing wiki, so if someone else could make the change that'd be appreciated. Bigdan201 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite strange to me that the clade picture in the top right of the article doesn't include any birds, even though birds are so prominent in nature today, and has been the only extant dinosaurs for 66 million years. How about adding in e.g. a

Check the archives for long past discussions on this topic. The current image is a hard fought compromise. Alternately, we recently established a practice for node based clades that includes two images for each specifier. If any images are good enough, it might be best to simply show either Iguanodon and Megalosaurus or Passer and a Triceratops, though the latter definition will not be permitted by PhyloCode. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked the archives, and I did find exactly the picture I proposed, but I didn't find any good arguments against. The relevant discussion seems to be this: Talk:Dinosaur/Archive_12#Taxobox_image

• Peter Brown seems to think that the word "dinosaur" should be defined by popular usage among non-scientists (and tries to argue that scientists doesn't consider birds dinosaurs, but de Bivort gives 33 examples of scientists calling birds dinosaurs to Peter Brow zero examples of scientists not calling birds scientists). People also (successfully I judge) argue that Wikipedia science articles should be based on scientific consensus, not on laypeoples' preconceptions. And finally the rest of the article already calls birds dinosaurs, so having a taxobox image not calling birds dinosaurs seems silly.
• Petter Bøckman says that using a living birds as one of the six places in the taxobox is "frontloading". Which seems an absurd argument to me, since the birds represents the only living dinosaurs for 66 out of 231 million years of dinosaurs (66/231=29%), and the only living dinosaurs, so having 17% of the taxobox image depict them is surely fair. If I look at
  Gobiconodonta, and Multituberculata would seem obvious), and for bird all 18 images are of living birds, so surely it is not frontloading for dinosaur
  to have one out of six image be of a living dinosaur.
• MMartyniuk makes the only good argument against I can see, that "M. gui represent more basal members of a clade, so that you can visually see the evolution of a group as you click through the subgroup links.". Personally I still think an image of a living bird would get that idea clearer across that birds are dinosaurs than a tiny image of a fossil where you have to look carefully indeed to see the feathers.
• MMartyniuk also has an IMO bad argument that "including a modern specifier, which may be initially baffling and off-putting for some who don't bother to carefully read the text". If laypeople have misconceptions, then I say it is important for the Wikipedia to tackle those misconceptions head on. The purpose of an educational text is not to avoid offending laypeople's preconceptions at any cost.

I note that a poll was never held. But I do get the impression that the people arguing against the "birds as dinosaurs" idea are vocal but marginalized (like the people insisting that Pluto is a planet, no matter what the scientific definition say, because that is what they learned in junior school...). So why not just hold a poll? Thue (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with any poll or any image like this is that choosing which taxa are "representative" is usually a subjective decision. To get around this I had made this collage using the internal specifiers used in the two most widely employed definitions of Dinosauria: Triceratops plus Passer, and Megalosaurus plus Iguanodon (maybe we have some better images of the latter two by now?). This might be a better compromise because a) it still shows representatives of a few major dinosaur groups and b) these are the formal representatives scientists currently use to define the group, so nobody can argue against the inclusion of these particular taxa. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One problem with that image Dinoguy2, that specimen does not belong to Megalosaurus, it is actually a

talk

) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by your argument Thue. My knowledge of taxonomy does not extend very far into the older branches of this clade, so I can't offer much in the way of an opinion as to which species, avian or otherwise, are suited to the chronology or other organizing principles of the images selected, but, that being said, I can say that, taken together, the considerations of A) having the only extant branch of this geological era represented and B) drawing the attention of our readers to a major, wide-spread and enduring misconception about such a prominent taxon are compelling argument to include an avian image as proposed. Arguments about continuity in the image collection not withstanding, this is a matter of encyclopedic tone. Snow (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The image DG made seems pretty appropriate for the article, in my own opinion, so I'd be fine with it being included. Of course, then it'd be prime fire fuel for MANIACs... but eh. Let 'em raeg. I say put it in, at least once the Megalosaurus is actually a Megalosaurus, and not a disguised Neovenator spy. ;) Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but first the Megalosaurus, as well as the Triceratops need ousting and replacing.

talk

) 14:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

These discussions, summarized extremely well by Thue, are one of the main reasons I do not get involved here much anymore, as it is extremely exhausting to constantly fight the mentioned strawman arguments. I agree with Thue, an extant bird should be in there. HMallison (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new collage that can be used, illustrating Apatosaurus, Microraptor, the House Sparrow, Stegosaurus, Plateosaurus, Triceratops, Gastonia, and Edmontosaurus. Even thought I originally planned to just replace the inaccurate Triceratops on Dinoguy2's but realized that I could make a larger collage showing at least 4 members of the two suborders (Saurischia and Ornithischia) instead of 4 Ornithischians and 2 Saurischians (note, I am definitely not following the classification by Feduccia). Any comments on my collage?

talk

) 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a nice collage. But a bit crowded :o). Be daring. Just have three images: Triceratops, Apatosaurus, Passer.--MWAK (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for bumping this thread (though it's only 3 months old, and not archived), but a while ago, I tried to make a collage that includes at least one picture to represent each type of dinosaur; but, alas, I had to cut some groups from the image (due to size and layout issues); included in those cuts were the hypsilophodonts, camarasaurs and ceratosaurs, unfortunately. Still, I've tried to balance the saurischian/ornithschian ratio; there's 6 saurischians to 4 ornithschians, meaning that I would only need to cut either Coelophysis or Plateosaurus and replace them with either Fabrosaurus or Hypsilophodon for the two groups to have the same amount of representation, if that's desired. The image itself is here: http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/271/a/d/wpdino_dinosauria_taxobox_image_by_gojira5000-d80v19h.png In any case, this is just another hat into the ring; feel free to critique the image if you so choose. ;) Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see two problems with the current lead image. One is the crossed bones in the left forelimb of the Triceratops, which given the small size of the image could be written off as trivial. The other is the posture of the Gastonia; I don't believe a land animal that large could hold its limbs in a sprawled position for any length of time if at all, and the reconstruction contradicts the article text, which says the limbs should be erect.

talk

) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Erect limbs refers specifically to the posture of the hind limbs and how the femur articulates with the acetabulum. I don't know why the posture would not be possible and have never read anything saying that the front limbs could not adopt a crouching posture, just that this was not the normal walking posture (the mount seems to be posed in an active stance). The limbs must have been bent/sprawled this was occasionally in order to go from prone to standing and to drink, etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhinoceroses rise from prone to standing and drink water, but they never splay their legs like that. I'd like to replace the lead image with

talk

) 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh, there's always something wrong with these older mounts. In your image, the Triceratops is missing its fifth finger, and the tail spikes on the Stegosaurus are posed incorrectly... There are more correct images in the articles of each animal. And to be really nitpicky, it recently turned out the Pinacosaurus mount has four toes on its hindfeet, when it should only have three... Seems we should use this tag[1] more. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problems with each of the mounts. The montage image is higher resolution and has clearer contrast than the present picture. Both have the same problems with inaccurate presentation, although toes and tail spikes are more trivial and less noticeable than entire limbs. Since both are inaccurate, but one is a better image in terms of resolution and contrast, it is better to use the better image.

talk

) 09:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is: why not just use correct images? It was not in defence of the current one. Number of toes and fingers isn't really trivial. Would anyone use a photo of a three fingered Tyrannosaurus? This Triceratops[2] is pretty good, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Before I try creating a new montage, can you confirm that you are happy with the selection and if not suggest alternatives. Thanks.

talk

) 10:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I must emphasize that the radius runs from the lateral humerus condyle to the medial wrist (many mounts get this horribly wrong) and thus does cross the ulna. And furthermore, the less it crosses (and the less the hand pronates), the more the forelimb sprawls!--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they kind of cross by default, but check the Triceratops on the right of the old image[3], the radius and ulna of the left arm seem to cross/twist way too much inwards? The "palms" should instead almost face each other... FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Feathers

Is this article worth adding to the external links? http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/27/what-colours-were-dinosaur-feathers/ Jcardazzi (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Classification

The text in this section differentiates Saurischia and Ornithischia by the orientation of the pubis, but the captions of the illustrations seem to contradict the text. Chrismorey (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what is contradictory? I just re-read the text and captions and don't see any issues. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I had read the illustrations left-to-right, whereas in fact they are of the left side and need to be read right-to-left. So I agree that there is no contradiction. However if I can misread this, so can others, I imagine. If more of the skeleton were shown, it would be much clearer. I instance http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/saurischia.html, which shows the entire hind leg including the foot, and is totally unambiguous. Chrismorey (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporal Range

I think the temporal range should say: "Late Triassic-Late Cretaceous" instead of "Late Triassic-Holocene". I understand when it says this it's referring to birds, but when it's classifying it, the clade is "Dinosauria", and according to the Bird article, a birds clade is Carinatae. I understand that birds descended from dinosaurs, but there's a fine distinction between the two, just like reptiles and mammals who branched off at around the same time as birds and dinosaurs (mid-Jurassic). If you'd like to comment, I'd love to hear it! Dunkleosteus77 ^{talk to me!} 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A

Ornithuromorpha, and so on until you reach Dinosauria. Editor abcdef (talk

) 12:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Dinosaur article should focus more on non-avian dinosaurs, as birds already have their own article. Dunkleosteus77 ^{talk to me!} 18:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you also believe the Dinosaur article should focus more on non-sauropod dinosaurs, since sauropods already have their own article? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding Mesozoic Section

I'm thinking that there should be a description for the Mesozoic, and I've already written one. Tell me what you think! Dunkleosteus77 ^{talk to me!} 15:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Mesozoic Era Also known as "the Age of the dinosaurs ", the Mesozoic features the rise of reptiles on their 150 million year conquest to rule the earth from the seas, the land, and even in the air. There are 3 periods in the Mesozoic: the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous. Triassic The Triassic ranges from 250 million to 200 million years ago. The Triassic is a desolate transitional state in Earth's history between the Permian Extinction and the lush Jurassic Period. It has three major epochs: the Early Triassic, the Middle Triassic and the Late Triassic. [1] The Early Triassic lived between 250 million to 247 million years ago and was dominated by deserts as prosauropod ) The Middle Triassic spans from 247 million to 237 million years ago. The Middle Triassic featured the beginnings of the breakup of Ichthyosaurs and Nothosaurs. Meanwhile on land, Pine forests flourished, bringing along mosquitoes and fruit flies. The first ancient crocodilians evolved, which sparked competition with the large amphibians that had since rule the freshwater world.[3] The Late Triassic spans from 237 million to 200 million years ago. Following the bloom of the Middle Triassic, the Late Triassic featured frequent heat spells, as well as moderate precipitation (10-20 inches per year). The recent warming led to a boom of reptilian evolution on land as the first true dinosaurs evolve, as well as synapsids, and almost all large amphibians went extinct, as well as 34% of marine life in the fourth mass exinction event of the world. The cause is debatable. [4] [5] Jurassic The Jurassic ranges from 200 million years to 145 million years ago and features 3 major epochs: The Early Jurassic, the Middle Jurassic, and the Late Jurassic. [6] The Early Jurassic spans from 200 million years to 175 million years ago. Ammonites fill waters as the dominant races of the seas. On land, dinosaurs and other reptiles stake their claim as the dominant race of the land, with species such as Dilophosaurus at the top. The first true crocodiles evolved, pushing out the large amphibians to near extinction. All-in-all, reptiles rise to rule the world. Meanwhile, the first true mammals evolve, but never exceed the height of a shrew. [7] The Middle Jurassic spans from 175 million to 163 million years ago. Ichthyosaurs were flourishing. This epoch was the peak of the reptiles. [8] The Late Jurassic spans from 163 million to 145 million years ago. K-T extinction.[9] The increase in sea-levels opened up the Atlantic sea way which would continue to get larger over time. The divided world would give opportunity for the diversification of new dinosaurs. Cretaceous The Cretaceous is the longest era in the Mesozoic, but has only two periods: the Early Cretaceous, and the Late Cretaceous. [6] The Early Cretaceous spans from 145 million to 100 million years ago. Mosasaurs evolved to replace them as head of the seas. Some island-hopping dinosaurs, like Eustreptospondylus, evolved to cope with the coastal shallows and small islands of ancient Europe. Other dinosaurs rose up to fill the empty space that the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction left behind, such as Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus. Of the most successful would be the Iguanodon which spread to every continent. Seasons came back into effect an the poles got seasonally colder, but dinosaurs still inhabited this area like the Leaellynasaura which inhabited the polar forests year-round, and many dinosaurs migrated there during summer like Muttaburrasaurus. Since it was too cold for crocodiles, it was the last stronghold for large amphibians, like Koolasuchus. Pterosaurs got larger as species like Tapejara and Ornithocheirus evolved. More importantly, the first true birds evolved which sparked competition between them and the pterosaurs. The Late Cretaceous spans from 100 million to 65 million years ago. K-T Extinction, the fifth and most recent mass extinction event, in which 75% of life on earth went extinct, including all non-avian dinosaurs. Everything over 10 kilograms went extinct. The age of the dinosaurs was officially over. [10] [11] References ^ Alan Logan. "Triassic". University of New Brunswick. ^ Alan Kazlev. "Early Triassic". unknown. ^ Rubidge. "Middle Triassic". unknown. ^ Graham Ryder, David Fastovsky, and Stefan Gartner. "Late Triassic Extinction". Geological Society of America.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ^ Enchanted Learning. "Late Triassic life". Enchanted Learning. ^ a b c d e f g Carol Marie Tang. "Jurassic Era". California Academy of Sciences. Cite error: The named reference "britannica.com" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). ^ Alan Kazlev. "Early Jurassic". unknown. ^ Enchanted Learning. "Middle Jurassic". Enchanted Learning. ^ Bob Strauss. "Cretaceous sauropods". author. ^ University of California. "Cretaceous". University of California. ^ Elizabeth Howell. "K-T Extinction event". Universe Today.

I'll just add it. If you want to delete it, go ahead.

The whole section seems to be better suited to the page about Mesozoic, and indeed it seems you have already added it there as well. Half of this information is not even about dinosaurs. Also, Eustreptospondylus is not a Cretaceous taxon, and I don't recall any evidence pointing to it being island-hopping; following taxonomic revision of Iguanodon it is currently exclusively European taxon; and sauropods survived in Early Cretaceous on more continents than just South America. --Macrochelys (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I also vote removal. If we keep it we also need a section covering Cenozoic dinosaurs. There's nothing here that can't be covered in the evolution and diversity sections. Also, "The age of the dinosaurs was officially over" is total baloney, since there are more dinosaur species alive today than lived during the entire Mesozoic, by an order of magnitude. Also, I noticed you also used this edit to change the time span and smallest dinosaurs sections to remove references to birds, without explanation and in violation of overwhelming scientific consensus. Please check on the talk page or at least include an edit summary if you are going to try and change the scope of a featured article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"The age of the dinosaurs was officially over." Indeed? Which official declared it over? On what basis? /sarcasm

This has no place on the Dinosauria page. HMallison (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall writing that sentence, actually. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 21:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems I've irritated someone here. I reverted the deletion of content and addition of smallest bird which was done with no edit summary twice. The ref for the tiny bird says nothing about dinos - so that is

WP:SYN. The long Mesozoic bit - no comment, just please use an edit summary to avoid such. Vsmith (talk

) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Good article... But...

This is a really great article, but the pictures are very scarce, and the ones that exist really leave something to be desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Italics

"Brachylophosaurus canadensis" needs to be italicized in the section "Dinosaur Renaissance". 216.8.131.43 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, but wrong section. Fixed now. IJReid ^discuss 18:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Iguanodon discovery inconsistency

This relates to the "History of Study" section. This section states that the wife of Gideon Mantell discovered the first Iguanodon fossils. However, the article on "Iguanodon" states that Gideon himself discovered the fossils, and the story of his wife finding the fossils is a "legend".

Zdorovo (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporal range should be changed.

The temporal range currently says Late Triassic-Holocene (referring to birds) the problem with this is that it implies Dinosaurs went extinct in the current time period the Holocene so I think it would make sense if it said Late Triassic-present because saying Holocene implies their extinction in that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D141:3800:5508:4DFC:D7A0:FA00 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Abyssal (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It really should say Late Triassic to Late Cretaceous as birds are not dinosaurs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sksksksksksksksk (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Except they are. 2600:100C:B229:5E54:0:21:ADDC:CE01 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the suggested change, though the same issue is present on several other pages, especially as there is depate about wether the Holocene has ended and the Anthropocene has begun, I think this is a valid move. ((PS: Birds are therapod dinosaurs, at this point that is pretty much certain ))Stefanpw (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Unbiased?

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Let's try not to push evolution and not even mention creation. It is biased to hold evolution as the only truth and not give any leverage (for a lack of better words, would support be a better word?) to creationism. I read that our articles need to be unbiased and factual. We shouldn't lean towards one idea and not explain the other ideas. You may say that we have an article on creationism, but our readers need to know all views when they read something that would normally support one idea. Christian Sirolli (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We push observable facts like the theory of evolution because encyclopedias are supposed to inform people of facts. And yes, evolution, despite the rantings of some prominent creationists, has been observed and recreated in a lab. I've even got proof of it in a box under my bed. Sorry you were misinformed.Farsight001 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but, no. Encyclopedia readers do not NEED to know all views when they read something: The earth article does not need to state that some people think the earth is flat, the lightning article does not need to include information on Thor or Zeus. Evolution occurs, this is a fact, and it is not biased to include facts and leave out supernatural explanations. Stefanpw (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Stefanpw, actually some of the articles you mention should note that (eg. the earth was thought to be flat for a long time, was thought to be the centre of the solar system), but they should also note that these are outdated opinions that have been proven wrong time and time again. This is science, something once widespread is proven wrong, but people still have there own opinion to think of whether that proof is enough. Scientists on a global scale believe in evolution, and only the small minority go against that overwhelming majority. Yet the non-scientific public can and should have there own opinions on the findings, but that does not mean that the majority of scientists are wrong. IJReid ^discuss 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is even more biased than you have discovered. While you seem to advocate equal treatment of evolution and creationism, that would still be unfair to the viewpoint of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. So I suggest we follow the suggestion of Bobby Henderson:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Thue (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How this article appears in Google

When Google presented this article as the first answer to my question, How long were dinosaurs alive?, it showed 66 million years in large print above an excerpt from this in a specially formatted box. I don't know why it was especially highlighted, was it a paid ad? Anyway, the number should be 135 million in the heading, as the text of this article indicates. Try searching in Google for the question above to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.27.248 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Those boxes are google's attempt at finding the right answer from the page, it is not controlled by Wikipedia. While often times the algorithm finds the right answer, sometimes it messes up and gives a related but incorrect answer, which is what happened in your case, not sure if anything done on the page would solve that.Stefanpw (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of birds in Dinosaur montage? Suggestion

The subject explains it all really, do you think pictures or skeletons of birds should be included in the montage image for this page?

If so, what birds (extinct or extant) would be good candidates? (Perhaps two?)

if not, why?

Stefanpw (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Extinction of dinosaours

How about the last study that dinosours bones actually have collagen remains on their bones, if this is true they did not become extinct before 60 million years--

talk

) 09:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, if this is true it means collagen can survive in conditions we previously thought it couldn't. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

so what you thick holds,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.178.113 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what language that is, but all contributions to English Wikipedia are to be in English. Trilobright (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Extinction

I'd like to know what do creationist scientists think how dinosaurs have become extinct? They believe that 6.000 years ago, humans lived together with dinosaurs. So how have dinosaurs become extinct, according to them? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that there are legitimate paleontologists that seriously believe the Earth is that young, this article would not be the place to describe it (it would be

4.5 billion years old with an error margin of bout 1 percent). The place on Wikipedia to describe their explanations would be Creation science. Gap9551 (talk

) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I put this paragraph into the talk of that article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please fix the Temporal range because dinosaurs are not living anymore they went extinct 65 million years ago 65.175.243.206 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Hi, most dinosaur species are extinct, but not all because birds are still alive. That's explained in more detail in the article, with references. Gap9551 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dome-heads

In taxonomic temblate on the right, there is no mention of Pachycepholosauria. Despite the fact they are a distinct subgroup of dinosaurs. Somebody should add them in. There is already Ceratopsia, Sauropodomorph, Theropoda, Ornithopoda, Ankylosauria and Stegosauria. So why are Pachycehpalosaurs left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the taxobox to include Marginocephalia (the Ceratopsia+Pachycephalosauria group); is that an acceptable compromise? I also merged the Ankylosauria and Stegosauria entries into one entry for Thyreophora, the bigger group for those animals. Raptormimus456 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaurs as a "class"

It seems Dinosauria has traditionally been regarded a "class" of animals, but this article doesn't mention this at all, and only refers to them as a clade, which is more up to date I guess, but also a retroactive labelling. Seems the class rank should be mentioned somewhere under history at least. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think traditionally Dinosauria has been ranked as an order and later superorder within Reptilia. Bakker tried to introduce the idea that it be treated as a class with Aves as a subclass, though I think this was only really picked up by Paul in PDW as it came right around the time cladistics took over. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right there; traditionally, Dinosauria is an order/superorder within the class "Reptilia", not a class in and of itself. But of course, "Reptilia" is paraphyletic anyways... But mentioning it under History seems like an appropriate compromise. Raptormimus456 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reptile

Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles that, like many extinct forms, did not exhibit characteristics traditionally seen as reptilian

Jane and the Dragon has Dragon call himself a reptile and the creators say he is a dinosaur, so dinosaurs being reptiles made sense to me. But I looked at the tables on the right and see a problem.

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Sauropsida

Clade: Dinosauriformes

Clade: Dinosauria

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Clade: Amniota

Class: Reptilia

The Kingdom/Phylum match up well enough, but rather than being part of the "reptilia" class it instead says Sauropsida. Doesn't that mean dinosaurs are not reptiles? Has something been mislabelled?

Also why are there 2 lines saying Clade? Is one a mistake?

Also confused by the order. Why does it go Class>Clade for Dinosaur and Clade>Class for reptile? 174.92.133.112 (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Reptilia" is not a modern scientific group, but more of a folk biology group including unrelated animals, the closest biological class is Sauropsida. Also "clade" is not a rank, as it means any group of related animals. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Reptilia and Sauropsida are basically the same. Abyssal (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, actually; "Reptilia" consists of crocodilians, snakes, lizards, dinosaurs and turtles, but excludes birds, while Sauropsida is crocodilians, snakes, lizards, dinosaurs (including birds) and turtles. The places in the phylogenetic tree are indeed synonymous, but the definitions are not, as "Reptilia" excludes birds, while Sauropsida does not. Basically, though, the big difference is "Reptilia" is paraphyletic while Sauropsida is not. Raptormimus456 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The first delimitation of Reptilia as a class was in 1768 by

Mesosauridae. There are other definitions of Reptilia. Reptilia sensu Modesto 2004 is materially identical to Sauropsida.--MWAK (talk

) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaurs evolved in less than 5 million years from reptile predecessors Comment

New study:

Dinosaurs evolved in less than 5 million years from reptile predecessors, early dinosauromorphs, not 10 million to 15 million years as previously believed.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dinosaurs-evolved-in-a-startlingly-short-time/

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/03/1512541112

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article indeed claims "these data suggest that the origin of dinosaurs was a relatively rapid evolutionary event", but it is hard to give such utterances any meaningful content. Dinosauria is a node clade, so the group originated when the egg of the last common ancestor of the dinosaurs was fertilised. What they really mean to say is that already five million years later the dinosaurs were determinably different in morphology. No big surprise there. The ten to fifteen million years was the stratigraphical gap — but such a gap is not a good indication of evolutionary rates when the fossil record is poor.--MWAK (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

64.62.219.54 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Chandler family and his head

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaur sounds

I feel that the communication section relies two much on one source and explains it in too much detail. It should be trimmed down and include more information on the resonance structures of dinosaurs like lambeosaurines and ankylosaurs. I also found this paper. LittleJerry (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the info here might be useful: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-dinosaurs-roar-48438337/?no-ist FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are many spelling errors I will be able to fix them. Loller12 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

48% of dinosaurs named aren't really dinosaurs?

Not totally sure about where information from this article [4] I came across should go, but some of its key points should be listed/cited in this article. If this were a history of dinosaurs I'd put it in the "Historiography" section. But this is a science article, so...I believe it useful that appropriate skepticism (in the scientific sense) this article identifies be demonstrated here somewhere...Hires an editor (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, two things: This is true for most other taxonomic groups, not only dinosaurs. Taxa are reclassified and synonymised all the time, even living ones. Furthermore, it would be better to cite a study than a pop-science website. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the source does not claim that all these aren't dinosaurs: they are mostly nomina dubia which means they largely are dinosaurs, just not represented by distinctive enough remains; or junior synonyms which are identical to a dinosaur already named. Only 58 names of over a thousand were given to non-dinosaurian fossils.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is the citation for dinosaurs first appearing exactly 231.4 million years ago?

The second sentence currently reads "They first appeared during the Triassic period, 231.4 million years ago". If the first appearance is that specific (tenth of a million years) it should have a citation and I cannot find any scientific reference. If it said 230 mya or around 250 mya that would be fine, but given the precision of the date it should have a scientific citation. I found the 231.4 mya number in both 101 Amazing Facts about Dinosaurs and on clearlyexplained.com, but neither of these are sufficient for a citation. Can someone find an original scientific source for that figure?Jss367 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• According to Marsicano et al. (p. 511), "The transition to communities containing the first dinosaurs occurred in less than a 5-million year interval, based on unambiguous dinosaur body fossils dated to 231.4 Ma from the lower part of the Ischigualasto Formation (21,25)." I don't have access to the sources they cite, but they are:
  21. Martinez RN, et al. (2011) A basal dinosaur from the dawn of the dinosaur era in southwestern Pangaea. Science 331(6014):206–210.
  25. Rogers RR, et al. (1993) The Ischigualasto tetrapod assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and 40Ar/39Ar dating of dinosaur origins. Science 260(5109):794–797. --Macrochelys (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Martinez paper states that "The Ischigualasto Formation, a richly fossiliferous fluvial succession within a Triassic continental rift basin (6, 19), provides a window to faunal dynamics at the dawn of the dinosaur era. To quantify and temporally calibrate faunal abundance in the Ischigualasto Formation, we logged nearly 800 vertebrate specimens and obtained radioisotopic ages that bracket the formation between 231.4 and 225.9 million years ago (Ma) (Fig. 4) (8, 20)." I think 231.4 refers to the maximum value in the range and not necessarily an exactly known value. I don't see any mention of 231.4 mya in the Rogers paper.
  • Also in the Martinez paper, it lists earlier dates for other types of dinosaurs: "The discovery of Eodromaeus, the reinterpretation of Eoraptor as a sauropodomorph, and the faunal record of the Ischigualasto Formation provide additional evidence that, by mid Carnian time (~232 Ma), the earliest dinosaurs had already evolved the most functionally important trophic and locomotor features characterizing ornithischians, sauropodomorphs, and theropods (17, 23)." The citations there are for articles by Paul Sereno, but I cannot find a specified earliest date in either of those articles.
  • I also found this paper:The oldest dinosaur? A Middle Triassic dinosauriform from Tanzania. Sterling J. Nesbitt, Paul M. Barrett, Sarah Werning, Christian A. Sidor, Alan J. Charig, which you can read here: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/1/20120949. The paper is about the Nyasasaurus which is older than 231.4 mya, but perhaps shouldn't be considered a dinosaur. Either way, the authors state "The exact timing of dinosaur origins and the pace of early dinosaur diversification remain unclear", which goes back to my main point that we don't have the precision to say that dinosaurs "first appeared during the Triassic period, 231.4 million years ago". The paper was published in 2012, so it includes the papers you cited.
  • I noticed that the Wikipedia page "Evolution of dinosaurs" starts with "Dinosaurs evolved within a single lineage of archosaurs 232-234 Ma (million years ago)". There are a few different dinosaurs mentioned on that page that predate 231.4 mya, many citing the reference: Weishampel, Dodson & Osmolska, 2004, The Dinosauria. Unfortunately, I don't have the book so I can't pursue this further.
  • Overall, I think my main point stands that we don't have the precision that this page seems to suggest. I recommend that the article state that dinosaurs first appeared around 230 million years ago, or something to that effect.Jss367 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that there is a big difference between a phylogentically calibrated estimate of when the first dinosaurs likely evolved, and the age of the rock formations containing the earliest actual dinosaur fossils. The first will always necessarily be older than the second. I don't really care what date is listed (the maximum result of the radiometric test or a rounded equivalent) but the above arguments sound a little on the OR side. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • That's a good point. I think that's even more reason to express the first appearance with less precision. Would anyone be opposed to changing the second sentence to "They first appeared during the Triassic period, over 230 million years ago ..."? Jss367 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I would suggest something like "The earliest known fossils than can confidently be identified as dinosaurs have been found in rock formations dated to between x and y." Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Perhaps that is the best way to approach it. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to say what the date range should be. It surprises me that it there seems to be resistance to change and in the two months since I've brought this up no one else has had a problem with it. Does anyone else agree that this statement should be clarified or at least that it is not properly cited? Or am I the only one who thinks this should be changed?Jss367 (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is currently the following sentence in the lead paragraph: "Until the late 20th century, all groups were believed to be extinct; however, the fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors during the Jurassic Period.[2] As such, birds were the only dinosaurs to survive the mass extinction event.[3]"

No such "belief" existed in the "late 20th century". I went to school in the 1970s and 1980s and we were already taught about the Archaeopteryx ("First Bird") found in the late 19th century and having been thought ever since to be the link between dinosaurs and birds. Furthermore, birds are NOT dinosaurs any more than we are Homo Egaster, nor were there any actual birds in the Jurassic Perios - only bird-like theropods.

Please change the sentence to: "The fossil record indicates that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, having evolved from theropod ancestors beginning in the Jurassic Period and survived the mass extinction event.[2][3]"

Thanks Krautkontrol (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a

Stick to sources! Paine

  10:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Another point, though Archaeopteryx has been known for a long time, it wasn't necessarily considered a dinosaur (or a descendant of dinosaurs) for most of this time. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This term has gathered currency recently, with much in the way of definition or explanation, notably in Wikipedia. The term "non-avian dinosaurs" suggests that avians, or

both true: birds are dinosaurs, and descended from dinosaurs (otherwise, the term "birds" would be synonymous with the term "dinosaurs") HMallison (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again (see above "not done" rationale), an analogy can be drawn with modern humans... we are "

Stick to sources! Paine

  00:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you may be indulging in a little cherry-picking; the feathered dinosaur link doesn't refer to modern birds.

Yes, I think that the bulk of our educated public knows that birds are descended from dinosaurs. But consider this:

When a chickadee lands on the tree outside my house, I don't shout "O look! A thunder-lizard!" (Well, maybe I would for humorous effect.)

More to the point, the article could make this distinction clearer.Kortoso (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you would not shout "O, look! An amniote/tetrapod/vertebrate/chordate/deuterostome/opisthokont/eukaryote!" in the situation you describe, either. Should we exclude birds from all these groups, then? --Macrochelys (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, dinosaur does not mean "thunder lizard" (you're thinking of Brontosaurus). Dinosaur means "terrible lizard". Richard Owen, who gave dinosaurs that name, thought they were giant lacertilians (actual lizards). Dinosaurs have nothing to do with lizards and science has moved on in the last 200 years, but the name sticks even though it's wrong. If a chickadee lands on your window you wouldn't say "oh look, an animal!" because you know a more specific name for it. Just because birds are a type of dinosaur doesn't mean you should go around calling them that and not seem silly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The current most popular system of naming prehistoric animals is to make all groups

monophyletic, so that descendant taxa are included within their parent taxa, and nested indefinitely. So birds are dinosaurs, birds are reptiles, birds are tetrapods, birds are "fish", etc. the same way that humans are apes, animals, etc. There's no reason this has to be, since all nomenclature is arbitrary, and saying "birds are dinosaurs" is only different from "birds are descended from dinosaurs" semantically, but it is the current consensus system in the field so it should be used on Wikipedia. Dinoguy2 (talk

) 11:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert that ridiculous lead image to the previous montage.

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the first thing you think when you go to an article on Wikipedia about a group of organisms and see that the main image is of the fossils of an extinct organism? That that group of organisms is extinct, right? Well, that's the case with this article. Only dinosaurs aren't extinct. So change the main image to a photo of a living bird. Showing skeletons of non-avian dinosaurs as the main image is saying that birds aren't dinosaurs. --How come why not (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Birds do not represent all dinosaurs (and theropods are already represented by Microraptor in that image), which this article covers. Microraptor is a sufficient representation of both non-avian theropods and avians. Raptormimus456 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The other issue is one of definition. Some groups, like Avetheropoda, were designed to include birds and certain of their extinct relatives (allosaurs). So, birds are an integral part of the group's identity. Dinosauria is defined as Megalosaurus + Iguanodon, so the group just happens to include birds, basically by coincidence. So, it's hard to argue that birds are an integral part of Dinosauria the way they're an integral part of Avetheropoda, which includes a photo of a living bird in the taxobox. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, though, I'm pretty sure that the Triceratops + Passer definition is pretty common, as well. Either way, though, it'd include birds; as long as maniraptors are dinosaurs, birds are, by descent, dinosaurs. And Microraptor serves the role of representing both the extinct and extant forms of Theropoda, so I still see no reason to change the image at all. At worst, I feel the varying phylogenetic definitions should be noted in the lead, simply so we can avoid more squabbles over the main image.

Something along the lines of "Throughout the years, various animals have been used to define the group; however, the two most prevalant definitions are Megalosaurus + Iguanodon and their most recent common ancestor and Triceratops + Passer and their most recent common ancestor." Raptormimus456 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Destinyhysell (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC) I would like to help edit and find errors in words and in sentences, I use most of my free time to find errors and correct them online I love finding things that people don't do correctly. I would be truly grateful if you would let me fix anything that has a lock on it, because lots of people can not fix things on here and it would be a dream come true if I could do this. Please conceder my offer and let me do this. thank you!

   (P.S. you could email me at [email protected] or text me at (615)285-8732.)

                                                         Sincerely, Destiny Hysell

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Inquisitr (citation 2) is an appalling source. The same link is in the bird lede as well. 185.104.185.18 (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Seokgyuhan (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 15:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

This edit request to Dinosaur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why the top left picture is called Microraptor? , it's Stagnopleura bella, it's clearly written in the image description 36.79.202.239 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

36.79.202.239 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

An updated image was uploaded to the Commons by commons:User:How come why not. I undid this for now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The user here on en.wiki has also been blocked for vandalism. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect he was referring to Stagonopleura bella, the beautiful firetail, not Microraptor gui; in which case, I have no idea how one could confuse the two. Raptormimus456 (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to replace the bullet list in the taxonomy section with a phylogenetic tree.Mariomassone (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Have any idea of what study the cladogram should be from? I would recommend Carrano et al 2012, but that only covers non-Coelurosaurians. We could have a combined tree of Carrano et al and Cau et al 2016 (Balaur redesc), but I don't know how the others would like it. IJReid ^discuss 14:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a good analysis to base it off (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690971/pdf/12028774.pdf) The only problem will be having to separate different groups, as a cladogram can only have a max length of the tree and we shouldn't allow it to grow off the page. I will start building it here, just to see if we can actually make it in the article. IJReid ^discuss 14:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A concern could be

WP:Original synthesis, if there isn't a published cladogram with all groups, and we have to combine... FunkMonk (talk

) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaurs loved mac and cheese and they invented pizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicdog5555 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918141759/http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Robertson2004.pdf to http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Robertson2004.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://testservice-eprints.gla.ac.uk/4496/1/4496.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7646/full/nature21700.html says "For 130 years, dinosaurs have been divided into two distinct clades—Ornithischia and Saurischia. Here we present a hypothesis for the phylogenetic relationships of the major dinosaurian groups that challenges the current consensus concerning early dinosaur evolution and highlights problematic aspects of current cladistic definitions. Our study has found a sister-group relationship between Ornithischia and Theropoda (united in the new clade Ornithoscelida), with Sauropodomorpha and Herrerasauridae (as the redefined Saurischia) forming its monophyletic outgroup" and pushes back the origin to 247 mya, and into the northern hemisphere. Abductive (reasoning) 02:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I believe we've agreed that this is not to be followed fully yet on the wikiproject Dinosaurs talk page. IJReid ^discuss 04:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See

WP:DUE to me. But I'll review the arguments furthered at the WikiProject and see if any of them strike me as compelling. Snow ^{let's rap}

09:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, IJReid, reviewing that discussion, it looks like only three people took part, and the issue being discussed related solely on whether or not to begin editing the taxoboxes to reflect the new tree distinctions. I happen to agree with the conclusion reached on that issue, but I'm not sure that is what Abductive was necessarily suggesting here. They rather seem to be bringing up the existence of the model in a more general fashion, inquiring as to whether and how to mention it in the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not advocating anything really. This tree may be of interest, that's all. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A few more people have commented there now, most opinions agree with the ones already stated. It'll take some time to for most people to come to the discussion, most people are only occasional commenters. About the media, they tend to make significant changes by exaggerating, and, the changes aren't all so significant as you might think. Everyone agrees that basal theropods are poorly understood, and possibilities include the normal cladogram, silesaurids within Ornithischia, and Ornithischia closer to Theropoda. Its not stable, and really has never been. Every few years some new taxon is found, or some redescription modifies a part of the tree. We'd like these things to be predictable, but theres no way to tell how significant a change will be in the future. IJReid ^discuss 04:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just so long as the discussion takes place here, with regard to how the content issue is treated on this article, I've no objection to that as consensus, but my personal perspective is that the

WP:Original research is less useful for editorial purposes here. I think there is more than sufficient sourcing for a mention in this article, but I'm happy to go with consensus, in any event. Though looking at that discussion I see that it is still only concerned with the issue of the taxbooxes; I think you're taking too much license in assuming those editors don't want to such a major study mentioned at all, in any article relating to dinosaur clades. In fact, only three (yourself included) have expressed a firm opinion on that one narrow taxobox issue. That said, it does make sense to promote this discussion with a link at WikiProject Dinosaurs. Snow ^{let's rap}

00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the new concept should of course be mentioned and described in detail here (and in other relevant pages, cladogram, anyone?), but it shouldn't replace the traditional concept anywhere yet. For example, I added a bit of text about the new group to the Heterodontosaurus page[5], since that taxon is prominently featured in the paper as one of the most completely known early ornithischians, which is important for establishing relationships between groups. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like the correct balance to me as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO, editors should be welcome to add information regarding the new taxonomy under "Definition" and "Classification", including a phylogeny (though the content in those two sections should not be repeating each other). However, there is no reason to change the taxobox when a grand total of zero additional papers have supported the hypothesis. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree; mention the hypothesis in sections where it matters; if it becomes consensus, then do the broad edits. Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, at present this tree revision is noteworthy but not a basis for extensive revision of content such as taxobox revisions. It will take at least a small number of years before that becomes appropriate, I'd guess. Note that Ornithoscelida has become an article with some presentation of that major component of the new theory. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In last paragraph of Extinction of major groups claims about oxygen levels could be more precise. Traditionally it was believed that during Phanerozoic, levels of Oxygen in atmosphere very much higher than today (30%). But study of an international team of researchers led by Ralf Tappert, University of Innsbruck in Austria disproved this in 2013. Here is one good source

• Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology Page 336-339

Here are few articles:

• uibk.ac.at Amber Provides New Insights Into the Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere
• natureworldnews.com Dinosaurs Lived in a Low-oxygen World, Study Suggests
• abc.net.au Fossilised sap points to low oxygen past
• seeker.com Low Oxygen Dino Air Trapped in Amber
• softpedia.com Earth's Atmosphere Used to Be Much Poorer in Oxygen

Original article:

• Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 121, 15 November 2013, Pages 240–262 Stable carbon isotopes of C3 plant resins and ambers record changes in atmospheric oxygen since the Triassic

I am no expert on this field so I don't think I have any right to edit this article. Someone with more experience can research this more and update the article.

SyncMaster192 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dinosaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130204111508/http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2012_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf to http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2012_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019102238/http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/71/71353d57-1619-409e-9777-1f7c797d2ec6.pdf to http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/71/71353d57-1619-409e-9777-1f7c797d2ec6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215044640/http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/blood-and-gristle-found-cretaceous-era-duck-billed-dinosaur/ to http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/blood-and-gristle-found-cretaceous-era-duck-billed-dinosaur/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828103713/http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589 to http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/589
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006113229/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529094636/http://www.cisneros-heredia.org/infotrans/usfq/ornitofauna/pdfs/zhou2004.pdf to http://www.cisneros-heredia.org/infotrans/usfq/ornitofauna/pdfs/zhou2004.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Whilst the extinction of the dinosaurts was considered "rapid" in evolutionary terms, it actually happened over several million years. Modelling of climate "trauma" resulting from an impact cannot create any reasonable scenario that lasts that long. THere is a simple modification to the theory that is more plausible, but it doesn't seem to have any publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.6.201 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The "slow" extinction might be an illusion caused by the Signor–Lipps effect.--MWAK (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I am certainly not an expert, but I thought that dinosaurs were no longer considered to be reptiles --- in contrast to the opening sentence of this article.12.27.66.8 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No they are normally considered to be reptiles. Their name means "terrible lizard", and cladistically they are included in Reptilia. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the fact that they are no longer thought to have been "cold blooded", like reptiles are. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Depends on whether "reptile" is considered a valid taxonomic group and, if it is, how it is defined. "Reptile" as it is popularly understood (lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians) is not considered a valid taxon because it excludes birds. To include all the animals generally considered reptiles in a valid taxonomic group it would have to include all dinosaurs (which, in turn, would include all birds). --Khajidha (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

At least the reptile Wikipedia page lists Aves in the taxobox... I'm pretty sure there are definitions of Reptilia that includes its descendants, such as dinosaurs and birds. FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)