Talk:Megalosaurus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article said that the 1676 discovery was of "A jawbone and teeth" but Plot's picture clearly shows the lower extremity of a femur. Is this just a mistake, or was there more material recovered? Gdr 04:18:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there was another discovery in 1818. Gdr 04:20:41, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Gallery of pics, for review please

Hi, No feedback from 'Image Review' page, so I've created a 'gallery' on the article, so that folk can take a look - I've put another message on the image review page, so it should turn up on people's 'watchlist', somewhere. (May have been missed with the hornet's nest created by my 'model' photos!) - Ballista 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, I had a load of images on other pages which I put into galleries only to have someone take it all off and redirect link to Wikipedia commons gallery. I have been working with some others and tend to agree the images have a bit more oompf when they are within the body of the text. A second photo of teh old-style reconstruction is probably redundant, while the bones could be scattered down the left size in a floating left column near where they are mentioned in the text. The trackway...? A mention then made of that separately, I guess.

I don't have any primary therapod texts which talk about this dinosaur unfortunately as I would add more. But I will look around. Cas Liber 21:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realise some sensitivity about galleries - only done like that to make them available - we can then do as you (or others ) suggest, ref. positioning. Thanks for constructive response - Ballista 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should steer away from the gallery look. It is generally regarded as a sign of a lack imagination, where one can just plonk any old pic there without editing them carefully into the article's text. In my experience, galleries are frowned upon & usually are forced to be deleted during FAC or peer review. For now it should stay until more text is created to place the pics in, but after that, or if it is up for FAC, the gallery should be deleted... Spawn Man 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems entirely logical and I had intended that they should be selected and inserted, acc. to editors' decisions. - Ballista 02:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar error?

"...he named the genus Megalosaurus, estimating it to be 12 m long." I'm just dumb foreigner, or did he estimate the genus, not animal itself, being 12 meters long? --195.148.29.73 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I'll fix it.Dinoguy2 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a grammatical error, but what is this doing in the first (top of article) paragraph? "In a 2001 study conducted by Bruce Rothschild and other paleontologists, 16 foot bones referred to Dilophosaurus were examined for signs of stress fracture, but none were found.[1]" ... looks like it has been pasted in from somewhere else ... Orbitalforam (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I just stuck that at the top because there wasn't a pre-existing section that seemed fit to hold info on paleopathology. And I did copy and paste it from my user space. :P Abyssal (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Species

But there are no more species of Megalosaurus? If you see in Haţeg Island the list of the species found there contains "Megalosaurus hungaricus" (one that not appears in this article), also in Megalosaurus at Spanish Wikipedia there are listed 25 species, some are invalid but not all except the "Megalosaurus bucklandii" and the dubious "Megalosaurus hesperis". Really how much species have the Megalosaurus?--201.218.24.21 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Megalosaurus hungaricus is a nomen dubium, known from a single tooth. It's impossible to say for sure if it even comes from Megalosaurus, or even from a megalosauroid. M. hesperis should be listed, since it's different enough that some people have implied it will be placed in its own genus, "Walkersaurus". Dinoguy2 22:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the list of 25 species of Megalosaurus in Spanish Wikipedia? All are invalid except Megalosaurus bucklandii?--201.218.24.21 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Most likely, yes. Megalosaurus has hisorically been awastebin taxon, where any large thropod and/or tiny scrap of unidentifiable bone was given its own species within M.. Dinoguy2 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a personal record of other species, M. cuvieri, M. dunkeri, and M. parkeri. Can anyone else verify these? Ninjatacoshell 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

M. cuvieri is a Streptospondylus species, if I recall correctly. M. dunkeri is supposed to be the type species for Altispinax, which is a nasty ball of yarn. M. parkeri is now the type species of Metriacanthosaurus. J. Spencer 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we add a list of species like in Iguanodon and Triceratops? Iainstein (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Authorship of Megalosaurus and "Megalosaurus" cambrensis

The correct authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii is Ritgen, 1826, according to http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm, so change the authorship for Megalosaurus bucklandii from Mantell, 1827 to Ritgen, 1826.

Ritgen, F., 1826. Versuchte Herstellung einiger Becken urweltlichter Thiere. Nova Acta Caesareaa Leopold.-Carol. Ger. Nat. Curiosorum. 13, 331-358.

Remove "M." cambrensis from the Taxobox and merge it with the "Newtonsaurus" page when the name "Newtonsaurus" is published.

Not quite--Ritgen described Megalosaurus conybeari, a name that would have priority, but it's a nomen oblitum, not M. bucklandii. Also see [1]. M. cambrensis should stay here until it is formally moved to a new genus, not just erased from existance, so to speak (same situation as "Dilophosaurus sinensis"--everybody knows it's not Dilophosaurus, but moving it would be original research until it's published, and deleting it would be counter productive). Dinoguy2 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that "Newtonsaurus" will ever be formally published, anyway (at least not by the original author). J. Spencer 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Left premaxilla image

On this unused image, a part of an upper jaw is shown at the left, but I haven't read about that being known before, so has that part been assigned to another genus? FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could it be part of the whole general mess of things recovered at the type locality that may or may not be Megalosaurus? J. Spencer (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking it could be Duriavenator? Anyone have access to the full PDF? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The figure in the publication isn't the same as the MX seen here (different teeth and preserved portion). J. Spencer (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The maxilla part is OUM J13506, a specimen in 1869 by Huxley referred to Megalosaurus. Naish & Martill (2007) considered it a new taxon. The praemaxilla is fake, I believe.--MWAK (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
But no name yet? FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Benson in 2010 apparently concluded it showed no traits different from those of the other two known maxillae in the Megalosaurus material, OUM J13559 and SDM 44.1. The short anterior ramus is surprisingly basal, though. Naish thought it was an abelisauroid, Bakker in 1992 considered it a sinraptorid. BTW, the display represents most of the elements known in 1824 (or even now) and most again of these seem to be the real McCoy, not casts (though heavily restored with plaster), so it might be useful to enlarge e.g. the skull elements, which are about in the same configuration Phillips in 1871 used to create, according to Naish, the first theropod skull reconstruction in history.--MWAK (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
An yidea what this[2] chunk is today? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
^ That's Duriavenator. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any prizes for wittyness?

'Cause if they are whoever wrote this part of the article must earn one;

He called it "Scrotum humanum," while comparing its appearance to a pair of human testicles. The label was not considered to be a proper Linnaean "name" for the animal in question at the time, and was not used in subsequent literature. Technically, though, the name was published after the advent of binomial nomenclature, and so if it was truly intended to represent the erection of a new genus it would have priority over Megalosaurus.

after all, it is a dirty pun but no one can claim it is invalid...Undead Herle King (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming a new taxon is properly called erecting it, so no pun was intended ;) Maybe we should change it to "naming" so as not to give bored 12 year olds any ideas? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are new news to me, well if its called "erecting" then the pun is unavoidable, just like it happened with Uranus, the greeks could not foresee there would be a language where it would be thought of as something smelly that spits out dirty logs... At least this serves as a disclaimer that no pun was intended...Undead Herle King (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Especially because in Latin (not Ancient Greek, which called the god Ouranos) it would be pronounced "OO-ran-oos" not "yoor-AN-us"... the Romans could not foresee that there would be a language that universally mispronounced theirs so badly! MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well... mythology describes Uranus devouring his children... that could have given him some nasty breath.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First dinosaur described

The claim that Megalosaurus was the first dinosaur to be described is dubious. Take a look here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2009/06/miti-e-leggende-post-moderne-sui.html&hl=en&langpair=it%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=utf-8 Basically says that we have no idea if the Scrotum humanum specimen was actually Megalosaurus, in the modern sense. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I always head Meg was the first named, not first described. Anyway, Scrotum humanum is sure to be a dubious name, but wouldn't it be fun if somebody actually named and re-described it based on the existing figure? ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The bones found by Plot were not described as Megalosaurus - that's the whole point of the squabble over the priority of the name versus "Scrotum humanorum". Richard Owen (publicising Buckland's discoveries and 1824 description of Megalosaurus) provided the first description of Megalosaurus as a dinosaur in 1842 (as well as describing Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus). In doing this he identified the "Dinosauria" as a saurian sub-order. The rest is history. (And so is that bit). Orbitalforam (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Halstead?

Quote from the article:

In the early 1990s, W.A.S. Sarjeant submitted a petition to the ICZN to formally suppress the genus name Scrotum in favor of Megalosaurus. The Executive Secretary of the ICZN at the time, P.K. Tubbs, rejected Halstead's petition, concluding that the term "Scrotum humanum", published merely as a label for an illustration, did not constitute the valid creation of a new name, and stated that there was no evidence it was ever intended as such.

Who submitted the petition, Sarjeant or Halstead? GregorB (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Both, but Halstead posthumously.--MWAK (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern reconstructions

Given the complicated history of this genus I'd've thought that the article would be larger and certainly with more references. Yes, I know I'm complaining and not fixing but I recognise that this will take time that I simply do not have.

However, this in the Modern reconstructions subsection:

"Although Megalosaurus was a powerful carnivore and could probably [my emphasis] have attacked even the largest sauropods, it is also likely that it gained some of its food by scavenging. That is not to detract from its prowess as a hunter (Tyrannosaurus probably did much the same). Efficiency was necessary to feed such a large body."

strikes me as a bit of OR - it certainly appears to be uncited. I thought that the image of theropods attacking "defenseless" 30 tonne sauropods had largely been relegated to the popular books of the past.

Also, the bit about its scavenging not detracting from its "prowess" as a hunter (with the inevitable comparision with T.) reads more like something I would find in a book written for a younger audience, not an encyclopaedia. Should we add this caveat to all articles about larger theropods or members of Felidae or <insert any taxon that hunts and scavenges>.? If someone could take a look at it, that would be great. Thanks. 124.168.245.200 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I think it would had taken you way shorter time to fix it yourself than writing all of the above has. The work involved pretty much just amounts to deleting text and tweaking existing text a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but I get tired of people reverting my deletions because I edit from an IP. (And you could also have done it in the time it took you to write your response :-). It's done now.124.168.245.200 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to prove a point. And that edits made by IPs should be reverted just for being so is a myth, it's all abut the content. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are modern birds dinosaurs, then?

The introduction says "It is significant as the first genus of dinosaur (outside of birds) to be described and named." Does this mean that modern or recent historical bird genera are now considered to be dinosaurs? I'm not saying that's not so, because I'm not a paleontologist, but I thought birds were considered to be descendants of certain kinds of dinosaurs, not actual dinosaurs. TCSaint (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In modern phylogeny, if a species is a descendant of a species belonging to a certain group, it belongs to said group also. So yes, birds are dinosaurs.--MWAK (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. TCSaint (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Here I will list some minor issues, some more may come.

  • and later that of a giant human – I could not find this information in the cited source. Who knows a source for this?
Cited. Iainstein (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In 1815, John Kidd reported the find of bones of giant tetrapods, again at the Stonesfield quarry – Here, the Stonesfiled quarry is mentioned for the first time, the world again seems out of place.
Found where mentioned before and corrected. Iainstein (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the species list, Megalosaurus bucklandii is designated a Nomen protectum, but the text says that a petition for making it a Nomen protectum failed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Corrected. Iainstein (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is generally considered the name in 1822 was still a nomen nudum ("naked name"). – Why? Because it was published without description, or because Buckland and not Parkinson coined the name? This sentence requires a source also. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Iainstein (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is generally considered a nomen nudum — but incorrectly so. Parkinson provided a minimal description and an illustration. This suffices for him to be the author of the genus Megalosaurus. We thus find ourselves in the awkward position that we cannot disregard his nomenclatural act but are not allowed to indicate him as the author (unless a recent source could be found) or simply state the name is a nomen nudum (known falsehood). We could, applying the "expert caveat" policy, explain all this in a footnote.--MWAK (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is quite frustrating, it seems the pathological rib on plate 26 has been erroneously replaced with a duplicate of plate 20 that shows Iguanodon! http://www.lib.utexas.edu/books/britfossils/html/txu-oclc-13370987-2-dinosauria-plate26.php FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Found the ribs in another scan. Anyone knows what this[3] is, though? Doesn't match the lectotype it seems. ;FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I just realized something. Not even Scrotum humanum was the first dinosaur named. What about Rutellum? Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article? Iainstein (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, since it is pe-Linnean, it doesn't really count in that context. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
But still, wasn't Scrotum pre-linnean? Iainstein (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This article states the name was coined in 1763, and the first edition of Systema Naturae is from well before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok. I thought the date it was "named" was 1679 or something like it. Iainstein (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad news

This image — and all images in Commons of the same skeleton — is not of Megalosaurus, but of a cast of the Neovenator replica from the 1990s:

I'm not sure what image should replace it in the taxobox.

However, the skull image could be replaced by a enlargement of the authentic skull elements shown in this image:

--MWAK (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! Why is it labelled as Megalosaurus? I guess the image of the fragments is good enough? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I found this. It might be accurate enough to replace the skull but it might also be inaccurate. It look a bit different from the skull in the fragments image but I can't tell which is more accurate. How does it look? Iainstein (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with many of thos eimages are that they ar drawn pretty much freehand, so they are not very accurate. I'd choose the image on the left, it was actually the taxobox image for a long time before the current one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It isn't necessarily a bad thing to have a photo of such fragmentary specimens in the taxobox, it is less misleading, since what you see is what you get, and that's all we have. See also discussion at Hadrosaurus: [4] FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The cast was labelled Megalosaurus because the original intention was to name Neovenator as a Megalosaurus species. Very bad idea, of course :o). The skull diagram is not very accurate. It is in fact based on the display, as shown by the fact it erroneously shows the praemaxilla as having been preserved (it is in fact a complete fake). It seems we have no serious alternative for the photograph of the display.--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good to know, I added the inaccurate "palaeoart template" to the image then, and recategorised the photo... FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found this while searching for skeletal images for a megalosaurus restoration with a cetiosauriscus or cetiosaurus. It is a megalosaurus or just a neovenator? Iainstein (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be the exact same sculpt we had... FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There are three more weird images, one which could be added on the right under Appendicular skeleton... Femoral condyles, doesn't look too interesting.[5] Coracoid that looks like a pelvis?[6] Scapula from the Wealdean?[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
They could be added to the article. Iainstein (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that Megalosaurus did not exist during the Wealdean, and if the coracoid is mislabelled, it should be noted... FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the scapula is from megalosaurus. When was that published? Anyway, it had a question mark behind it and it was most likely published in a time when they didn't know all the species that were assigned to megalosaurus (not counting M. bucklandii) were actually not megalosaurus. I definitely think the coracoid is mislabelled. Iainstein (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megalosaurus/Archive_1&oldid=726020128"