# Talk:Kentrosaurus

I've consolidated all reference data in the references section, sorted alphabetically by first author, so that the main text only contains call-outs. This helps in not creating duplicate entries, and it allows calling out specific sections (e.g. pages) within a reference in one instance but not in another without it appearing several times in the list. To that end I have added a NOTES section. The way to call out specific pages etc. is via this tag: {{#tag:ref|PAGE in TEXT_NAME_OF_REF<ref name=REFNAME/>|group="upper-alpha"}}, where PAGE is the element you wish to cite (e.g., "page 223"), TEXT_NAME_OF_REF is the reference name as you want it to read (e.g., "Paul (2010)") and REFNAME is the name given to the reference in the References section (e.g. "Paul2010"). 
Please stick to these rules; when bringing Plateosaurus to FA status it helped a LOT in avoiding chaos with the references. HMallison (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC) 

I started this article before I had an account and am pleased to see that it's evolved into something far more complete. Any chance of us finding a picture in the public domain? Agentsoo 15:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Done! Took this piccy in 1995 at the really cool museum in Berlin Cas Liber 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the spike really over the hips? It's more commonly placed over the shoulders (though of course there might have been something more recent I don't know about. Also this paragraph:

"Kentrosaurus also differed from Stegosaurus in one other key feature — the pronounced spines on the backbone, near the hip and tail region, that characterise the vertebrae of a Stegosaurus were absent from Kentrosaurus. Therefore, Kentrosaurus could not rear up on its hind legs. Indeed, the length of the thigh bone compared with the rest of the leg indicates that Kentrosaurus was a slow and inactive dinosaur."
...isn't logically sound, and needs a reference or a re-write. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the constant comparisons to Stegosaurus. The article reads like the differences between Kentrosaurus and Stegosaurus, not like an article about the animal itself. John.Conway 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Stegosaurus is already well-known to the public, it's only natural to base descriptions of Kentrosaurus on Stegosaurus, noting both the similarities and the differences. If you can find a better way to write the article, so that the description loses no detail and the reader can still picture what Kentrosaurus looked like, feel free to do so. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see both sides. I tried to reorganize the headings like the other dino pages. Could probably streamlime the stego refs a bit.Cas Liber 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday afternoon, I did a sort of 'compromise' edit, which I hope will improve the situation, by keeping the 'best of both worlds' - sorry not to have flagged it up on this discussion page before now - Ballista 06:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Any links appropriate to this cryptid? - Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu - which some cryptozoologists think may be a Kentrosaurus - like stegasaur
--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

quite some important stuff has re-appeared. Also, "An almost-complete skeleton was at one time recovered and mounted in the Humboldt Museum, of the University of Berlin but the museum was bombed during World War II and many specimens were lost." makes it sound
1)  as if the mount was gone
2) as if it was a complete animal that was mounted.
HMallison (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh.  Odd.  It's good that more has been relocated.  The mount itself is certainly extant; we've got pictures in the article. J. Spencer (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds much better now ;) I'll find the reference (Galton 19something) for the cranial material that was found again in some drawer in the basement ASPA. Also, next month (after a conference in Berlin) I will have time to go through the material and see what is still there, what is in Tübingen, and what is still missing or destroyed. I can also list, from Janensch 1925, what is real in the mount - most of the back and ribs is not from the 'nearly complete individual' (which is not really very complete). HMallison (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
added info on the mount, as well as references. btw: the  Museum für Naturkunde is now part fo the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, and no loger of the Humboldt-University. Once I find time... HMallison (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!  What I did was more of a placeholder to clear out the least accurate parts. J. Spencer (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
hey, if us guys actually working on the specimens didn't know, that'd be really really embarrassing ;)I'll update as I go along in my research. Spikes placement also needs a few comment. HMallison (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Part 1: 
I am revamping the entire article, trying to get away from the Kentro-is-an-almost-stegosaurus style, too. Please feel free to fix typos etc. in the new sections, or alter the old ones, which I will consult for the new version constantly.HMallison (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Kentrosaurus longispinus comes from a Dinogeorge article (see here for a brief discussion).  Having said that, I think the only other people who really took it up were dinosaur buffs on the Internet. J. Spencer (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet found time to look into that; thank you very much for the hint! I know that a lot of Stegosaurus material is being re-assessed, and I know the people to talk to, maybe they can shed some light on this HMallison (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Under German copyright laws, only the exterior, not the interior of museums, is in the public domain. While taking photographs inside is usually allowed when not using a tripod, and sometimes even when doing so, it is always explicitly forbidden (unless the museum expressly permits it) to use the images for anything but "private use". Releasing images for commercial use is not covered. Thus, I am removing all questionable images for now. The Museum für Naturkunde Berlin has, to my certain knowledge, not released anything for use on wikipedia.HMallison (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

update here: talk:DiplodocusHMallison (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yippee! Permission granted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Added the pic! :) HMallison (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
On images, is the environment depicted here[1] in any way accurate? If so, I could crop out the bottom graphics to make it more useful in the palaeoecology section here. I'm also a bit concerned about this[2] image. Feet and spikes? This brain endocast image[3] is also interesting, but not mentioned in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find a paper on Kentrosaurus brain but no avail. I'm not share about the first image. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The background is in no way accurate. No angiosperm trees in the Tendaguru. What we need are conifers, seed ferns (Pteridospermatophyta), cycads. You get the picture. The size comparison image isn't too bad. The main problem is that the hindlimbs are bent at the knee. Not an impossible posture of course, but not the normal one for locomotion and very misleading when the intention is to indicate the height of the animal. Perhaps this kentrosaurus was crouching to stalk an unsuspecting cycad :o). The spikes should be more inclined to the rear near the tail end. This is known from the base-shaft angle. Indeed both feet and hands are too long: the ankle and wrist joints should be shown much lower. Perhaps Paul is correct in providing rear padding; he is certainly correct in letting the toes and fingers protrude more; they had no elephantine nails.  The endocast could be shown. It is probably treated in Galton (1988) but I have no copy of this paper...--MWAK (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do for the spike and feet, can't do much about the crouch I think... FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me talk to an artist I know who made an absolutely wonderful reconstruction for me. Maybe he is willing to let me use the pic here. HMallison (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

draft is here:
User:HMallison/DraftKentrosaurus

Go for it, you are an expert in the field so I'll happily defer. It'd be great to get this up to GA/FA as well. I can help copyedit or make maps etc. In general, most of these pages are so quiet one can happily tinker quite extensively in mainspace without needing to resort to drafts etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll throw in some support, too. Kentrosaurus was always one of my favorite dinosaurs. Abyssal (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article currently reads " Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania, dated to the Kimmeridgian stage, between about 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma (million years ago)." There does not appear to be a citation backing up this age range. Furthermore, the Kimmeridgian stage is dated from 157.3 ± 1.0 Ma to 152.1 ± 0.9 Ma according to the current official ICS timescale.[4] Is there a verifiable source for the 155.7 ± 4 Ma and 150.8 ± 4 Ma age range? If so, shouldn't the range of Kentrosaurus be summarized as mid Kimmeridgian through early Tithonian? Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Very good questions :o). The 150.8 boundary is simply the previous calibration Kimmeridgian-Tithonian boundary. It is not an estimation for the Kentrosaurus fossils per se. However, it would still be a good idea to indicate a Tithonian presence for Kentrosaurus, as the Upper Dinosaur Beds where it has been found also, are indeed probably Tithonian! At least, that is what I conclude from: Robert Bussert, Wolf-Dieter Heinrich and Martin Aberhan, 2009, "The Tendaguru Formation (Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, southern Tanzania): definition, palaeoenvironments, and sequence stratigraphy", Fossil Record 12(2) 2009: 141–174. Apparently the data allow for only very rough estimates for the strata themselves, let alone the Kentrosaurus quarries.--MWAK (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kentrosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I've decided to take up this review, and hope that it can make it to FA.First off:

why is the taxon box age 155-150, when the article specifically states Kentrosaurus existed around 152 mya?
don't dinosaur articles normally have the name meaning directly behind the first mention of the name?
"A single species has been named in the genus:" this sounds very weird, I recommend changing it to "The genus is monotypic, with the only species being K. aethiopicus"
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Kentrosaurus was named and described ..." this implies that only the genus was named by Henning, should be changed to "The taxon was named and described ..."
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't know how far "around 152 mya" extends. The taxobox forces us to indicate a "range"; just indicating "152" suggest a precision that simply can't be justified.
Well, there is also Kentrosaurus longispinus, so the initial statement was incorrect anyway. This also implies however, that the genus is not strictly monotypic.
Dinosaur species indeed often have the etymology directly after the first mention of the name. It is a tad silly, though and also quite inelegant but I have to admit people really like to know these things right away. Anyway, I'll not be the one to use the l-word :o).
"Often thought to be a primitive member of the Stegosauria ..." reverse to "Often thought to be a derived member of Stegosauria closely related to Stegosaurus from North American, several recent cladistic analyses find it to be more primitive within the group."
"probably had a double row ..." this states that the plates are not known, should be changed
"could use its tail as a thagomizer for defense" couldn't use its tail as a thagomizer, the tail was the thagomizer
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
the lead should be expanded to at least contain paragraphs on (1) discovery and classification, (2) description, armour and defense info (in that order underneath the very first paragraph)
the lead can still be rewritten a bit
Explain. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
is the body plan of Kentrosaurus typical for a dinosaur, seems like it should be ornithschian.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit was reverted, so I will edit it myself giving a new reason for my edit. IJReid (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's it for now, in two days (I have a soccer tournament today and tomorrow) I will provide many more comments. Good work and good luck - IJReid (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it used to be thought it was basal and later analyses showed it to be derived, so this should not be reversed.
The point is that the exact configuration isn't known. Perhaps, "had a, probably double, row" will solve this.
there is good reason to assume a double row, brought forth by Janensch 1925. "because all spikes are "handed", i.e. there is a left and a right version, it is likely that they formed a double row" HMallison (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Kentrosaurus (probably :o) had no tail end structure clearly separated from more forward spines, so a "thagomizer" should not be referred to.
"thagomizer" can be seen to refer to a special, separate structure, but it could also be interpreted as "the business end that you get whacked with". Thus, one could argue that it should refer to the final spike group, in the case of K. the final pair. HMallison (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The lead should indeed be restructured.--MWAK (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry MWAK. I was thinking of Stegosauridae when I mentioned the reversal of the statement. Added some more comments. IJReid (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
could the description section have a brief overview the likes of which are here
MWAK expanded it and thinks it's better that way. LittleJerry (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
the image of the "thagomizer" in the armour section should be relabelled or replaced, as Kentrosaurus did not exactly possess a thagomizer like Stegosaurus
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
"had extensive osteoderms ..." might be better as "had extensive osteoderm covering ..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you remove the comma after the brackets? IJReid (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I would rearrange the discovery section as:
That is way too complicated. I don't see the point. It seems rather arbitrary to me. LittleJerry (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I agree with you on that point there, but I still have more comments on that section. I think once my comments are fixed I will do my only large change to the section, and rearrange it to better help the layperson with understanding, as the section is choppy and jumps around. IJReid (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Which year did Paul suggest that the different material locations housed different species?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If it was in 2010, then other references are needed to support the comment that his suggestion is not accepted.
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
How about you change the sentence to "However, most recent reviews of the taxon find only one species, K. aethiopicus referable to the genus." as this statement is easy to support with citations. IJReid (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Paul does not normally list previous classifications in his Princeton Guide to Dinosaurs (I know because I looked through it once) so the K. longispinus statement about not being accepted probably wouldn't be supported, but if in this case he does, just let me know.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"The type and sole species ..." should be the start of a new paragraph on previous species and their assignments.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A few choice words on Paul 2010
Paul's work is at about the quality of a yellow-press tabloid. As editors on wikipedia we need to sort sources. Just because something has been published doesn't mean that is has the least bit of truth to it. It can be utter junk. Everybody will happily ignore creationist or nutcase websites. The reason is simple: more shit gets published than anyone can go and disprove. it is essentially the problem of countering a Gish gallop.
Paul has done some OK work in the past. His 2010 abortion, though, has been taken to task repeatedly ([5], [6] for example) and shown to be horribly inaccurate, inconsistent, fantastical and useless as far as taxonomy goes. Therefore, we can here ignore it not because an individual claim in it regarding Kentrosaurus is wrong, but because the work in its entirety has been shown to be unreliable. HMallison (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have to be very careful here. You invoke reliability, indeed an important principle under WP:Undue weight. However, reliability regards the facts. Now, Paul (2010) very largely follows the results of modern cladistic analysis. His main idiosyncrasies reside in the way he groups species into genera. But that is not a matter of fact but of choice. He cannot be unreliable in this as there is simply nothing to be reliable about. So here another principle applies: "Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion". Paul (2010) also habitually assumes that remains found in formations differing in time represent different taxa. Is this "inaccurate, inconsistent, fantastical and useless"?  Why, no. It simply constitutes a set of relevant hypotheses, testable by e.g. morphospace analysis. If some institution would offer you a grant to perform such an analysis to test whether the Kimmeridgian Kentrosaurus remains could indicate a speciation event resulting in a branch surviving into the Tithonian, would you reject it? So there ;o). Perhaps a more interesting aspect is whether Hennig ever addressed this issue. Did he at any point comment on the possibility that there were two taxa?--MWAK (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Hennig did check, and came to the conclusion that there aren't two taxa. Additionally, Paul's is indeed fiction, because he worked WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE FOSSILS - for real or published illustrations! The relevant material is figured only in the tiniest parts in Hennig, Janensch and Galton works, yet *because of a presumption about species longevity* Paul invents a new one. DUH!
People give him way too much credit. A study to test if there are several taxa present based on the avaiable data woul not pass review and would never get funded. So there ;o) HMallison (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
and, by the way, Maidment et al. 2008 found one species, in a study specifically looking at stego taxo, and Barden & Maidment 2011 found two morphs of one species. HMallison (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a problem here in that the suggestions by Olshevsky and Paul have been largely ignored. So it is very true that they were not supported but this negative fact is then hard to source. I propose that by a rephrasal it is made clear to the reader that their thoughts were very tentative. This can easily been done, I think.--MWAK (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
"The type and sole species ..." is biased against Olshevsky. Currently, only one ref is used against the assignment of longispinus to K., and in wikipedia we are supposed to be neutral, so I recommend changing this to The type and solely accepted species is Kentrosaurus aethiopicus, named by Henning in 1915." with multiple refs supporting this statement.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
How can a 1997 ref support the remodelling of a mount in 2006/7
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The last statement of the second paragraph needs a citation. IJReid (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Type specimens and locality section should be a subsection of description
This is not typical for dinosaur articles and the description section is big enough. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Bleah, I meant to type Discovery section. IJReid (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"modern cladistic analysis" use the plural analyses
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"until the 1980s seen" change to "until the 1980s to be seen"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"A successful hunt of Kentrosaurus may have required group hunting." redundant, change to "A successful predation on Kentrosaurus might have only been possible for a group of hunters."
Fixed.
the notes section can be removed, as it is currently empty.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Other than these minor quibbles, Kentrosaurus seems ready to pass. I have not checked the references, although on the basis of Mallison's rewrite draft, which I trust as he is likely to get the sources, I think the citations are at least adequate. IJReid (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

After promoting the article I came across some things to add, that do not affect the overall quality of the article. @LittleJerry:@HMallison: Mallison published a new article, found here, that can add more info to the article. It is on the affect of osteoderms on the centre of gravity. It is also under a CC-By Attribution 3.0 license, with one figure on Kentrosaurus with different possible osteoderm arrangements. I think some of the info can be added to the size and posture section, and the image might be uploaded, although HMallison might want to do the uploading himself. IJReid (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

that image is not useful, as it shows hypothetical distributions that are nonsense - the papers is on what nonsense one has to do to kae the COM shift significantly. HMallison (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I know you weren't too fond of your last FAC experience, HM, but how about nominating this one? Iif you don't have too much time, a bunch of us could help out solve the more mundane issues. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather wait. A year or so. I have some pretty amazing stuff ready for submission, and that will make a big part of a re-write ;) HMallison (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool, looking forward to that! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says "because both the spellings and the pronunciations are different (Centrosaurus is pronounced with a soft C), both Doryphorosaurus and Kentrurosaurus are unneeded replacement names". This might be true for the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, but in Classical Latin pronunciation the letter C always sounds like /k/ (there's no "soft C"). Kentrosaurus and Centrosaurus sound the same to anyone speaking Classical Latin, which is the reason why two replacement names were proposed. Isn't this justified? I'm not saying Wikipedia or anyone else should stop using Kentrosaurus and start calling this genus Kentrurosaurus or Doryphorosaurus, but it doesn't seem correct to dismiss the replacement names as "unneeded" because the argument used ("the pronunciations are different") is not universally/objectively valid. Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation is a red herring here; what matters is the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which says that two genus names are different if their spellings are different. I removed the mention of pronunciation from the article. Ucucha (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Today maybe, but this is a historical issue, so there is no reason to remove it from the article if it is validly sourced. We need to see it in the context of its time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)