# Talk:Taxonomy of Allosaurus

GA review (see here for criteria)
A comprehensive well written article that deserves to be in GA list.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
 Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The name Allosaurus ferox Marsh, 1896 is a lapsus calami for Allosaurus fragilis by Marsh (1896) (Hay 1908), particularly since Hay (1908) points out that "Labrosaurus fragilis Marsh 1896" is a lapsus calami for Labrosaurus ferox Marsh, 1884 (in other words, it's impossible that Marsh named two Allosaurus specimens with the epithet ferox).
Labrosaurus huene is a typographical mistake by Madsen and Welles (2000) with regards to the mention of the name Labrosaurus by Huene (1956, 1958)(see http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Neotheropoda.htm#Labrosaurushuene for explanation).
Hay, O., 1908, On certain genera of carnivorous dinosaurs, with special reference to Ceratosaurus nasicornis (Marsh): Proceedings of the United States National Museum, v. 35, p. 351-366, 4 figs. 83.206.236.228 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

So after the ADF, I guess the next step is to merge this into Allosaurus. Any takers? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
As I've already made clear, I fully support the idea. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion at the ADF about some of the into being inaccurate or misinterpreted. Which would that be, so we can exclude it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, just look at the "potentially valid species" section. It says that there might be eight valid species, a far higher number than you ever see thrown around nowadays. The following section is a horrible mess - each species gets a single very short paragraph, several which get sidetracked, and some of which tell information out of chronological order for no apparent reason. None of them contain sufficient information for a general reader to get any sufficient picture about a single species; it's probably more likely to confuse them thoroughly. Allosaurus lucasi doesn't get any mention at all outside the list of species. The questioning of these species - every single one of them has been questioned somewhere in some capacity - is barely scratched. How on earth this passed GA is beyond me. The other sections are even more brief, and the whole article is based on fairly old literature, almost uniformly from 2010 or earlier. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It would appear then that the only problem is the "Potentially valid species", and that we could already begin transferring non-duplicate info from the other sections, and leave that section for last? As for how this passed GAN, 2007 was a simpler time, and much of the info here seems to have been added since. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The other sections are still pretty sparse in information, but there's less to cover for most them and it's a less essential topic to get right, so they're a lot more forgivable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems the entire "Query about type specimen" section is already in the Allosaurus article (last paragraph under "Species and taxonomy"). The "Biological variation" section could probably be copied wholesale to Allosaurus, but I'm not sure what section, perhaps under description? The Allosaurus article could probably also benefit from a "formerly assigned species" section instead of the current lumping of synonyms and reassigned fossils under "Species and taxonomy". We could maybe have one subsection for currently assigned species, one for synonyms, and one for formerly assigned species. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I have now moved all non-overlapping info from here to Allosaurus, except the section "Potentially valid species". That section has to be checked more carefully, since some of the info overlaps, some doesn't, and some is outdated. The already moved text could of course also need a check up, but a lot of it was identical to text already in Allosaurus, and I think it fits well in the genus article (after new sections were made). The Allosaurus article is now 108.000 bytes, which is less than the current GA nomination Brachiosaurus, at 109.000 bytes... FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Any ideas on how to deal with that last section, Lusotitan? FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The article has been redirected and has therefor lost its GA status. AIRcorn (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taxonomy of Allosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 00:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon. At first glance, I see a good deal of duplinks, which may be intentional, but perhaps worth checking out. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Great, many thanks! I dealt with the duplinks now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if it has been discussed before, but since this is seemingly about the taxonomy of the genus overall, shouldn't it also go into higher level phylogeny like the history of the genus' classification among other theropods as well? Especially if this article is to serve for the genus article to be trimmed, then even more of that sort of discussion could be elaborated on here.
That's a tricky one. I originally included a classification section, but it turned out to be entirely redundant with the section that was already in the main article, so I moved my new section into the main article, replacing the old one. There was surprisingly little to write about the classification of Allosaurus; Allosauridae is more or less monotypic.
(On that note, I would be in favor of merging Allosauridae into Allosaurus; a redirect to Allosaurus#Classification would be suitable. The Allosauridae article has nothing that is not discussed in the Allosaurus article and is superfluous.)
Also for other articles, I think there is rarely the need for a classification spin-off. Often, such info is not strictly pertinent to the genus in question and can be more naturally moved into the family article.
Whether or not "Taxonomy" includes classification depends on the definition. In the US, taxonomy does include it, but in Europe, "Taxonomy" is just the description and naming of taxa (see article Systematics). Yes, in WP articles on recent taxa, the "Taxonomy" section includes classification, and even evolution. But in dinosaur articles, we have "Classification" entirely separate from "History of discovery", which is mostly about taxonomic history.
So far my reasoning. I have nothing against including a brief section "Outer systematics" to repeat the most important things that are already said in the main article, if you think that's needed. Just let me know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Interesting with the "cultural" difference. Perhaps this is worth bringing up on Discord or the project talk page to hear what people think would be best practice? In this regard, I'm kind of surprised neither article mentions Carnosauria, which Allosaurus was often presented as a representative example of in older works, the kind of info which might me more relevant in a spin-off like this that can go more into detail? FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I mentioned Carnosauria in the main Allosaurus article now. I personally do not think that this is information that should go into a spin-off article. Spin-off articles are supposed to go into greater detail about the topic. But the Carnosauria note is not detail, it is the opposite: contextual information. In my opinion, much of the information we usually provide in "Classification" sections in genus articles is contextual information, i.e., information that should be covered in greater detail at the next higher level, e.g. in the family article, and not at a lower level (a spin-off), unless there really is a lot of information on the precise relationships of the genus itself. Same goes for Palaeoenvironment: In my opinion, it does not make sense to create a spin-off "Palaeoenvironment of Allosaurus" that mentions the entire fauna of the Morrison Formation. All that information is just context, and is more aptly covered in the article on the Morrison Formation. So far my reasoning: If we want a "Outer Systematics" section in "Taxonomy of Allosaurus", it would just be a copy-paste from the main Allosaurus article, since additional detail (if we even want that) should go into the Allosauridae article (the next higher level), not here. That said, I have no issue with copying a few sentences over, if you still think that section is needed here too? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Since this is a "new" kind of article, what we do here would have implications for similar articles in the future, so maybe best to start a wider discussion about it? Because that would trump my personal off the bat thoughts. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Added section. Next, I want to re-write Allosauridae, so that we can see what info goes where. I also copy-edited the entire Taxonomy of Allosaurus article; should have done that earlier (sorry for that); it should be more polished now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Cool, I'll get on with it. Perhaps any relevant fixes here could be carried over to the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Link theropod at first mention.
Done
"It is the most common theropod in the Morrison Formation" state where this is.
Done
"with additional specimens discovered from Portugal" Would this be a place to mention the formation as you do for the US specimens?
The nomenclature of the Portuguese formations seems to be a mess; Malafaia et al. use "Bombarral Formation" but I'm not sure how that translates to the stratigraphy we use here in Wikipedia. Portuguese Allosaurus seem to be three different formations involved but I'm not quite getting it.
"suggested as the neotype (replacement specimen)" seems a bit vague, add "type" in front of specimen?
Done
"the neotype (replacement specimen) of Allosaurus" should add of which species, as genera don't have type specimens?
Done
Spell out and link Allosaurus in the first image caption?
Done
"lumbar vertebra, later identified as a middle dorsal; an anterior caudal, later identified as a posterior caudal;" Link and explain these terms (location in skeleton)?
Done
"Allosaurus comes from the Greek" could specify "the genus name" or such.
Done
"have later shown that these concavities were in fact internal cavities" that were exposed by damage? Could be specified.
Explained
"The bones were collected from the Morrison Formation by Marshall Felch" Do we know when?
Added
Explain monograph?
The word is used in many dinosaur FAs and we never explain it; I thought it would be common enough (and also not pertinent to understand the sentence, as long as a reader understands that this is some type of publication).
Present occupation and nationality of all people mentioned or none? Now it's inconsistent.
Removed nationalities. Kept "paleontologists" for Cope and Marsh simply because this is important in this one case for clarity.
"Antrodemus then because the accepted name" became?
Done
"noted the existence of additional bones including a tooth and the part of a humerus" of the holotype? Could be specified.
Done
"Madsens account was based" Madsen's.
Done
"However, Gilmore used the name Antrodemus valens instead of Allosaurus fragilis, an older name that" I think already here you could mention it was based on a single vertebra from an uncertain formation and when it was named, for context.
Done
Could almost be interesting if we have some vintage image using the name Antrodemus for Allosaurus in the "Poikilopleuron valens (Antrodemus)" section... Like a mount labeled as such for years, or an old restoration. Or something that includes the caption, like this:[1]
Added. The AMNH 5753 mount would be another alternative but that's already shown in the Allosaurus article.
Explain undiagnostic.
Changed to "not diagnostic" throughout.
"but this designation did not comply with the nomenclatural rules of the ICZN." Anything to elaborate on here? I'm probably not the only one wondering what that could mean...
Rewritten.
" In 2024, Burigo and colleagues analyzed five skulls to conclude that A. europaeus is a separate species most closely related to A. jimmadseni.[15] In 2025, Malafaia and colleagues used 17 skulls and instead concluded that the two A. europaeus skulls are more closely related to some specimens of A. fragilis than to each other, suggesting that A. europaeus is a synonym of A. fragilis." this level of detail seems like it should be in the section about that species instead of dominating the inner systematics section?
Shortened a bit, but A. europaeus was the primary reason why the two studies did these species-level analyses to begin with, so it seems relevant to briefly point out.
"and refers to the lightening features in the vertebrae" place to link or mention pneumaticity?
Done
You use both undiagnoistic and not diagnostic, wonder if it would be clearer to stick to one.
Done, see above.
Nice to see diagnostic features between species mentioned, often lacking in multispecific dinosaur articles... And very easy to read so far, despite the technical issues covered.
Great! Yeah, definitions of taxa fall under "Taxonomy sensu stricto", and it really helps to not have to discuss all of that in the main article.
"Some other Allosaurus specimens only show a single row." Does that mean they belong to a different species, as you just said two rows is diagnostic for fragilis? Or is it variable within the species?
The paper is kind of contradicting itself here (one of the other Allosaurus specimens is A. fragilis), so removed the sentence.
"The status of A. europaeus has been controversially discussed" that sounds like the discussion was itself controversial, maybe just say it has been controversial without discussed, as it's implied?
Done
"a nomen dubium (doubtful name)" dubious name seems to be the more common phrase?
Done
"nomen nudum ('nacked name'" extra c.
Done
Has there been any evaluations of Allosaurus jimmadseni?
Nothing that questioned the findings of Chure and Loewen as far as I know.
"Antrodemus valens holotype tail vertebra (above) compared to same of Allosaurus (below)" the same?
Done
"it to the European dinosaur genus Poekilopleuron" specify theropod instead of dinosaur?
Done
"more differences to P. bucklandii be found" differences from?
Done
"However, Gilmore was not fully confident about his choice as the Antrodemus specimen is undiagnostic. In 1976, Madsen pointed out that Gilmore studied the Allosaurus holotype based on plaster casts sent to him by Richard Swann Lull, and might not have been aware of the existence of the humerus fragment, which is the most diagnostic of the Allosaurus holotype bones.[8] Antrodemus became the accepted name over Allosaurus for over 50 years, until Madsen, in his 1976 monograph" Kind of confusing that you jump to 1976, then back in time, and then to 1976 again, perhaps keep all the 1976 info after the stuff that precedes it to make the reading order chronological?
Done
"Allosaurus valens is a new combination for Antrodemus valens used by Friedrich von Huene in 1932." not necessary to link Antrodemus again here?
Done
"additional bones from same locality" the same?
Done
"Later researchers suggested that the bone was pathological, showing an injury to the living animal" who suggested this and when?
Added
"Robert T. Bakker considered Epanterias as a distinct genus of large allosaurid, which inspired Paul, who classified it as a species of Allosaurus" date for both claims?
Added
"A 2004 review listed A. medius as a dubious species of theropod" this appears to be The Dinosauria, which you present as if it's a newly introduced source every time you mention it, and in a new way each time, perhaps consolidate it after first time?
Fixed
"in the second edition of The Dinosauria" see above.
Also fixed
"This reassignment was rejected in a 2004 review of basal tetanurans.[19]" as above.
Also fixed
"Later authors suggested that the name Saurophagus" who and when?
Added
"was considered a nomen nudum ("naked name")." doesn't need explanation and link again?
Done
"were excavated in July 1953" why is the month needed?
Removed
"Chure and Loewen declared the species as "invalid",[25]: 5 , while Burigo and colleagues considered it a nomen dubium.[15][4]" Years for both?
Added
"has been assigned to Allosaurus by Minoru Tamura and colleagues in 1991" Was assigned?
Fixed
"This identification was challenged by Samuel Welles, who thought it more resembled that of an ornithomimid,[63] but the original authors defended their identification.[64] With fifteen years of new specimens and research to look at, Daniel Chure reexamined the bone and found that it was not Allosaurus, but could represent an allosauroid.[65] Similarly, Yoichi Azuma and Phil Currie, in their description of Fukuiraptor, noted that the bone closely resembled that of their new genus.[66]" All these statements could need years.
Added
"of which only a few are considered valid." Maybe add "today"?
Added
"(the specimen on which the taxon is based on" only one "on" needed.
Done
"was known under the name Antrodemus" add previously?
That would be redundant due to "For several decades", no?
"Four species are considered as potentially valid." Don't think "as" is needed.
Removed
Is there any stratigraphic separation of the species? Seems unclear from the article now.
Added something to "A. jimmadseni" section
"Several fossils from outside of North America and Portugal were assigned to Allosaurus" Add previously?
I forgot about the German teeth here. Reworded accordingly.
I wonder if there are more type specimens we can show images of?
I uploaded and added two more (A. medius and C. potens), and expanded respective sections.
That was everything for the text. Will do source review next.
Great! Thanks for the comprehensive review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Source check

The statement "Missing portions of the bone had been restored, which possibly made the bone more elongate than it originally was" is supported by the associated citation 20. The source adds that the preserved ends are sufficiently well-preserved, which might warrant a mention? Also, might want to link the free Researchgate PDF?[2]
Hmm, but sufficiently preserved for what? Not sure if this is helpful? I added the link; I saw that at FAC, it was discouraged to link to pdfs on Research Gate since those pdfs are sometimes not fully legal, so I usually do not add those, but I guess it should be fine to link to the respective webpage (not to the pdf directly), which I did now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Citation 67 supports the text (Australian astragalus could be Australovenator, seems like a tongue-twister).
Tried to check citation 26, but it's not linked, so had to find it on Biodiversity Library (link could be added here):[3] It supports most of the text, but I can't find "probably from Morrison Formation rocks". It even says "Hayden thinks was derived from a cretaceous formation". Not that we need these outdated details, but if a later source states it's probably Morrison, it should be added after the old Leidy source as support.
Thanks, added the link. Whenever you have difficulty to obtain a source, you are encouraged to ask the nominator (this is also codified at WP:SPOTCHECK). You are right that this was unsourced; I added a source confirming that it's Morrison Formation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Didn't know linking to PDFs was discouraged, so with the above addressed, I'll now promote the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)