# Talk:Sinosauropteryx

An IP has been adding an argument against the filamentous structures being feathers, but is using a false premise that if filaments are present, the animals they are on must therefore be ancestral to birds.  No evidence is cited to establish this premise, and the paragraph is completely uncited.  Additionally, several of the examples cited did not have filaments, but something else (psittacosaurs and ichthyosaurs most notably).
"Further evidence that casts doubt upon the assertion that the filaments found on Sinosauropteryx are feathers is the fact that they have been found on fossils unrelated to birds,"
This evidence only casts doubt on the assertion if in fact filaments can only be present on on animals on the direct ancestral line to birds.  There is no evidence that this premise is true, and no evidence is brought to support the premise.
"like Dilong which is another basal, non - maniraptoran coelurosaur,"
See above.  This is a false premise. 
"Psittacosaurus,"
In the case of Psittacosaurus, these are long bristle or quill-like structures, unlike the filaments.
"some Pterosaurs"
The pterosaur example fails on the grounds that the integument in question is not necessarily the same as that present on Sinosauropteryx.
"and even Ichthyosaurs." 
This is a confused example.  The point of Lingham-Soliar's work was not that ichthyosaurs had filaments, but that "dinofuzz" was the same material as degraded collagen impressions found in ichthyosaurs.
"Moreover, genera related to Sinosauropteryx, like Coelurosaurus and Juravenator, were unfeathered."
There is no such dinosaur as "Coelurosaurus", and skin impressions are only known on part of the tail and legs of one individual of Juravenator.  It's asking a lot out of partial skin impressions one on individual to irrefutably show that filaments are not feathers on another dinosaur that lived tens of millions of years later on another continent. J. Spencer (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT think that this is the earliest example of a dinosaur/avian like fossil species with feather imprints. 
What about:
Jinfengopteryx
Epidexipteryx
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Tianyulong
??
All of these were earlier, and yet they all were found with clear evidence of feathers or proto-feathers.
To be honest, when it comes to feathers, Sinosauropteryx came a few million years late and a dollar short. The feathers are slightly controversial, and they aren't impressive, thick, or advanced.  
To be honest, I have found this kind of claim a lot in wikipedian articles on fossil species.("This is the first example of X")
Anyway, I'm getting rid of that.
Of course, I could be wrong about something. Just reply to me if I am.
Cheers,
71.175.28.64 (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Earliest found of such fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this, Sinosauropteryx is the first dinosaur ever to have its true colour found! [1] Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Sinosauropteryx was the first dinosaur ever to have its true color found. It was adorned with orange and white rings running along the length of its tail. -122.57.216.151 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominated april 24, 2010;
Support:
(sign with four tildes) ~
Comments:
This page isn't really used anymore, but just noticed how nice that article is, and that it could probably become either good or featured with a bit of work. Also, it's the first non-avian dinosaur with feathers and colour, so it's super important! It's also already longer than the Compsognathus article, which is featured. This would be the only featured article about a dinosaur with preserved feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, would be nice to polish this one and submit it. Can we get an illustration of S. sp. trying to eat Zhangheotherium and getting envenomated in the face? ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see this one officially recognized. It already looks quite good, with 17 inline citations. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Is File:Sinosauropteryx_eating_Zhangheotherium.jpg OK for that illustration wanted? And PLEASE, PLEASE help with the licensing of the image. The file has a link to where I found it but I really don't know the license cause I'm new here. Toothless99 talk to me (View my Contributions) 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The image can't be used here. Either the author has to release the right themselves, or you have to ask the author to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Due to its scientific importance, I have to go with Sino. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Currie and Chen 2001 (Sino anatomy) is at http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/philip_currie/uploads/pdfs/2001/2001Sinosauropteryx.pdf;
Hand proportions doubtless came from somewhere, would be good to know where;
Arboreal Sino: I don't have that book, so someone else will have to check it. At any rate, it should be in a paleobiology section, not the ostensible description (which should be beefed up, probably with Currie and Chen (2001) and Ji et al. (2007));
Text was: It has been suggested that it could have had an arboreal lifestyle, jumping between tree limbs.
Image has been tracked down on Google Books. It is a plate for Chatterjee and Templin (Feathered coelurosaurs from China: new light on the arboreal origin of avian flight: 251-281). While I don't see why Sino couldn't have run up trees, the relative length of the arms compared to the legs would seem to make their use in arboreal work (specifically as grapples when leaping from branch to branch) inconvenient at best. The illustrator apparently realized this as well and gave them arms that are maybe 2/3-3/4 the length of the legs in all the pictures, instead of a little more than the length of the femur.
Per the Theropod Database, specimens include type GMV 2123 and NIGP 127587 from the Jianshangou Beds of the Yixian, and D 2141 and IVPP V14202 from the slightly younger Dawangzhangzi Beds. Have no idea what institution "D" could be, doubtless it's in Ji et al. (2007);
[add to or strike through as needed] J. Spencer (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What this article could really use is a paragraph on the paleoecology from someone who's familiar with the topic, to set the animal in its environment.J. Spencer (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well, now what? J. Spencer (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look - you wanna nominate it at WP:GAN if you feel it's over the line with criteria there? That's now a great stepping stone to FAC and will invite an outside reviewer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have access to online journals, J. Spencer? It's hard for mere mortals like me to find refs about such "recently" described animals. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I can get some fulltext stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 roughly similar... - sounds funny to my ears. Why not just "resembling"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This, that, 'n' the other:
FunkMunk: send me an email - I have pdfs of Chen et al. '98, Currie and Chen '01, Ji et al. '07, and Zhang et al. '10, which were the primary references for what I wrote. Dinoguy2, who wrote most of the article, may have some others.
Cas: I'd like to go through it again before passing it on to GAN, but that sounds like a good idea. Also, we should decide if we're going for British spellings; I can fake a British accent (see Iguanodon), but only if I'm thinking about it! J. Spencer (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, which one has the best pictures? FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, great job getting this article into shape! I'm going through trying to find stuff to nitpick and having a hard time. So far the only thing that immediately jumps out at me is the use of "non-avian." Would it be too technical (or too OR?) to use non-avialan? More and more paleos are restricting Aves to the crown group, including in popular works like Holtz's encyclopedia. This will get tricky when PhyloCode is published and I'm sure we'll see conflicts over the use of Aves, so using non-avialan could preemptively avoid a lot of headaches. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look! "Non-avialian" is used in the lede, and I'm okay either way (I don't have a horse in the avian terminology race). J. Spencer (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


### Wrap-up
Having gone through it three times, I think it's pretty well polished. There are two things that I think people may catch:

The S. sp. stuff may be confusing. Hopefully, someone will publish something on it, and we can remove that stuff.
I don't think the collagen fibre stuff is as well integrated as it could be. The problem is that all of the discussion and references regarding it in the article just kind of peter out (which might be a commentary on the ability of both us and paleontologists elsewhere to take it seriously, but I digress). We spend a lot of time talking about their characteristics as feathers and then, all of the sudden, it's "oh yeah, there are these guys that think the things are collagen fibres, but almost nobody believes them." I think there should be another citation about its lack of acceptance in the main controversy section. Also, the dangling nature of the sentence about it in the lede and the part about the controversy in the "History of discovery" take a lot of wind out of the end of the lede and the end of the article, respectively. They're just there, for lack of a better word. Maybe the "History of discovery" section should be moved up? Oddly, for all of its fame, I think that Sinosauropteryx has been really overlooked for the last decade, in favor of Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking good - I think seeing how a fresh pair of non-paleontologist eyes at WP:GAN would be interesting. Sometimes we get stuck with connecting source material if we lack a secondary source which might have done that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I feel that we haven't done enough for some reason, but we can always add more even when it's not the collab. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What do people think this needs before FA? I've only recently (last summer) become involved in the FA process, so I haven't been able to help up much before. But I think I'm up to snuff now, and I think this needs to get featured. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you get the Wikiproject's current collab up? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you J. Spencer!

Is it just me, or does it appear to have too long upper arms? FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, looked fine to me. Don't go by me, though, I'm more focused on dinner right now...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, if what I think is the elbow is actually it, the upper arms are way too long. As you can see here [2] the humerus is shorter than the ulna in adult specimens and about equal in the juvenile (but musculature etc. would make it appear even shorter). The arms are too long overall as well, minus the hand they should be only about %60 femur length. Perspective aside, here, they look about %100 femur length. Basically, Sino had tiny tyrannosaur-like arms, which is a pretty distinctive feature to get wrong in an FA illustration. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it's based on S.? sp. There's a skeletal of it in GSP's field guide, and it looks to have had noticeably longer humeri than S. prima, at least. J. Spencer (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right, those proportions do look closer to NT's resto. Could always change the label (though it would be a bit odd if S. sp. had the exact same coloration as S. prima. And it seems to be lacking the Dilong-like tail tuft seen in the fossil and mentioned by GSP. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I put a picture og Zhangotherium in instead, there's already a picture of a cast of the ?sp. specimen, so having more images of it would maybe be overrepresentation. It can always be used when and if the specimen gets its own genus... FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sinosauropteryx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Well-written:
The lede can be understood if you follow the links, but it's not like you just can casually read it and get an idea of what this dino was. The sentence construction doesn't help: "A small theropod, Sinosauropteryx had", "A handful of specimens have been described,[comma 1] including one belonging to a second,[comma 2, used in another sense] as-yet unnamed species or[more complication] to a related genus.", "Known from the Yixian Formation, Sinosauropteryx [...] Liaoning Province" (too split up), and then a massive sentence on about all its biology. Try to rearrange the lead to improve reading speed.
Accurate/verifiable
Text says countershaded, but the image next to it seems to show something a bit different, or do I misunderstand?
Non-GA criteria stuff
I'd like to check the sourcing for last sentence of the history section, but the link is dead
theropod, avialian come to mind as rather technical words for the lead
It took quite a 2 links and a bit of scanning for me to figure out what sort of theropod this is, in terms of where its ancestors branched off from the bird-ending line of theropods. Can't the info go here? Second paragraph of classification kind of has it, but not so much.
I'll probably be doing the review rather slowly, but there didn't seem to be anyone quicker grabbing the nominee. Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for reviewing!
I rewrote the lede (also in response to another suggestion) and focused the classification. The "avialian" stuff is a bit of a pain, so I hope I explained it better.
The "countershading" is partially in the image (red along the top, white along the belly); the hind legs are a notable exception, but because we've only got color evidence for the feathers, bare skin would be left out, and the artist decided to leave the legs featherless.
You didn't say anything about it, but after checking up on the dead link and thinking about the section, I reorganized so that the "Controversy" section that had been under "Feathers" went with the controversy paragraph of "History of Discovery". So as not to sequester it at the end, I then moved the History section up. J. Spencer (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


### Comments 2
Lede is good now. Maybe the last sentence is a little lack-luster (could specify what was found inside), but nothing bad.
Two sentences are hard to understand:

S. prima had 64 vertebrae in its tail, giving it the longest tail relative to body length of any theropod
Gregory S. Paul, in response to the collagen hypothesis, identified what proponents of the hypothesis consider a body outline outside of the fibres as an artefact of preparation: breakage and brushed-on sealant have been misidentified as the outline of the body
The referencing dissappeared for "Subsequent publications saw some of the same team members disagreeing over the identity of the structures" - which are those publications?
Narayanese (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a whack at both sentences, but I think I was more successful with the first. Regarding the "subsequent publications", that sentence originally ended with "most researchers have disagreed with the identification of the structures as collagen or other structural fibres" and the whole thing was sourced to Currie and Chen (2001). When working on that area, I decided that the source didn't really do that well for either part of the original sentence, so I made the second half the lead-in to a section that could more fully develop the idea, leaving the first half in the lurch. I'm not convinced that the "subsequent publications" sentence works in this version. J. Spencer (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Both sentences were improved. I can understand the second one now (took 2-3 readings though), it says he thinks the feather-lke remains are true but collagen ppl saw other fluff there which he thinks is false. First sentence is less of a logical leap now, but still seems to assume some knowledge about dinos and vertebrae that someone like me that is only barely aware that non-mammals have anatomy doesn't know. Though I guess it's still alright, there's a bit of implicit pointers in the sentence for someone who is content with a surface understanding. I'll remove the unreferenced sentence for now since it would be pretty unfair to that team if it weren't true. Narayanese (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely to be anything more between the article and GA, but I'll wait a little, see what you do to that unsourced sentence, and make a final read-through. Narayanese (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I inserted two references that constitute different opinions from members of the original four (Martin and Currie); there are interesting stories about the "sausage-making" and human sides of science going on here, but they don't lend themselves to referencing at this time. J. Spencer (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah shame, could be interesting with a bit of drama 'further reading'. *smiles* Narayanese (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


### Finishing comments
Ran through it again, but it all looks alright.

Well-written: Standard layout, compensible. Only one once per one or two paragraphs are there difficult enough things (mostly technical terminology, as expected in a non-basic article on science) to slow down reading.
Verifiable: Yup. The colouration illustration might not be clear where the speculative fill-ins come from, but images need some lee-way.
Broad. Yes. Some peripheral subjects, like why it had that dentation, aren't in, but easily all the main stuff is.
Neutral: I looked at a few review-like articles, they described the controversy very similarly. For the rest, the usage of a good fraction of the available literature, including all the top stuff, should result in balance.
Stable. Yeah.
Illustrated: No problem there.
I'll interpret non-reversion as you being ok with the edits I made.
It's a fine article. Narayanese (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news: it's CC 4.0 - we can use the images! [3] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, currently looking at it... Will upload some stuff soon. But so far, it seems our current photo of the holotype is at least superior, but the other specimen is nice to get a photo for too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded already. They are here: [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Dumping the citation for future reference: Smithwick, F.M.; Nicholls, R.; Cuthill, I.C.; Vinther, J. (2017). "Countershading and Stripes in the Theropod Dinosaur Sinosauropteryx Reveal Heterogeneous Habitats in the Early Cretaceous Jehol Biota". Current Biology. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.032. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now added images to where they might fit, but there are of course more that could be added with a little expansion of the article... Also, Dinoguy2's old restoration differs form the new one in some respects, so I wonder whether it should be replaced here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose a formally peer-reviewed restoration is more credible... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Added, I'm not a fan of the gigantic eye which would exceed the diameter of the inner side of the sclerotic ring, that Psittacosaurus model had the same problem... FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd definitely go with the one from the paper. Mine needs updating. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Just realized that we both uploaded images from the paper separately... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I can merge them in that case... Remember to take them from the PDF, the ones on the web version are tiny... FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe someone wants to take a look at this deletion request:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)