Talk:Dimetrodon

message: Commented away  because it's not a Dimetrodon (GRr#*☇☹♏☭☠☢üXx!!), it's an Edaphosaur. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a representation of the so-called Naosaurus, a composite of Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus. Is that a painting from Charles Knight? If so, it can stay in the pop culture section. ArthurWeasley 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a Naosaur! ;-) But still, to me it looks like an extraordinarily morose Edaphosaurus that newly have been at the dentist to get an extraordinarily big paying bill. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The image HERE, indicates that Naosaurus is one paleontologists chimera, a Dimetrodon head put upon the body of an Edaphosaur. Pop culture it is: like Styganthropus piltdowni. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong. Edaphosaurs have spikes on their neural spines. The great new illustrations have the spines curved. Giant Blue Anteater 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has historical significance, so I think it could be included where it is discussed. Also, we have many other interesting but unused images on Commons, and lots of space here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment away Image

message: This is a topic that covers at least all extinct life forms known under scientific name: there is an IPA-help pronunciation, sometimes a phonetic spelling. The problem i see there, that those pronunciations are English, and i dont really get the clue, why in an English article the ENGLISH pronunciation would need to be explained; but rather the original Greek one would be in need (something like Dee-ME-tro-don). Help and suggestions welcome.--84.63.244.80 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: As of right now, the intro contains this:
"It was more closely related to mammals than to true reptiles (Sauropsida), like dinosaurs, lizards and birds."
What is that sentence trying to say? That dinosaurs, lizards and birds are types of true reptiles?  That dinosaurs, lizards and birds are like dimetredon with regards to being more closely related to mammals than to true reptiles? Or that dinousaurs lizards and birds are rather the opposite of dimetroden in this regard, being more closely related to true reptiles than to mammals? --Atethnekos (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll rephrase this--the first option is the intent. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence. 

message: *The climate of Europe and North America in the Early Permian was probably arid to continental, so Dimetrodon was probably adaptable. 
Please do not reinsert this information without a citation--BirgitteSB 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statement removed 

message: Is Dimetrodon one of our cousins?Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All living things are related.  So Dimetrodon is one of our "cousins", for a loose enough definition of "cousin", but so are tapeworms, sea sponges, venus fly traps, and amoeba.  Relationships are only meaningful in a relative sense - we're more closely to Dimetrodon than to some other creatures, and also less closely than some other creatures.  All that can be meaninfully said is: (a) we are the closest surviving relatives of Dimetrodon, although we are tied for this position with all other mammals, and (b) Dimetrodon is the most closely related to us of all well-known non-mammalian fossils, for a certain value of "well-known".  In particular, Dimetrodon and us are more closely related to each other than either of us is to dinosaurs, trilobites, or the like.  However, it's still less closely related to us than a number of well-known extinct mammals, like mammoths and saber-toothed cats.  It's also less closely related to us than a number of only-moderately-known non-mammalian synapsids like gorgonopsids.  -- Milo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.9.38 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: No, this is a gross oversimplification. The fact is that Dimetrodon is closely related to the ancestors of all modern mammals including humans. But this type of fact is too boring for a show like Walking With Monsters (which was listed as the source). They need to make things sound more sensational than the truth to get ratings ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship

message: I'm a little confused about the sail. From what I can gather, the vertical structure of the sail is provided by exaggerated spinous process projections. From my limited understanding of its anatomy, this would seem to have a few practical implications:
1. The animal would be unable to collapse the sail. It would always be fully fanned open and perpendicular to its back.
2. Torquing the sail could cause a serous injury to the animal, unless there's some sort of mechanism to prevent this.
The sail structure seems very impractical. But I'm sure I'm just not understanding how it interfaces with the rest of the body. Could someone knowledgable please address these points of confusion in the article?
Thanks. --Loqi (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the sail was in no way collapsible. Each sail-supporting spine was anchored to a different vertebrae, and connected by flexible skin. So when the animal walked or ran, or curved its body in a manner that torqued the sail, the sail could 'bend' along with it. The animation for this in the TV series Walking With Monsters is a good example if you can find it. I don't have any papers on Dimetrodon anatomy or biomechanics from which I could update the article unfortunately (if such papers even exist), but I'll look around. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what circumstances would lead to torquing the sail laterally... do you mean, say, in intraspecific combat? The spines are pretty slender, I imagine they'd snap before causing any injury to the backbone. Or the animal would simply tip over on its side. It couldn't cause a wrench against a single vert because its connected to all the other spines by a fairly narrow piece of skin that wouldn't allow much lateral independent motion without pulling the other ones along. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sail structure

message: Naosaurus is being redirected here incorrectly, since it is a synonym of Edaphosaurus. This may be due to a confusion with Neosaurus, but I don't know how to fix redirects. CFLeon (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. To visit the redirect page, after it redirects you there will be a link under the page title saying "Redirected from x," just click the link to the redirect and it'll take you to its page for you to edit. Abyssal (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naosaurus

message: According to the article. "Today most paleontologists prefer a classification system called phylogenetic systematics over Linnean taxonomy." According to WP:WEASEL, words like "most" are generally weasel words, though not if they appear in the topic sentence of a paragraph with attribution supplied by the the rest of the paragraph. This is not the usage here. The only article I have encountered that actually reports such counts is Laurin and Anderson (2004), "Meaning of the Name Tetrapoda in the Scientific Literature", Figure 2c, where phylogeny outnumbers morphology 5 to 3; hardly an overwhelming dominance. I rather suspect that the ratio differs radically between paleontological subfields. Peter M. Brown (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something along the lines of "Phylogenetic systematics is more often used"? It's certainly the case for most of vertebrate paleontology nowadays, even if other areas of paleontology might not have embraced the change. Even though the name "tetrapod" may not always be used in a formal phylogenetic way according to Laurin and Anderson (2004), it doesn't mean phylogenetics isn't the dominant classification system. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two areas where phylogenetic classification is particularly prevalent: Dinos and Synapsids. While I have no doubt most workers on Dimetrodon is using phylogenetic classification, it is by no means "the most common". Laurin estimates ranked (Linnaean) systematics is about 10 times as common as rankless phylogenetic classification in general (Laurin M (2010): The subjective nature of Linnaean categories and its impact in evolutionary biology and biodiversity studies, Contributions to Zoology, vol 79, pp 131–146.) In my view, the correct sentence would be something along the line of "A common system of classifying in vertebrate palaentology is phylogenetic taxonomy, where ...". Reading the section in question, one might ask why a full outline of the Reptile-Sauropsid debate is doing in this article. I suggest dropping all of it as it really is a matter for the Synapsid and Sauropsid articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a big jump, Petter, from saying that phylogenetic classification is prevalent in the study of dinosaurs and synapsids to saying that it is common in the entire field of vertebrate paleontology—OK, palaeontology.  That would include the palaeontology of fish, which is surely a huge field. Are you confident that the stronger statement is warranted? Peter M. Brown (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogenetic vs. Linnaean taxonomy 

message: It seems a bit odd that List of Dimetrodon species is separate, when one would want to find all info about the animal here. This article isn't even close to the split limit (which is 100,000 bytes) at 55,000 bytes. It seems Psittacosaurus was used as template, but that is a old FA (from 2006), from then the standards were different, and the list has now been merged back. Any thoughts, ? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Dimetrodon species  

message: There is nothing at all on dimetrodon's brain (how big? Was it smart as dinosaurs?) or on why it went extinct. Fig (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info: brain and extinction 

message: The article (at Description/Skin) cites "Petr Konstantinovich Tchudinov, 1965, "New Facts about the Fauna of the Upper Permian of the USSR", Journal of Geology, 73:117-30".  (I brought the reference over from the article, Estemmenosuchus, to fill out a bare name-and-date reference.)  Is a fifty-one-year-old article on paleontology still a reliable source?  Specifically, is that article still reliable?  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted a couple of new references to the Tchudinov article added by , on the assumption that Tchudinov (1965) is no longer a reliable source.  If Tchudinov's speculations are still considered valid, there should be more recent, reliable sources saying so.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated reference? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dimetrodon. 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/20120704182723/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/specimens/dimetrodon.php to http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/specimens/dimetrodon.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose thatList of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis be merged into Dimetrodon . I think that the content in the List of Dimetrodon species and Dimetrodon borealis articles can easily be explained in the context of the Dimetrodon article. the information List of Dimetrodon species article could just be explained in another category called 'information' in the species table . The 'Descirption' part of the borealis article could be the 'information' for it in the species table. Then 'History of study' in borealis  could be part of the 'Classification history' of Dimetrodon as a sub-section. Thank you for understanding. 65.255.88.233 (talk)
*Either that, or into List of Dimetrodon species. Or possibly both into this one (which I would prefer). FunkMonk (talk) 8:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
:Or even have D. borealis be its own subsection?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is a good idea. Both of the two articles have good lengths, and the Dimetrodon article is long enough as it is. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some guidelines at WP:Article length, at 58 kb, this one shouldn't be too long... But it's a matter of "philosophy", personally, I prefer having as much info in one place, so I don't have to chase links into a labyrinth. Unless an article is extremely long, such as Tyrannosaurus, but this article isn't even close. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's start small. Can we all agree that the information in List of Dimetrodon species should be put in the species table in Dimetrodon??65.255.88.233 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or in the history section. If I had written the article, I would have dealt with the discovery of each species chronologically in the history section as prose. Lists in articles are also discouraged, per WP:embedded lists. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would make it much more easier to read the article.65.255.88.233 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FunkMonk's suggestion. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

text: We could also follow the new format of Psittacosaurus .65.255.88.233 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "new" format of Psittacosaurus is the way to go, especially since the list of Psittacosaurus species was merged into the parent article following a discussion of whether the article was still Featured Article-material. Instead of a pure list, we could maybe have a cladogram showing how the species are related, if such has been published... FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

text:  Ok, my IP change..... anyway should we go ahead and merge, or his there something else to say?208.114.38.215 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, someone just has to do it... May be a bit messy. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Could you do it?208.114.46.109 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I could, but I'd have to put it on the backlog, I have a lot of other things to do that are more urgent but less complicated... But anyone is of course free to take a stab in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

text: It will probably take some time before anyone cares to do it, so the tag could probably be removed for now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Just saw the ping (I don't hang around en:wp much any more). I personally like shorter articles, but I have no problems seeing the benefit of the Psittacosaurus-style article. Don't let me stand in anyones way. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Arguments, please? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

text: OK to merge List of Dimetrodon species into Dimetrodon, but not for 'Dimetrodon borealis: this last one is only one species among several of the genus, and there is certainly things to say specifically on each species. SenseiAC (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the list,  Klbrain (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dimetrodon. 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/20160412174318/http://www.alternativetactics.org/PDF/Tomkins%20et%20al%20Am%20Nat%202010.pdf to http://www.alternativetactics.org/PDF/Tomkins%20et%20al%20Am%20Nat%202010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dimetrodon. 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/20131112090513/http://palaeos.com/paleozoic/permian/kungurian.htm to http://palaeos.com/paleozoic/permian/kungurian.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sketch suggests a tail submerged in water, not a short tail. The artist has clearly bothered to shade the underside of the animal, so why would they stop at the tail? Perhaps keep the image but replace the caption. Aero13792468 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Dimetrodon skeletons have been mounted with stubby tails in the past, I'd not be so sure: FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketch supposedly demonstrating a short tail 

message: Surely the image of D. giganhomogenes needs different colouring? The pattern shown is typical of camouflage. If the sails were for display, as suggested, something more obvious would be expected, perhaps with bright colours. ClarkoEye (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Display features don't necessarily have bright colours. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sail colour and pattern 

message: Based on the structure of the scleral ring, it is suggested that Dimetrodon may be nocturnal.  Should it be written about this? Or is it suspicious information? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source certainly doesn't seem to be suspicious, so it could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I'm still new to editing, I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't really understand the content of the treatise in that much detail. I would appreciate it if anyone could add it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It's probably worth mentioning criticism of similar research on dinosaurs , which is also addressed and remediated in the Angielczyk paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can try to write a text here, then we can look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About nocturnality of ''Dimetrodon'' 

message: The text currently reads:
"The skull of Dimetrodon is tall and compressed laterally, or side-to-side. The eye sockets are positioned high and far back in the skull. Behind each eye socket is a single hole called an infratemporal fenestra. An additional hole in the skull, the supratemporal fenestra, can be seen when viewed from above."
Dimetrodon was a synapsid, meaning that it should only have a single temporal fenestra on each side.  Therefore, identifying both an infratemporal and a supratemporal fenestra is incorrect and makes the animal sound like a diapsid. Stephennawrocki (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synapsid or Diapsid? 

message: Is the fossils found for this animal Trace Fossil, Cast Fossil, Mold Fossil or True form fossil? How long was the individual lifespan of the animal? Rhyjw (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil 

message: Isn’t “as individuals get larger, surface area increases faster than mass” backwards? Per Wikipedia’s Square–cube law page: “This principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area.” Odd Thing (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square-cube law