Talk:Ornitholestes

message: According to the display at the American Museum of Natural History, "Our entire knowledge about the species is based on this specimen, the only fossil of Ornitholestes ever found." The beginning of this article says: "Almost everything known of this species comes from a single skeleton of Ornitholestes." Is the "almost" referring to deductions we can make based on its position in death, bone structure etc. or is there another source such as another skeleton, claw, nest or the like? The former is a given, making the "almost" unnecessary, and misleading since the next sentence mentions a hand mistakingly took to be Ornitholestes. The way it's set up now the reader is left asking either "what else has been discovered" or "I wonder if that means the information we have on Ornitholestes is partially drawn from that mistake in hand identification."Penguinwithin (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there's only one specimen that has been described as Ornitholestes to date where the identification has stuck, and that's the type specimen (paleontologists have to be careful in the Morrison Formation with small theropods, as there are actually about ten small theropods currently known from the Morrison if you don't count Stokesosaurus and Marshosaurus.  Most of them are only known from unnamed bits and pieces, but Coelurus, Tanycolagreus, Ornitholestes, and the under-description Wyoming troodontid all have distinct partial skeletons). J. Spencer (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification and article change. :)Penguinwithin (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other skeletons? 

message: As I was reading Luis Chiappe's book "Glorified Dinosaurs", I came upon the illustration of a small theropod catching an Archaeopteryx (pg. 102-3). This illustration is used on this web site to promote the idea of a nasal crest-less Ornitholestes, but in the book the dinosaur is identified as a Compsognathus instead. Can I ask what is the reasoning behind the Wikipedia moderators (?) decision to put the rather generic (in my opinion) picture of the dinosaur at the Ornitholestes, and not Compsognathus page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.84.73 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have Glorified Dinosaurs, but the image here is Ornitholestes as intended by Knight.  Check out William Diller Matthew's 1915 Dinosaurs for corroboration. J. Spencer (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember seeing it listed as Compsognathus...er, somewhere, before. Can't recall where, may have been an online Knight gallery. It would make sense, considering it looks like it's attacking an Archaeopteryx. But if Knight intended it as Ornitholestes + generic early bird, that's the way it is. If he intended to bird to be Archie, we should put a note in the caption about how this is geographically incorrect. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Knight's Ornitholestes 

message: In walking with dinos the Ornitholestes had a blue  snout crest which is incorrect and the orntholestes makes a strange sound in a "attempt to disply his quills in a fuitle gester 
of agression." Secthayrabe   Ø 
:Yes, the crest on the nose has since been proven to be incorrect. As for sounds, we've never found any evidence of sound-making material in theropods, so that was entire speculation on the graphic artists. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking with dinosaurs 

message: Not to get off-topic, but there's something interesting about the RTMP mount. It was more obvious in the photo in the old Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, but it's still apparent here, if you look at the second toe of the left foot... (also the first toe of either...) J. Spencer (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, apparently Ostrom was the first to suggest the claw was hyperextendible and this has been supported by Carpenter and... Scott Hartman (see comments here  This should probably be added to the article at some point... MMartyniuk (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Would this mean the other maniraptorans might have the hyperextendible claw? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, but since Archaeopteryx has them it seem to be basal for Paraves at least. Ornitholestes may turn out to be closer to oviraptors and dromaeosaurs than therizinosaurs are, or even close to the origin of Paraves. We'd need a good basal ovi to tell if that lineage began with sickle claws. The most basal known ovi is Incisivosaurus and it's already a very apomorphic herbivore. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: John Ostrom's well-known 1969 monograph on Deinonychus suggests the possibility that Ornitholestes might have had a sickle claw (p.161), and further suggests that Ornitholestes was "very close, if not actually ancestral" to dromaeosaurids. (p.162) Thomas Holtz's 1995 paper "The Arctometatarsalian Pes" indicates in a chart (p.505) that metatarsal II on the foot of Ornitholestes only bore about 4% of the weight, while the foot would have been primarily supported by metatarsals III (52-57%) and IV (39-44%). Although not explicitly stated, this would seem to confirm the accuracy of the Royal Tyrrell reconstruction, and support Ostrom's thesis. The data in Ostrom's and Holtz's papers will be added to the article as time permits. FanCollector (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been somewhat common to show Ornitholestes like this back in the 90s, I have a couple of books where it is shown with the lifted claw. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I've done some rewriting of the article in my user space, including addition of the sickle claw speculations by Ostrom. See User:FanCollector/Ornitholestes. Once I improve it a bit more to supersede the remaining aspects of the article here, I may need some assistance from an administrator in doing a history merge. FanCollector (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an unused restoration here which could be used to illustrate the GSP version of Ornitholestes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTMP mount 

message: I'm aware that Ornitholestes is classified as a maniraptoran, and I was wondering if it could be considered a primitive deinonychosaur (dromaeosaur even). It has the enlarged retractable claw on each foot that is the trademark feature of deinonychosaurs, and the deinonychosaur page states that the group is from the Late Jurassic-Late Cretaceous (the late Jurassic part could refer to Ornitholestes). Should the taxobox list the genus as a deinonychosaur?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it does show some features in common, no analysis has found it to be a deinonychosaur. It may be similar to the ancestor of deinonychosaurs though. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deinonychosauria?

message: "Ornithologist Percy Lowe hypothesized in 1944 that Ornitholestes might have borne feathers."
What source did this come from? All that is cited in the references is "Witmer (1992), p. 444" but I can't find it in the sources listed nor have I been able to find anything online remotely close to this citation. 71.29.51.149 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Verification