Talk:Herrerasaurus

message: When was Herrerasaurus in Jurassic Park? J. Spencer 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not on the list in the article for either the book or the film. I'll remove the cat. Dinoguy2 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The web site is not the book, it's a separate entity that has no relation to the book other than being based around the same fictional story. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On a computer screen in the original Jurassic Park you can see the different paddocks with the skull of each creature on it. You can see a Herrerasaurus skull. Might I also add, even if it's not canon, Jurassic Park: The Game features the Herrerasaurus heavily, and it's still based on the story of Jurassic Park. TheJawaManiac (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park? 

message: The artical says 'It is estimated that Herrerasaurus could reach up to 15 feet (5 meters) in length. Some fossils indicate that Herrerasaurus could grow up to 3 meters in length and 1 meter in height.' .... it makes it sound as though 3m is larger or more spectacular than 5m ............which it isn't .... :)   ......... Also 15 feet isn't 5m its more like 4.6m. which size is it. ive hered 3m, 4.6m, 5m?Steveoc 86 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously this article needs a lot of work. Feel free to improve it. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a 1993 National geogrpahic with a skeletal drwaing by GSP and it says 15 feet. I read some were that in GSP Preditory Dinosaurs of the World that he said 3.9m (12.7 feet) Steveoc 86 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: "Image:Herrerasaurus 2.jpg" has been bothering me as I look at it. I may be wrong, but most common reconstructions I've seen have had a more blunt snout- see the taxobox image, for example. Does anyone know how recent this reconstruction is? David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't really resemble any skulls or skeletals I've seen... Dinoguy2 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm commenting it out for now. Good thing about this article is I'll be looking into more reconstructions, but from what I've seen so far it's old, erroneous, or both. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone put this head image back. Should it be removed? ArthurWeasley 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head img 

message: Going forward, there are still five redlinks, a couple of places for citations, and the usual need for copyediting. The needed citations and redlinks would keep it from a GA, but I think that with the cites and two or three of the redlinks filled in, it could pass. J. Spencer 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cladogram anyone....good idea or straying into OR? Or just a graphic representation of existing hypotheses...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrap-up

message: This article easily meets the GA criteria. It is very readable. The coverage of the topic is very good. I particularly enjoyed the NPOV discussion of the history of the classification debate, which is what makes this such an interesting animal. The research for the paleobiology and paleoecology sections was also impressive. The images are good, but you might want to select a larger size than the standard thumb size for the image accompaning the classification section. It is a nice image but you can hardly make it out. I am hard pressed to come up with many other suggestions to improve the article, but I would suggest getting rid of the red links. The are distracting If you don't plan to create the article yourself in the next few weeks just de-link the names. You can always add a link back if someone someday creates the appropriate article. Rusty Cashman 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review, Rusty. I've just blue-ified one of the links, and will try to blue up the rest tomorrow. I will also enlarge the image a little. If you have further suggestions for article improvement, please do not hesitate to speak up. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: *"The rear of the lower jaw also had fenestra." I changed to "fenestrae", assuming that the jaw had at least one pair. If there really was only a single opening, it should go back to the singular "fenestra". Advise.
::A fenestra on each side. Fenestrae, as you edited the article to read, is definitely correct. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fenestra/e number

message: *"first noticed its fossils in outcrops near San Juan". The lead makes it clear that this happened in Argentina, but San Juan appears to be both a city and a province in Argentina. Which it is should be specified. "San Juan, Argentina" or "San Juan Province, Argentina". Linking is optional. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's near the city, in the province. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unimaginative Username 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: San Juan

message: *"However, only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies are actually supported by the study of Herrerasaurus, and new additional ones were discovered.[3]" The meaning of the last phrase is not clear to me. Aside from the fact that "new additional" is redundant, which can be fixed easily, the main thrust of the sentence is an "only": "... only one X and seven Y", so the phrase "and new ones discovered" (showing additional) does not mesh with the "only" part (perhaps should be "but new ones were discoverd"). Also, does "ones" refer to "new fossils found" or to "new synapomorphies found"? I don't know the facts. If you can specify these, I'll re-write the sentence appropriately. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source appears not to be available online. Most likely is to delete the last phrase, but it would be better if someone could read the source and provide the correct info. No further action from this editor otherwise. Unimaginative Username 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synapomorphies

message: Are the hands on the drawing under the classifiction section too pronated? If so, It'll be fixed. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hands on drawing 

message: Nominated December 7, 2007;
Support:
#Spawn Man (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good article, and a Good Article, but it's missing something I can't put my finger on. It's certainly not far off. J. Spencer (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. Funny how sometimes articels 'gell' really nicely and other times tehy just don't...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Herrerasaurus]]'' is collab for feb 08

message: The article states that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. Isn't this inaccurate? Isn't it a sauropod ancestor, the sole member of a third suborder of saurischians or a dinosaur too primitive to be classed as a saurischian or an ornithischian? I swear that one of those is correct...70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those classifications have been supported in the past, but all recent studies I know of have found it to be a true theropod. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Ezcurra (2010) study that you added indicates that Herrerasaurus isn't a theropod. However, this article is very careful to state many times that Herrerasaurus may not be a theropod. From the lede: "Herrerasaurus has been classified as either an early theropod or an early saurischian". From the "Classification" section: "Where it and its close relatives lie on the early dinosaur evolutionary tree is unclear. They are possibly basal theropods or basal saurischians but may in fact predate the saurischian-ornithischian split." I'd say this article does not state that Herrerasaurus was a theropod. The only part of the article that does is the automated taxobox thingy. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, forgot about Ezcurra. Still, I'd say that at least a tentative consensus exists in the lit right not that Herrersaurus is a theropod. Even the addition of taxa like Tawa in Nesbitt 2011 (probably the most through analysis ever of basal taxa in each archosaurian lineage) don't shake it from it's standard position, though it does seem to render Herrersauridae paraphyletic. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been keeping up on Herrerasaurid phylogeny since this article's FAC, but I just did a quick check at the Paleobiology Database, and Nesbitt et al (2009) indicate that Herrerasaurids are theropods. Alcober and Martínez (2010) seem to have made no opinion(?) while still describing Sanjuansaurus as a herrerasaurid. Holtz (2010) states that they are the most primitive theropods. And of course most of (not all, but most) the 2004-2008 studies state the same. Ezcurra seems to be a minority opinion. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theropod? 

message: Our lead paragraph boldly declares:
All known fossils of this carnivorous dinosaur have been discovered in rocks of late Ladinian age (middle Triassic according to the ICS, dated to 231.4 million years ago) in northwestern Argentina.
However, our Carnian Wikipedia Article tells us that this faunal stage lasted from about ~235 till ~228 million years ago.
If the Carnian article is accurate, then Herrerasaurus is Carnian in terms of age.  I will make the change unless there are any objections.  As always, I welcome your advice and allow for the possibility that I may have overlooked or oversimplified something.
Humbly,
Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?Ladinian? Herrerasaurus 

message: This link goes to the wrong place. Does it mean Fernando Novas? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novas 

message: There seems to be some confusion about the age. The article states that this animal is dated to 231.4 Ma ago, and also that it's from the Ladinian. Accordning to the ICS, 231.4 Ma ago is within the Carnian. What's the correct age/faunal stage? MMartyniuk (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably all that happened was that the radiometric date predates the revision of Triassic stage dates (i.e. we had the 231.4 Ma date from a few years back, when 231.4 Ma was in the Ladinian, and it was just never updated when the stage boundaries were tweaked). J. Spencer (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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/20100310173552/http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/121009.html to http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/121009.html
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) 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Herrerasaurus. 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/20150924021606/http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/palaeo/biogeologie/Images/Joyce_Publications/32__Gauthier_et_al.__Poposaurus__2011.pdf to http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/palaeo/biogeologie/Images/Joyce_Publications/32__Gauthier_et_al.__Poposaurus__2011.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) 14:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should we have a pop culture section?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We should only have such sections for very notable appearances in very impactful media. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture section? 

message: Was Herrerasaurus a dinosaur to be sure? I'm not sure about it. Esagurton (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur?