Talk:Dilophosaurus

message: There are three species of Dilophosaurus: Dilophosaurus wetherilli, D. breedorum, and D. sinensis. Dilophosaurus breedorum was originally identified from new Dilophosaurus material, but it was not named until 1999. Add D. breedorum to the list of Dilophosaurus species.
:I've added D. breedorum, and a ref for D. sinenses, which was already in the article. D. sinensis is probably a new genus, however.Dinoguy2 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I am but an anon, but I just HAD to point this out- the contributor above you is in error- D. breedorum was, in fact, erected based on the first of the specimens usually attributed to D.wetherilli to show any indication of the crests the genus is famous for. This new species was proposed by several authors who suggested that the reason that there was no indication of any crests in the holotype specimen of D. wetherilli (a subadult specimen with a badly-preserved head) was NOT due to the state of the skull's preservation but, in their view, due to the fact that that species may not have had any crests at ALL. Thus, based on this (as well as a few other perceived differences) D. breedorum was proposed to encompass all subsequent remains that DO show evidence of the crests, leaving only the holotype within D. wetherilli in their estimation.
However, VERY few authors have accepted this interpretation- many if not ALL of the perceived differences can be explained away by individual variation, the varying ages of the specimens, and the quality of preservation, and thus, D. breedorum's entire EXISTENCE is debatable.
Furthermore, if Wikipedia is going to accept D. breedorum as a valid species of Dilophosaurus, it also stands to reason that you would follow the author's (rather debatable) REASONING for ERECTING the new species, thus rendering all of your material discussing D. wetherilli with the double crests obsolete as per the two authors (Welles and Pickering)'s 1999 assertation.
Thus, D. breedorum's inclusion without any further notation on the subject irks me due to the fact that the existence of D. breedorum as anything more than a junior synonym to D. wetherilli is debatable, and the fact is that this is flat-out IGNORED in the article. That, and I find it hard to understand how you can both ACCEPT Welles and Pickering 1999's assertations and ALSO claim that D. wetherilli bore crests, since Welles and Pickering, as I stated above, assert that that species was most likely crestless- since all the evidence that Dilophosaurus even BORE crests is, in their revision of the genus, now contained in D. breedorum.
As for which I believe, I'm with the skeptical majority- D. breedorum is most likely a junior synonym of D. wetherilli- Welles and Pickering never really gave enough concrete evidence (that couldn't just as easily be- and most likely IS- explained away by a number of OTHER factors we know were there) in order to justify separating all known remains sans the holotype from D. wetherilli and erect a whole new species for them, IMO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.115.101 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Never seen Welles and Pickering (1999), and probably never will.  However, it is certainly true that the species is not currently accepted. J. Spencer (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonmy of Dilophosaurus 

message: Last I checked, you couldn't definitely ascribe footprints to body fossils. J. Spencer 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footprints 

message: Out of all the major dinosaurs in the first Jurassic Park movie, only Dilophosaurus and Brachiosaurus are from the Jurassic Period. A more accurate name would be Mesozoic Park, but Jurassic does sound cooler.
Yeah, but we might have more several species (just didn't see'em), and there might have been more in the boo. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jurassic Park]] 

message: You all know how in Jurassic Park, the dilophosaurus was portrayed as a small predator, with a big frill and toxic spit, and that everyone was ranting about how its all nonsense, about how its all total fiction, and should be shunned as much as possible by the general peoples. What if.... They were right. What if the 2 species of dilophosaurus were actually like that. Frilled Venomspitters...
This is where the odd part of the topic title comes in. Although I don’t believe in it myself, i think i might have found a few pieces of evidence that might actually support Michael Crichton's case. Coz you see, scientists around the world have been wondering what the crests were for. Were they a form of display? Were they like the casque of a cassowary? I think it might hold the key to a frill. The crest may have been an anchor point for muscles which could open and close a frill
And the kinked jaws of all coelophysoid dinosaurs; what’s that all about?! I think it could have possibly have been a space taken up by venom sacs. Secreted much like the saliva of any other animal, which should then be shot at prey with rapid exhalations...
Should I put this in the article? I did but someone deleted it
Nrg800 (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you should not. This is nonsense you made up, not something actual scientists have published. Jurassic Park is fiction, and if Crichton is ever proven "right" about venomous dilophosaurs (not that he ever pretended his invention was supposed to reflect the facts in any way, it was just a way to illustrate that we can't know everything about extinct species)... he'd be a modern day Nostradamus ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park... Wrong?! 

message: I removed Ngr800's stuff (as displayed above), it's original research (not allowed in Wikipedia) and is written in the wrong style for an encyclopedia.......
Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this material isn't encyclopedia-worthy. I've left the user a welcome message to let him know a little more about what should be included in Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed from article

message: The article now shows Dilophosaurus as Sinemurian to Pliensbachian, with the fossil range box covering all of both of those quite long stages. It's obviously preposterous that Dilophosaurus was extant for both stages and we strive to be anal about details around here...I've always been under the impression that the North American fossils dated to the early Pliensbachian (circa 188 MA) but I don't have a source handy on that. What's the deal on this then, if any?  Forescore68 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can find, all Dilophosaurus specimens (except obviously "D." sinensis) come from the "Silty Facies" of the Kayenta Formation, probably Sinemurian in age, but I don't know if it's been precisely dated. I suppose the best thing to do would be to list the range as 193 (the midpoint of the stage) plus or minus 3 Ma ago. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kayenta Formation (and the rest of the Glen Canyon Group) is a bit of pain for dating, as there's not much there useful for relative or absolute dating.  In fact, if I remember correctly the Sinemurian thing is based on the presence of Scelidosaurus-like scutes (assumed to be Scelidosaurus), and the upper limit of Pliensbachian is based on the Navajo Sandstone which was assumed to correlate to the Portland Sandstone of New England because both were supposed to have Ammosaurus (the Navajo Sandstone doesn't) and the Portland Sandstone was thought to be Pliensbachian-Toarcian in age based on dinoflagellates or something at the time the correlation was made (turns out that the base of the Portland Sandstone is more or less at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary and the entire extent is probably not more than a few million years).  The moral of the story is not to correlate using Ammosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a paper in 2014 estimating the Dilophosaurus bearing portion of the Kayenta formation to 183.7 +/- 2.7 Ma. I'm updating the wiki to match, but I'm open to other suggestions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264003786_The_age_of_the_Kayenta_Formation_of_northeastern_Arizona_overcoming_the_challenges_of_dating_fossil_bone DinoGarret (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will try to have a closer look later. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be the actual paper that abstract you linked turned into, so I'll try to use that as source. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've now looked at the study I linked above, and while it does say the entire Kayenta Formation is Sinemurian-Toarcian, Dilophosaurus itself is "only" known from the Sinemurian–Pliensbachian part of it. Adjusted the article accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

text: There was a previous paper that was able to reduce the age of the formation to around 1.5 Ma, and alocate it in the Lower-"Middle" Pliensbachian ("Magnetostratigraphy and paleopoles of the Kayenta Formation and the Tenney Canyon Tongue") Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where this is stated in the paper, but I've shortened the bit so it makes more sense for this article (I didn't see what you wrote specifically claimed). FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timescale 

message: The model from the Polish Geological Institute that's pictured in this article looks like it's covered in hair. Is this accurate? I've never heard of a dinosaur with hair before. Feathers, yes, but hair? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were probably trying for simple fur-like feathers; if you go back to before the discovery of the big complex feathers of various Yixian dinosaurs, dinosaur art with feathers usually had these hair-like filaments (see practically any illustration of a small theropod in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World). J. Spencer (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Such hair-like monofilaments wouldn't be unheard of for something so basal anyway. Tianyulong has both fur-like and quill-like filamentous integument, which may or may not be homologous with feathers. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fur? 

message: We all know that Dilophosaurus was one of the first predators on the Mesozoic Era, these creatures lived in the beginnings of the Jurassic, but we have seen that in popular culture, they are presented with frills like those of the Australian Frilled Lizard and with the ability to spit venom to blind it's prey.
Could there be a chance that Dilophosaurus may have had one of these characteristics for survival? Maybe the frills were for frighting away bigger creatures, Maybe venom for a hunting advantage or blinding predators. I don't know if it could be possible but I would recommend posting a Section of the possibilities of frills and spitting venom on the Wikipedia Dilophosaurus article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Marín (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  " Dilophosaurus was one of the first predators on the Mesozoic Era ... " - uh, no - it lived in the Jurassic, not the Triassic. 98.67.1.164 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

text: No, the whole frills and venom thing were completely made-up fictional features from Jurassic Park. There is no reason to think they were real--they were made up out of the imagination of writers, not evidence from fossils. Adding a section on frills would be like adding a section about the possibility that Triceratops was made ill by eating certain kinds of berries and subsequently developed pustules on its tongue. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frills And Spitting Venom  

message: Image  caption says  "Depiction of Early Jurassic environment preserved at the SGDS"
The term  "SGDS"  doesn't seem to be defined anywhere in the article, and I'm not seeing any likely hits elsewhere in Wikipedia. 
Folks,  it's  probably not a good idea  to use semi-technical  terms in articles without defining them. 
-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, which we apparently do not have an article for. J. Spencer (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Now I don't feel embarrassed that  I  didn't know this.  -- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SGDS is what? 

message: Dilophosaurus is stated to have a weak bite and would have difficulty holding on the struggling prey. but it has what appears to be a Fish-trap like on Baryonyx and relatives, so does this open up the possibility that it ate fish? and was large so it could bully other predators out of kills like Spinosaurus?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if there are even larger predators known from the time and period. Anyhow, unlike with some spinosaurids, there is no direct evidence of fish eating. And we can't write it if scientific papers haven't proposed it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish eater? 

message: I removed the following from the classification section:
::Dilophosaurus may be a primitive member of the clade containing both ceratosaurian and tetanuran theropods.
The clade containing both Ceratosauria and Tetanurae is Averostra, which was named by Paul (2002).  I could not find evidence that researchers assigned Dilophosaurus to Averostra and therefore I could not support inclusion of the above statement.   
The material assigned to Dilophosaurus has been assessed in over a dozen different studies and the following is a summary of the results that I gathered:
*assigned to Coeluridae by Welles (1970)
*assigned to Podokesauridae by Russell (1984) and Carroll (1988) 
*assigned to Halticosaurinae by Paul (1988)
*assigned to Halticosauridae by Welles (1984), Chatterjee (1987) and Hu (1993)
*assigned to Coelophysidae by Novas (1991), Novas (1992) and Paul (1993) 
*assigned to Ceratosauria by Gauthier (1986), Rowe (1989), Rowe and Gauthier (1990), Benton (1990) and Pérez-Moreno et al. (1994) 
*assigned to Ceratosauridae by Knoll et al. (1999) 
*assigned to Neotheropoda by Rauhut (2003) and Yates (2005) 
*assigned to Coelophysoidea by Holtz (1994), Sereno (1997), Sereno (1998), Sereno (1999), Holtz (2000), Carrano and Sampson (2004), Tykoski and Rowe (2004), Carrano et al. (2005), Naish and Martill (2007), Ezcurra and Novas (2007), Ezcurra (2007), Ezcurra and Cuny (2007) and Carrano et al. (2012).
It appears that the consensus over the years, and of late (2007-2012) is that this genus is a coelophysoid.  Five other studies from the 80s and 90s assigned Dilophosaurus to Ceratosauria.  This is noteworthy and will be included on the article page as an alternative classification.
:Consensus based on sources older than 10 years or so is pretty useless when it comes to phylogeny, as the older the study, the less relevant taxa could have been included. For instance, no studies before 2003 could have included Zupaysaurus or Dracovenator which are very similar and usually clade with Dilophosaurus. Most early studies did not code Dilophosaurus and "D. sinensis separately, if they coded sinensis at all. As Mortimer notes on The Theropod Database, though, studies finding dilophosaurs closer to tetanurans only weakly find them outside coelophysoidea, so this is not a certain outcome. So they may form a grade ancestral to both tetanurans and ceratosaurs, with some lcoser to coelophyoids, with some as true coelophysoids, tetanurans, and ceratosaurs, and where Dilophosaurus itself falls is therefore highly uncertain without better studies of related taxa. 
:Note that most workers who find dilophosaurs as averostrans will not explicitly refer them to that clade by name as many workers are reluctant to recognize clades based on apomorphies, as most of Paul's 2002 names are, and Paul used this clade as a synonym for what most people call Neotheropoda anyway. Ezcurra & Cuny (2007) re-defined Averostra as Allosaurus + Ceratosaurus but this doesn't seem to have been widely adopted. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: According to this paper, apparently: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-013-5765-7 So relevant material should be moved there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. sinensis is now a synonym of Sinosaurus 

message: Anyone agree that several of the subsections should be merged? Single sentences and short paragraphs do not warrant sections. It also makes the article much longer, without any additional content. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is difficult. The ichnology section is basically about ichnotaxonomy and the question what tracks might be assignable to the genus, so it naturally belongs to the "History of discovery" section (although that section is only partly about history, but very much about taxonomy). However, it is really of secondary importance, and should not come too early. It should definitely come before Paleobiology, since that section also has quite a bit about tracks. Maybe have the ichnology section as a main section on its own and place it before (or after?) the Systematics section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I also thought of making it its own section. I'll do that and put it after classification, because the subsequent paleobiology section is also related to interpretation of the tracks to some extent. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Highly interesting, thanks for that! I only wonder if the last paragraph is maybe too convoluted. A lot of different things are put together there, subjects change suddenly, making it a bit difficult to read. Maybe it would help to put the info into strict chronological order to get a common thread? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was wondering whether splitting the last part of the last paragraph off into a new paragraph, since it is mainly about the controversy over the Arizona state dinosaur and the illegal removal from the reservation? And another thing, I wonder if those last paragraphs should be first in the culture section, as they seem more "significant"? On the other hand, the Jurassic Park appearance is probably what most readers would be looking for first. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

text: It specifically states a couple of times that this is based on the tracks, and where body fossils of the actual genus itself are actually found is also stated. But I haven't seen a source that specifically states no body fossils are found in Connecticut, but I assume this is because it goes without saying, given the two former points. Note there's an entire section about assigned tracks already. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many sections? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dilophosaurus. 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/20130504013424/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.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) 19:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per our guideline on words to watch on Wikipedia, it is frowned upon to cast doubt on assertions by using words such as "claim" for them. Neutral verbs such as "say" and "state" are preferred. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use some variation instead of just writing the same word ("said") over and over, we also have to think about good writing. Subpar writing will be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpar writing is using incorrect, controversial, and unnecessary words instead of correct words. If you think there should be variation (which I don't personally see the need for) then fix it yourself instead of blind-reverting into a subpar article version that is not neutral and in violation of our policies. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

text: There are 314 instances of "was" in this article. Is that something you object to as well? "said" and "say" are normal and common English words, they are natural to repeat often, and appear abundantly in all kinds of articles with no objections. Where is the policy/guideline that mandates variation in this regard? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but "claim" in a perfect word to use here, simply because evidence for paleobiological hypotheses tends to be weak, and we have to make sure to add ambiguity to the information. The word is especially useful when discussing controversial ideas or ones that have been refuted by others. WP:Claim says you should be careful with using these words, bu that doesn't mean they are forbidden. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

text: "Noting" and "pointing out" can indicate instances when a reference is made to data that are uncontentious within a certain scientific discourse. The argumentative structure of the statements by a certain scientist then is dependent on that status. In such cases, replacing the terms with "said" would make the scientific debate unintelligible to the reader.--MWAK (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the word "was" is not comparable at all, since it does not have any relevant synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CLAIM]] 

message: Where you say "a distinct feature of this dinosaur" (Description, 2nd para) I think you mean "distinctive". The latter word is a stronger form which implies the feature is seldom if ever found elsewhere. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you're right, did the change. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: The "Cultural significance" section claims that the true head height of Dilophosaurus is about 3 meters (10 ft), but the diagram in the Description section, which depicts the largest specimen along with a smaller one next to a human figure, shows that the animal was no taller at the head than the average human (i.e. ~1.7-1.8 meters), which incidentally would make the Jurassic Park dilophosaur being a subadult much more convincing. Which one is right? MarqFJA87 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The JP making of source is just informal, not scientific; we can't know what an exact head height would be anyway, since it depends on the pose of the animal and its neck. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head height? 

message: We need new paleoart to reflect the new evidence--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What new evidence? The shape of the crest is still unknown, and most of the new material described has no impact on external appearance. Brian Engh just tried out an alternate hypothetical shape for the crests in his restorations, but this is all we have to go by: FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The link seems broken Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the skull reconstruction at the bottom of this article: All those skull elements have been known since the 1960s. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The new discovery has impact as it shows the animal to be much bulkier and larger--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that? Again, most of what is known of Dilophosaurus has been known since at least the 1960s, the bones didn't suddenly become larger over time. The only new bones described in the study seem to be leg and hip elements, not exactly something that would change its overall appearance. That Brian Engh has chosen to reconstruct the crest a certain shape and give it some kind of display feature on the throat is just artistic license on his part. But the basic features don't differ much from the restorations we already have. I don't see how this restoration shows it less robust than his, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Engh's more schematic drawing, doesn't seem to differ much from the 7 m estimate we already mention and show in the article. He seems to have drawn the visible eyeball as filling out the entire eye socket, leaving no room for the sclerotic ring (only the part of the eye within the inner diameter of the ring should be visible in life), which is inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually another point I wanted to make is that Dilos crest is now an expansion of the antorbital fenestra (as the study uses Brians artwork to demonstrate). The subnarial notch seen in most restorations has been heavily exagarated by damage done to the specimen, acoording to the paper and the resotorations of the skull in the paper is seen as much more broad and is no more a quick debit like in Spinosaurs. I get your critisms of the new restorations being less thin and more thick and the seclerotic ring being too large (that ones a big miss on Brians part) but the new restorations show these other features that had never been properly examined before.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to list some specific issues so they can be evaluated. I need to summarise the redescription at some point for this article, by then it would be easier to discuss. I'm not sure I see any difference in the subnarial gap that would be visible in life glancing at Engh's drawings. It appears that he doesn't draw the gap as going all the way up to the nostril, and that's probably the pathological part, but that's not shown in any life restorations either. It does seem he reconstructs the crests a bit more inset in relation to for example the maxilla, but that's also something that probably wouldn't have been visible in life if the area was filled out with some sort of soft tissue as he indicates. But some of our restorations may be a bit problematic in showing a sort of "bridge" dividing the maxilla from the crests, could perhaps be fixed. The main differences I see are that the little spike at the back of the crests is reconstructed as extensions of the lacrimal bones, which appears inconsistent with some of our restorations, such as this one, but I'll have to read the paper closer to see how solid that identification is. Engh also seems to show the back of the mandible as somewhat deeper than in older reconstructions, not sure what that's based on. As is, I'm sure this is not the last word on the shape and construction of the crest, since it is so badly preserved. I think this is our most accurate restoration of the animal, though the visible teeth are of course debatable. We might want to modify the mouth area accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. I also agree That this image needs some modification. He's getting the deeper from this passage I believe, this is from the paper-"The subnarial gap was originally conceptualized as a ligamentous articulation in Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Welles,1984). This is one of the characters used to unite Dilophosauruswith coelophysoids (Welles, 1984; Rowe and Gauthier, 1990;Tykoski and Rowe, 2004). Owing to the close articulation of the premaxillae to one another and the robust, interlockingarticulation of the anteromedial process of the maxilla to themaxillary process of the premaxilla, this joint was strong and immobile. We note that the subnarial gap is now known to be present in other dinosaurs, including coelophysoids (Raath,1977; Colbert, 1989; Rowe, 1989), Tawa hallae (Nesbitt et al.,2009b), Eoraptor lunensis Sereno et al., 1993 (Sereno et al.,2012), and some heterodontosaurids (Sereno, 2012)."--Bubblesorg (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a section about this could be created at WP:Dinoart. As far I can see, the things that need modifications are mainly features of the crests (the spikes at the back should come from the lacrimal bones, there should be no border between the maxilla and the crests), with perhaps some addition of lips. I'm not sure the rest of the body is really changed with the new description. Also, there does not seem to be any difference in how the subnarial gap is reconstructed, they only state it did not result in as weak jaws as previously thought. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, do you want to start it or should it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, I started summarising a bit from the paper's description, which is why I got a clearer idea what it says about the subnarial gap. I'll probably get a clearer idea about what it says about the crest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now summarised the most important stuff from the redescription. There isn't really much that would change our ideas of life appearance, other than the "spikes" at the back of the crest seem to be interpreted as just being the broken bases of the rest of the crest (which many of our restorations already show). But it is of course only an interpretation that those spikes wouldn't be there, we won't know until a complete crest is found. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paleoart