Talk:Buitreraptor

message: This appears to be the correct spelling. CambridgeBayWeather 19:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing from category Feathered Dinosaurs, which requires fossil evidence (even though Buitreraptor was certainly feathered in life).--Dinoguy2 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the Feathered Dinosaurs category was set up for the purpose of tracking only dinosaurs with direct evidence of feathers (impressions, quill knobs, etc.), rather than all species inferred to have them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

message: Considering the size and very small teeth, hasn't anybody considered, he might mainly have been an insect/arthropod eater? Of course, very small lizards then likely too.--Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a little too big for invertebrates being the main diet. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: As mentioned near the end of this blog post , more of Buitreraptor has been described, and as a consequence some parts of this Wikipedia article are now outdated. One thing that stands out is the fingers. This Wikipedia article currently says, "The fingers were proportionarly shorter than in other dromaeosaurids, and of essentially the same length, contrary to most of its relatives, which had fingers of different length, with the second finger being considerably longer." The blog post I linked to links to several monographs for the skeleton of Buitreraptor. I'm not able to access the one for the skull, or the one for the "body" in the link provided in the blog post, but looking elsewhere this appears to be the monograph for the body:  This monograph shows what a nearly complete manus of Buitreraptor is actually like and says, "In Buitreraptor manual phalanges and metacarpals are very long and slender. When compared with the dromaeosaurids Deinonychus and Velociraptor all available elements are proportionally longer, with exception of ungual phalanges which are modest and proportionally smaller in Buitreraptor."
Besides contradicting what the Wikipedia article currently says about the fingers of Buitreraptor, some of the images in the Wikipedia article also appear to show an outdated reconstruction of Buitreraptor. Currently, all the photos in the Wikipedia article are of the Field Museum skeleton which has fingers that are too short. Perhaps one could get away with pretending they are being foreshortened, but I don't think that's possible with this photo:  I think it could be good to replace that photo, which also shows Buitreraptor's head blurry, with one of the photos of the Royal Ontario Museum skeleton (which has longer fingers) on Wikimedia Commons here: 
The 2008 skeletal by Jaime Headden in the Wikipedia article showing the known remains of Buitreraptor appears to be somewhat dated now. I'm not sure if it could be sufficient to modify the caption to say it shows only some known remains of Buitreraptor? Near the end of the monograph I linked to, it shows a skeletal reconstruction of Buitreraptor showing known elements which it says is "Modiﬁed from Jaime Headden, 2008". It's interesting to compare the two and see the changes, although the new skeletal in the monograph appears to have a mistake in not including the first toe even though parts of the first toe of Buitreraptor are shown and described prior in the same monograph!
If no-one else wishes to, I would be willing to make the updates to the Buitreraptor Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure if I can use the Researchgate monograph as a reference since it says "article in press", and I can't access the published version: 
Another part of the Wikipedia article that is outdated is the following: After the holotype and paratype are mentioned, it says, "The two other specimens have remained undescribed." However, another 2018 paper on Buitreraptor describes three more specimens, one of which is the one that's extensively described in the monograph I linked to previously (MPCN-PV-598), here:  2A02:C7D:B943:5F00:E6CE:8FFF:FE0A:2EA4 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Headden image caption could be modified that it only shows bones known up to a certain date, or which specimens it is based on. I can also modify the fingers in the silhouette. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the caption for the skeletal so it's similar to the one on the Avimimus article. I think this way is the most informative, as it makes it clear that more elements of Buitreraptor are known. 90.192.99.122 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the Buitreraptor page