User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 1

1294:

people. So I stayed away. Now the featured thing is in the past and contributors can strive to freeze it in place or open it up to a new round of everyone contributing what they can and we'll clean it up at some future date to arrive again at a prettied up version once again. This is my preference. You wish to carefully maintain a featured article spic and span appearance and stiffle contributions that will have to be cleaned up later. These competing stategies are to be found all over Knowledge. As I am free to make my choices, so are you. Experience is the best teacher. I will not interfere with you striving to keep the article in pristine shape. I will stay away (mostly) from the article (again) and not be disruptive. Only one of the two mentioned stategies can be followed at any one time on any one article without causing emotionl grief; so have at it and don't think this is an emotional thing for me as it is not. I'm sure you will do a good job improving the article, as did Spawn Man. I'm sure you will find it increasingly annoying to keep the sea plowed, as did Spawn Man. Sometimes it makes more sense not to pick up every bit of dirt as it hits the floor, but to let it accumulate then deal with it all at once at periodic intervals. I'd like to quote from myslf, a paragraph in my talk page archive at

833:" for Superorder Dinosauria, and the ICZN would recognize this definition as official. A subsequent (hypothetical) major apomorphy would be a member of that clade which lost or reversed the feature used to define it, which might even suffice as a marker for a semi-paraphyletic reset of rank. Incidentally, I really only support ranks for apomorphy-based groups, as this offers a better selection of subjective features to base ranks on if such a system were developed, it would nicely "parallel" phylogeny as most phylogeny doesn't use apomorphy, and it better reflects the traditional use of Linnean classification while at the smae time is easily adapted to evolutionary biology by adding a species specifier. If more widely-used Linnean taxa were defined cladistically based on apomorphies, in fact, I don't think i'd have such a problem abandoning ranks to a larger extent. But the fact that things like docodonts often aren't mammals and things like microraptorians often aren't birds, simply because of a definitional technicality, stick in my craw ;) At least leave traditional linnean names like Mammalia and Aves for apomorphies, and make up new names for the new system of taxonomy. 585:

classification, for example, classification of geological time. Does applying the rank "period" or "era" reflect anything real or testable about these entities? No, but from them you can glean a general idea of their relative length, and how a name like "Cretaceous" relates to a name like "Oligocene", without having to do extensive research on them. Similarly, someone completely unfamilliar with dinosaurs, who comes across the name "Microraptoria" (just an example), will know nothing about this clade unless they do research into appropriate material. However, an entomologist who comes across the subfamily Microraptorinae will instantly know its approximate nember of sub-groups and how it might realte in size and content to other groups mentioned in that source. To understand

1078:

to be dinosaurs, when the evidence should be allowed to speak for itself. I feel the same way about using one system in place of another simply because it makes debates against ID fanatics so much easier, which I know from a lot of experience that it does, but only because most ID proponents are hoplessly ignorant of how evolution works, and think that nodes or ranks in classification are somehow real. If you wanted to make debunking ID really really easy, we should abolish all classification. No more names, no more nodes, just some kind of diagram showing how life is a spectrum or gradiant from one form to another to another. When you get down to the level of subspecies, population, etc., even cladistics is completely arbitrary and obscures the true nature of evolution.

2935:

Thalattosuchia is arbituray and inconsistent throughout much of the literature. As there is still confusion in some of the literature on which is included within which creating an 'order' to replace Mesosuchia is probably premature, but saying that Mesoeucrocodylia was erected to replace Mesosuchia as it is paraphyletic (includes Eusuchia). Thats why I chose it, but the plethora of taxon names in crocodylomorph systematics may mean that the traditional order system shouldn't be used in Knowledge (use of unranked names instead). As palaeontological taxonomy is your 'pet project' i'll let you have a think about that.

966:(*)The problem is with missing data: even when the place of a fossil in the phylogeny is precisely known, this does not guarantee that we can tell whether or not it belongs to a taxon with an apomorphy-based-defined name, while it does guarantee that with node- and branch-based ones. However, Tetrapoda and Diapsida (as the examples that pop up in my mind) should IMNSHO get apomorphy-based definitions anyway because anything else would disrupt just about all continuity with the literature and because it is possible to halfway objectively choose an apomorphy in these cases (…unlike Mammalia). 2143: 31: 3055: 507:

standards of a high school text book, or college text book at best (hence Benton). I do understand other people's milage may vary here. I won't complain if nayone starts changing Reptilia to Sauropsida, and you do make a good point about Zoology and Paleontology being (regretably, imho) very different fields. But maybe something should be taken up with Wikiproject TOL about using a seperate set of taxoboxes all together for fossil species, just to make that difference clear.

1692:, responsible for most of the changes on bird, seems highly predisposed to using dubious and generalized newspaper and web sources in articles). I agree that the presence of a furcula is highly dubious, but I can't find a published source that I can read enough of to determine if this has been published, so I'd rather not change that in the article, since published sources there claim the furcula is real. I've added a few links and cites to critiques just in case. 1963: 1815: 1942: 1794: 451:). I personally think that Reptilia should be used, since it's already universal across extant reptile pages and since it's far and away the more well-known and understood name. It's also essentially the same clade and, as a name, has a few years priority over Sauropsida. Pretty much for the same reasons I'm advocating Reptilia/Aves over Archosauria. (Benton also puts Oviraptorosauria in Aves, but I think we should keep that one where it is for now...) 3088: 1164:

birds as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor (paraphyletic taxa). Paleontologists mostly use cladistics, which classifies birds as dinosaurs, to construct their taxonomies, but many other scientists do not. As a result, this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur", and "bird" as a synonym for "avian dinosaur".

2088: 2183: 637:

subfamily with so little morphological diversity (…however you might want to measure that…) is not what an entomologist has in mind. Therefore all the textbook statements that "an insect order is roughly equivalent to a vertebrate class" and the like. (Of course it's not. This would require that insect orders, as well as vertebrate classes, were equivalent to each other. Now how is Protoceratopsidae equivalent to Hominidae.)

1973: 1825: 2682: 589:, he will still have to consult a cladogram of course, but the rank serves simply as an arbitrary and handy tool to aid comprehension for the non-expert. I think phylogenetics is far, far more important scientifically than classification (which is not even really science, just "stamp collecting" as someone once said), but I don't know why many people see this as an either/or situation. Why not use both? 2150: 568:(when I'll find the time, maybe in summer, I'll register and start that article) does not classify. It doesn't want to. And that's a good thing: Instead of hacking the tree apart and stuffing the pieces into preformed boxes of fixed sizes, it leaves the tree intact and ties labels to defined places on it. Thus, it annihilates the artificial problem of "how to translate a tree into a classification". 2136: 1257:

pain in the butt to keep it all one put-it-at-the-botton referencing style. I have NEVER reverted a change from in line to at the bottom, so "mop up" or don't, I don't care. But I don't have to jump through anyone's stylistic-preferences hoop in order to CONTRIBUTE (I do my thing, you do yours; some are good at one thing others good at other stuff; you know .. teamwork?).

2316:. I know it may sound like I only come around when I need something, but this is really important to me. I only did this as a last resort. Please vote to keep the page & I'll do anything, eat your shoes, clean your toilets for a year, even wear one of those t shirts that say I'm stupid! I just want my page which I've spent so much time on to be left alone. Thanks, 1729:). Was wondering what you thought, as you seem to be another very frequent dinosaur editor. I am open to change if a lot of people disagree with me. I will not stop italicizing genus or species names though. They are italicized anywhere and everywhere they appear. That is just science. I'd rather just stop editing altogether than see incorrect information proliferate. 3066:. It was quite a small and quick sketch because I have other priorities. Would you like to comment it on body proportions? If the spikes are too small or too big, there must be another Pachycephalosaurid that looks more like the sketch than the 'regular' Pachycephalosaurus :), so it can be re-uploaded with another name. There is also a lower contrast version: 786:. (Where the family ends is yours to decide. "Family" is not defined.) What are usually called "definitions" in Linnean taxonomy are actually diagnoses – a list of characters by which the taxon can be recognized, subject to change as the contents or the assumed phylogeny of the taxon changes. Phylogenetic definitions, on the other hand – and this 2581:. We've come a long way! I was thinking that since there's just under 100 dinosaurs left, and since there are 25 of us signed on for the project, if we each wrote about four articles, we'd be done! Well, not "done", obviously, as many of the articles are in need of expansion. But then we could focus on expansion and other things. 544:

not useful! Phylogeny is a tool to test real-life relationships, and can be used to inform classification, but standing on its own it is very confusing to anyone but somebody who is already very well versed in it, and it does not really "classify" anything, just gives names. I'm in favor of using both, as I've done on my new

493:

Jurassic Park. Why use a new, unfamiliar name in place of a widely known name just to accomodate a few decades-old misconceptions? Or, as an alternative, if it's that important to distinguish Reptilia from "reptiles", why not just use an apomorphy based Aves? Nobody's gonna think T.rex was sluggish if it was a bird... ;)

2452:! It may well be that we'll one day sort of butt head - figuratively, since I have tasked myself with getting the extinct birds set up nicely, working back in time from the present, while you seem to do the same with the lineage of their ancestors and relatives in the opposite temporal sequence. So the taxa in 2466:

whether it would be wise to list, as a hidden comment, the species of the genera in the fossil birds list; that would definitely help with editing their proper articles, and with setting the time frame of existence in the list, but the list is already very long. Please take no offense with me killing the

3608:

later in the 1995 artist like Belx2 joind the crew and and be came one of mad crews .In 2000 Anser moved to back to Amsterdam and Ame and Steve moved early to back to Paris and start it all over a chapter in Amsterdam and Paris.Belx2 was the head till 2004 and now Qp is the head of STM crew since 2004.

3607:

He is the one of new school crew member STM ( graffiti crew ).The crew was the first hardcore old school crew in Tokyo and Japan as well.It was all start it in 1993 wen Anser ( the head )and his school frends Ame, Steve made a change for all in the city of Tokyo.STM has all so know as( beat up crew )

3491:

Due to the concern of the public I will add, "This is a guide and a quick explanation of Fatalis". I fail to see the wrongness of this, it is just an expanatory view on the Fatalis and ways to beat it. If anyone is strongly concerned please use the mytalk part of this site first, do not try to delete

2800:

Hi Dinoguy! Since the first stage of the project, creating all these dinosaurs, is at last winding down, I'd like to take a moment and award you this barnstar No doubt we still have a lot of work ahead of us (categorizing, taxoboxing, revising, tagging, reverting vandalism, etc), but you've brought a

2244:

his primary source was a book from the 1920's? I don't care how many papers it's had based off it, that's out dated by my count.... P.P.S. Why the heck did you rewrite Ammosaurus from scrath sheepy? that's mean, it seems like your targeting my articles to rewrite....... I'll get you eventually.... :)

2243:

Im reply to your post on Sheepy's talk: Gosh Dinoguy, stop being such a whiner, (in good jest of course my friend). Plus, how does he get the title of "an editor I respect" when he has under 500 edits? No one appreciates me... Honestly...... P.S. You say his information is outdated? Didn't Sheepy say

1908:

So, finally, while I work on the project with a designer, in order to get more people, thus more pages, I would appreciate if you didn't move or shift (or stuff up for that matter) any of the work I'll be doing, like adding templates, protocols to the project page, etc etc. I'm hoping to get it up to

991:

At the (very productive) meeting 3 weeks ago it was decided that species names will be left alone – they will continue to be governed by the rank-based codes for the foreseeable future. So there's no need to define and register the millions of species names. There will merely be a recommendation that

753:

Now... if you knew "there are 10,000 species in today's oceans", then you would at least know something halfway quantifiable. While it's not trivial, something around the species or subspecies level can usually be counted in a reproducible way. (Perhaps LITUs would be best for that purpose.) My point

677:

mention things like "commonly regarded as a class" and "classified as a phylum by some, as a subphylum by others" in the text of articles to ease comparisons with the literature. In taxoboxes, however, ranks are unnecessary (as shown by the linguistics articles of Knowledge), and leaving them off has

665:

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that it's this sort of attitude towards traditional taxonomy (and by extension taxonomists who use it) that will prevent the PhyloCode from becoming widely adopted outside a few specific fields (like vert paleo, in which it's no contest ;) ). And if PhyloCode does

3464:

Age 14 Koretz's mom realizes that he is different from other children when he spends his summer vacation writing a business plan. During his freshman year at Brighton High he hounds local legend and future mentor Tom Golisano, founder of Paychex. Hoping to get rid of the boy, Golisano invites him to

1163:

However, birds are morphologically distinct from their reptilian ancestors, and referring to birds as "avian dinosaurs" and to all other dinosaurs as "non-avian dinosaurs" is clumsy. Birds are still birds, at least in popular usage and among ornithologists. It is also technically correct to refer to

1134:

article. I can do them, but I've been trying to get another user to do it as he has no idea how. I've been warring with him for a while & he's making the article worse. Any way, I don't want to drag you into it, so thank you for footnoting, even though I can do it myself, it was a big help. I'll

1115:

may be just what you're looking for. I purge the blues every so often, so it's a good way to see how we're progressing (very well by the look of things!). And you're right about Archosauria. I tend to just copy and paste the taxobox from the nearest clade, so if my articles use Archosauria it's just

1077:

You're right, of course, but I have a problem with using classification to make a point. Phylocode itself reccomends against this in its advocacy of definitions reflecting traditional content. Phylocode reccomends against, say, defining Dinosauria as "Triceratops + Passer", because this forces birds

820:

So why can't classifications use diagnoses and phylogenies use definitions? On the one hand, the ranked name would jump around the tree with changing knowledge, on the other species would jump in and out of a set point on the tree. I would be like the dual system of node-based and stem-based taxa we

778:

Such standards would have to be totally subjective decisions along the lines of "whose classification do we adopt". The most recent most authoritative classifications, like APG II for angiosperms or… the new one for eukaryotes, move away from ranks (the former contains many unranked taxa, the latter

3378:

though jp3 might say t rex would loose it is easy to tell the would not meet but if they did tyrannosaurus would win because why did the name spinosaurus king of the dinosaurs(tyrannosaurus rex meens that) if they thought it was stronger? because t rex was and still is the most fiersome dinosaur to

3018:

You are completely right about the anatomy, Dinoguy. Those sketches were mostly drawn from "gut feeling" or how do you say this. The Dilophosaurus sketch in particular was drawn in couple of minutes whithout any anatomical description or fragment pictures, I still remember that. In fact the only

1510:

I also searched around and found no reference to it. Thinknig it might be a new species I overlooked (since I usually keep on top of new theropods) I searched the dinosaur Mailing List Archives--nothing. User John.Conway is more an expert than I am and he agrees-there's o such dinosaur. I voted for

1256:

Embedded references are easier for a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article. For a settled article or rarely edited article puting it all at the bottom is a nice FINISHING touch. But if it will NEVER be finished, if it's a target for every newbie; it becomes an unjustifyable

1154:

There is an almost universal consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor are related, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Modern birds

929:

at the idea of apomorphy-based definitions (let alone ranks--say "Linneaus" to a vertebrate paleontologist and prepare to be crucified on the spot ;) ). It seems that modifying the existing system to include more phylogenetically-based definitions at super-familial levels would be much simpler than

914:

Then choose another definition as long as the PhyloCode isn't implemented yet, and lobby for the definitions you prefer to become established under the PhyloCode! It's still possible. If you can't come to the congress in a month, join the mailing list (extremely low traffic, joining instructions on

705:

Mislead in what way? Linnean classification does not pretend to reflect any real or quantifyable evolutionary relationship. It's book keeping. If all ranks corresponded to each other based on some quantifiable criteria, like number of species, etc, it would be science. The reason insect subfamilies

473:

Heh, I think we should unilaterally start using Class Pterosauria and see if anybody calls us on it... Anyway, I wouldn't mind Sauropsida since it is more technically correct, I just didn't want to start an edit war with anyone who works on turtles, snakes, etc, since I strongly feel we should have

1302:

About repeating the source in the article and at the bottom: The BEST way is using a referencing system as the best (e.g RECENTLY featured articles) articles in wikipedia do. The worst way omits sources altogether. Putting the source in only the text is not as good because it is useful to put them

1293:

The issue of attaining featured status is different from maintaining the article. I stayed away from the article while others polished it into shape for featured status as I don't give hoot about featured status or looking pretty, but I also do care about the fact that these are important to other

981:

PhyloCode, and in my admittedly limited experience, it's mainly reptile workers. You'd end up with a system where reptile workers and vert paleontologists use one system, and the rest of the world uses another. Not to mention the possible conflicts between family-level and genus-level names, which

843:

So... I gather you actually want phylogenetic definitions, but you prefer apomorphy-based ones over all other types? If this is what you want, you are dropping all of Linnaean nomenclature except the ranks. In other words, you are advocating phylogenetic nomenclature, with the restriction that you

543:

I disagree that ranks should be dropped entirely, in all cases. I actually agree with Benton on the point that classification and phylogeny are two seperate and useful fields. classification has no basis in concrete facts, it is entirely a human construct to organize things. That doesn't mean it's

377:

Nitpicking alert! There are several different phylogenetic definitions of Mammalia (BTW, cladistics, the method to test phylogenetic hypotheses, has nothing to do with nomenclature). One is a crown-group definition, along the lines of "the most recent common ancestor of all living mammals, and all

2409:

whatever for the London specimen, but not whether the skeleton and the feather is the holotype. There circulates a Net rumour of some ICZN opinion in 1964 that was supposed to designate London as (neo)type, but there is no reference. There is no reference in 2001-2005. I have read the Bühler/Bock

1189:

I'm not sure how we should go about something like this. It's really an issue of common usage vs. scientific usage. Maybe a subsection on the definition of what is/is not a dinosaur, where we could also discuss animals commonly (incorrectly) thought of as dinsaurs like plesiosaurs and pterosaurs.

1057:

I have just stumbled on this discussion and would like to add my opinion. I feel strongly that cladistics plays an important role for non scientists in that it communicates the concept of evolution. Reptilia may be commonly used, and work to some degree as a desription of characteristics, but the

1013:

My problem with PT is that nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. You can do PT in parallel without "abolishing" LT in the process, and all the anti-LT rhetoric flying around from hardcore PT types comes off as very insulting and arrogant (I bet this contributes to PT's fairly slow acceptance!).

636:

species, rather than 3 or 4 or 5. I'm sure there are insect subfamilies with several thousand – there's a beetle family with 17,000 species (as of a few years ago…). The concept of a subfamily, or even a subgenus, with just 5 species is quite alien to most entomologists. Likewise the concept of a

2456:

are of interest to both of us, especially as the Late Quaternary prehistorics list is essentially done. You're welcome to start any article you like, and especially help with the taxa I listes as "unresolved or basal". I have not found a consistent and comprehensive taxonomy and while I tried to

735:

I disagree. In context, this statement could say a great deal about evolutionary diversity. If they said, in "today's ocean there are 10,000 species", these species could easily all be very closely related or extremely diverese. You can't tell from the statement. But, if they say "there are 1000

2546:

Thanks. The bird classification on Epidendro and the alvarezsaurs was mainly due to uncertainty--alvarezsaurs were thought to be avain for a lnog time and a few scientists still think they are. Epidendro is very close to the base of aves, so which side of the line it falls on changes with every

1277:

science article, as you know, are citations of primary literature. Harvard style is another option, but nobody seems to want to go through the entire article and replace footnotes with Harvard style citations to every print and internet source (simply placing a link at the end of a quote is not

764:

To be fair, if they had said "1000 clades" instead of "1000 families", and not counted species, they would be making just as big a mistake. The fact that these researchers carried out a poor survey is tangiential to the real issue here. Also, I really do think some standard should be applied to

749:

know about the subjective interpretations of diversity of one researcher at one point in their career. Just assume some basic splitting/lumping – and suddenly 1000 families in 8 phyla is the same thing as 600 families in 4 phyla or 1400 families in 10 phyla. Real-life example: Arthropoda in the

492:

I disagree--I think having a standard classification is important. Why seperate fossil animals from living ones? Reptiles used to be thought of as slow, sluggish, etc, but I can almost assure you dinosaurs (and by extension other dino-like fossil reptiles) haven't been thought of that way since

3712:

is something of a dinosauromorph enigma. It is not yet well known, and has been considered as a "lagosuchid" (hence the name), "staurikosaurid", and possibly even very early theropod. Recent sources tend to put it as the sister taxon to Dinosauria." I of course do not object to the change in

2465:

I set up the list as I did, but the references i used usually refer to specific genera or species and therefore do not belong in a simple but comprehensive list. I (mainly) want to restrict myself to getting the lists up and up-to-date rather than creating articles to the taxa. I have pondered

1386:

unenlagia did not descend from flying ancestors. there is more evidence linking them as the ancestors of flying descendants than the descendants of flying ancestors. novas and puerta's paper did talk about the pelvis, but the novel idea of their paper was the orientation of the glenoid cavity.

1272:

talk section, I turned up several posts complaining about the sloppiness of two different notaion systems for the same article. For what it's worth, the only reason I think footnotes are preferable is that not all references in Dinosaur are to internet sources. The most important references in

995:

It's true that there's a heavy bias towards vertebrate paleontologists and angiosperm neontologists. It's also true that not one entomologist was present at either meeting. Still, there are malacologists, polychaete workers, and mycologists, for example. The use of phylogenetic nomenclature is

506:

My philosophy is, the entries in wikipedia should be written with your average 8th grader in mind. Do ranks and Reptilia and what have you contain any information useful to a paleontologist? No, but what paleontologist uses Knowledge as a reference source? IMHO this thing should conform to the

3457:

Age 7 Koretz starts his first business, selling shells gathered during visits to his grandfather (left) in Florida. The old man offers to become his partner and supply him with more shells, but Koretz decides to collect all the shells himself when he visits again, to avoid having to share the

584:

I understand PN pretty well, and I agree that it is much more useful than LN. I just also think LN is useful too. The fact that classification was done at all before evolution was discovered, attests to its usefulness apart from understanding relationships. I look at it like any other type of

422:

I agree with the discussions on one of the taxobox entries - all those ranks are confusing and unnecessary. I'm all for using only the main ranks (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) and the Sub- and Super- prefixes. Anything else should be unranked ("norank" in the taxobox

972:

The problem with starting afresh is that literally every taxon in existance will need to be re-defined and registered. This will obviously involve a good deal of debate over how to define various taxa. This is simple for dinosaurs, which constitute only a few hundred taxa, but what about the

3406:

It's been a long time coming, but I would like to apologise for our arguement on the Struthiomimus talk page this September. I was being childish & although I was under a lot of outside stress to do with my mother (sickness), I realise I was way out of line. For this I give my sincerest

859:

Agh! This is not a dual system! It's just that some names have node-based definitions, some names have stem-based definitions, and some names have apomorphy-based definitions! There are no fundamental differences between there. No name will be able to have more than one definition under the

3098:

article, it has been requested that this article be removed in the article's FAC. However, I think it is a highly needed picture. Is there any way you could photoshop out the glass exhibit line going through the picture & lighten it up significantly? It would save the picture & get

3522:

Some pros like to Lance the Fatalis, which can be done. It is a more difficult way but usually an effective way at that. The best lance to use is of course the BDS or Black Dragon Spear, which is the best lance in the game. Unconfirmed reports have said that they have used weaker lances.

2514:

I replied to your concern on the "feathered dinosaur" classification - suffice to say that I would do it the same way as you proposed, only I was confused by the avian taxa that were already categorized as feathered dinos. I removed the "bird" classifications from the Epidendrosaurus and

502:

Vertebrate Palaeontology and Zoology are seperate in terms of scientific culture, subject matter, and naturally enough, approaches to classification. If our job really is to reflect scientific consensus, then maybe we should drop the ranks. Otherwise, the standard textbook for Vertebrate

2934:

Current workers in vertebrate palaeontology rarely use the Linnaean rank system (using instead phylogenetic taxonomy especially the PhyloCode). The 'ranking' in regards to Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, Protosuchia, Mesoeucrocodylia, Notosuchia, Ziphosuchia, Metasuchia, Neosuchia and

427:

So for dinos and pteros, use Class Repitilia, orders Pterosauria, Saurischia, Ornithiscia. Suborders Pterodactyloidea, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Thyreophora, Cerapoda. Not sure what to do about Ramphorhynchoids. Either use the paraphyletic suborder or leave them suborderless I guess.

3245:

once more, I came across it and reading Olson's 1985 synopsis, I moved it to the wretched "proto-birds" where it belongs (with Epidendrosaurus and Chatterjee's Folly). olson says that no good case for an avian status had been made by 1985, but the article seems to be more definite.

1303:

altogether in one place; sometimes one source is used for more than one fact, and it's less likely to be deleted in a source section in the bottom. Putting the source only at the bottom doesn't let someone connect a specific fact to a specific source for the purpose of verification.

3191:

I could be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that all sources should be verifiable with outside sources. This is the intent of a request for verification. Adding a simple external source can serve to achieve this end and makes our encyclopedia increasingly valid. Best,

813:

What are usually called "definitions" in Linnean taxonomy are actually diagnoses – a list of characters by which the taxon can be recognized, subject to change as the contents or the assumed phylogeny of the taxon changes. Phylogenetic definitions, on the other hand – and this

1149:

Fedor says "I think the current content of the article strikes the balance quite nicely, really, without obfuscating the fact that, strictly speaking, birds are dinosaurs." I agree. But part of how we got there was my adding a sourced quote saying what is now this paragraph:

2224:

article from scratch and now I need to go to sleep. It's also because I just went ahead and fixed the template myself... it's still crap, but less steamy now. Anyway good luck doing the rest, I will help out if I have time tomorrow. Hopefully he doesn't add too many more.

1267:

I think the point you're overlooking in that quote from Wetman is "it is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page." I guess whether you want to listen to the advice of others or just ignore it is up to you, but after a few seconds looking through the

1061:

Proponents of ID have made the evidence of therapod to bird transition a point of contention. When we have the chance, we should communicate in terms that reject the ID arguments, and stress that the way we classify living things is an expression of the way life evolved.

706:

differ from vertebrate families is for purely practical reasons (the huge diversity of insects vs the paltry diversity of vertebrates means that, if insect orders and vert orders contained the same number of species, they'd be utterly useless to one field or the other).

2504:... as it stands, it covers Sphenisciformes down to spheniscidae, but if some other penguin family is identified, we're in trouble, or at least in for potentially unpopular re-writing and re-structuring. If you have any suggestions for this type of thing, let me know. 765:

define the ranks for the reasons you state, though they should probably vary from group to group. I'd favor something to do with major apomorphies, since apomorphy vs content based definitions are a major distinction between Linnean and most cladistic classifications.

715:

You're right that Linnean nomenclature doesn't pretend ranks were somehow real. But in spite of this, it looks so much like doing it that lots of people subconsciously treat them as real. For example, take all the biodiversity studies from Jablonski to Benton. They

319:

is not a member of any particular class or family (in Linnean classification this is called a "plesion"), and it is more primitive than true amphibians (the class that includes frogs and salamanders). I guess calling it "just a missing link" is not that far off,

3531:

Again unconfirmed reports have said players have used Hammers, Swords, Dual Swords, and Great Swords to kill the Fatalis. This is more a feat than using a lance due to the fact that hammers have the power but lack distance which results in almost certain death

908:. This is a very important distinction. Phylogenetic nomenclature can be applied to any phylogenetic tree, not only to cladograms ( = the outcomes of cladistic analyses); cladistics is entirely unconcerned with nomenclature – it is science and not nomenclature. 503:

Palaeontology uses Sauropsida. I'm not too worried about the sluggish dinosaurs thing here. I just don't think it conveys useful information to refer to dinosaurs and pterosaurs as "reptiles" - the word means different things in general and scientific usage.

1779:

is becoming a bit dormant of late, I've decided to get it reactivated. I've started putting the following templates all over the show, & I'd appreciate if someone would try putting them on too. Remember, they only go on Dinosaur orientated artcle's

3682:

possibly/probably isn't a proper theropod) I feel like these artists spent a lot of time honing these images, and deserve a "proper" review from the theropod guru. I know you are limited to just 15 minutes of editing a day, but if you get a chance...?

2499:

limited, so I'll bow to your judgement on most issues. The main area I've been working on lately has just been trying to integrate extinct birds from extant orders into the current articles, which is sometimes a little messy with all the redlinks. See

2234:

P.S. - If you ever need any pdf files of dinosaur papers, I have a ton of recent ones and many more easily accessible. Older papers are harder because I have to convert them to PDF from the hard copies. But just ask and I'll see what I can do. G'nite.

3126:

Oh, also, jsut for the record I think the shot is pretty terrible to begin with. The article does really need a shot of the fighting dinosaurs, and I support keeping my image there until a better one can be found, but... a better one should really be

1677:

page shows one (the first) to be a decidedly odd, probably POV website, and a quick google search suggests that the presence of a furcula in Longisquama is dubious. I don't know the subject well enough to edit safely, could you check it out please? -

1037:. Obvioulsy this won't happen for such a well-known group, but mistakes or sabotage by unethical researchers favoring their names over competitors, when you're dealing with all clades for all forms of life (millions of them!), are beyond inevitable. 2976:. Should that redirect be reinstated or can the article as I've made it remain? It features a lot more info than it did originally, so in my view it can stay, but I'd like to hear your thoughts because you redirected it to Mesosaur earlier. 524:"Reptilia" add any information that is valuable to an 8th-grader! They only mislead – like how some people (Benton included) count families as a measure of diversity even though families are too subjective to be countable in the first place. 2784:

I found this image on the stock exchange site, and I've been told the copyright status may vary between individual images on that site. Since no specific copyright info was provided for this one, I think it's kind of in copyright limbo :\

2523:

inclusive (basically uncritically listing everything with feathers, hence the "proto-birds" section). Most of the confusion stems from cleaning up the mess the transitional taxa originally were. I also added/expanded explanatory notes to

891:

This cannot happen for two reasons: firstly, the ICZN does not regulate names above family-group ranks, and secondly, it does not recognize any phylogenetic definition. The definition you give is a classic apomorphy-based phylogenetic

2277:

main page for those who would actually like to know what to do with their time on the project. Add tasks as you wish, no too long though! Add your name to tasks you wish to be part of & that's as complicated as it gets... Thanks,

720:

families or genera, as if they were countable. They are not countable, because they are not comparable. Neither the authors nor the peer-reviewers of such studies seem to notice this essential basic fact – even though at least Benton

2056:

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the talk page of dinosaur related articles, so everytime you edit an article, placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

1116:

because the other ones do. Not that that's an excuse, but it shows we need to standardise across all the articles. When the debate ends, I recommend calling in a bot to do the required changes, if there are a large number of them.

962:

somehow defining "super-familial levels", could be easier than just dropping it and starting afresh. Have you ever considered the additional advantages that come with starting afresh? The feasibility of mandatory registration, for

1449:

dated 18 Jan; just to let you know that 72.64.76.161 repeated his/her vandalism on 22 Jan. I've reverted it, but suspect this won't be the last time given the user's past history. I'd support any action you deem should be taken -

725:

in his books that ranks are not real. And this happens even though said studies commonly treat, for example, all marine animals at once. Surely you agree that the statement "in today's oceans there are 1000 families" is entirely

2113:

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the user talk page or user page of members of the Dinosaur wikiproject, so placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

628:

It is of course completely true that reading the name Microraptoria won't tell you anything about that clade (and even its definition won't tell you more than, like, one species that is included and one that is excluded).

1205:

First, thanks for all the help with the dinosaur article. Second, I'm sorry you feel hostile towards me just because we differ on footnote style useage in a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article.

3318:

and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)

1618:), but seeing as how the T.rex article discusses species of Tyrannosaurus other than t.rex, I think using Tyrannosaurus would be preferable. Might want to take this up on the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page first though. 3112:

Hey guys! Thanks for working on the photo. I've been away most of this week and will be pretty consistantly for the next month, so I won't be able to devote too much time to Wiki for a while, unfortunately. Glad to see

1010:

We don't just dislike the mandatory ranks for being meaningless. We also dislike them for limiting the number of clades we are allowed to name and for forcing (!) us to use paraphyletic and redundant (monotypic)

999:

557:

Why not just print the tree itself? I can't find any information in the classification in the Avicephala article (a good article, BTW! I just removed two typos) that isn't repeated in the tree pictured below the

3750:

Hi Dinoguy - Noasaurus is next on my to-do list, but I can't find a reconstruction online that shows how the erstwhile toe claw might actually appear on the hands. Can you describe it or send me a link? Thanks!

793:

And… which apomorphies, if any, are "major"? This subjective question is among the most important reasons for why Linnean classifications differ from each other, especially for why splitting and lumping are so

624:

Geological time is not comparable to the Tree of Life. The latter is tree-shaped, it branches all the time. The former is a straight unbranched line. Clearly different approaches are needed to talk about them.

571:

I can't see what's so confusing about phylogenetic nomenclature, except maybe if you're well versed in Linnaean nomenclature and don't know PN yet. If you start from scratch PN is much easier to understand.

1425:

is secondarily flightless. It's possible, however, that your scenario is correct, but this would probably render dromaeosauridae a paraphyletic assemblage of early birds and their immediate ancestors. The

1282:

would nominate the article be revoked of its featured status. Take all this as you will, but I would prefer people take a little extra time for internal consistancy rather than mess up a well put together

880:

My question was rhetorical. Objectively, there's no way to declare any apomorphy "major"; subjectively, I can hardly imagine scientists could ever reach a consensus on this kind of thing, subjective as it

2846: 1909:

the standard of The military history project. So, tell your friends to join up, or spam unknowing people & continue to do great articles. I no time, we'll have an awesome, professional project page!

992:

authors mention the species concept they have in mind when they describe a new species. The PhyloCode will then simply ignore the genus name (unless it is already defined and registered as a clade name).

774:

Nobody would say "1000 clades" because clades are so obviously not countable (except LITUs…). My point is, and meanwhile we seem to agree here, is that "1000 families" is as useless a statement as "1000

1569:

He does not mark it with an asterisk, as he claims to do with paraphyletic groups, and indeed does with Agnatha. But then this may just be an oversight (…though carried on from the 2 edition, at least).

930:

abandoning the whole thing and setting up a new system, let alone getting the burn-it-to-the-ground proponents of the new system to allow anything resembling pre-phylogenetic taxonomy into PhyloCode.

474:

standardized taxonomy over all pages. If you want to try changing the extant reptile pages to Sauropsida, I won't object, but, I bet others might. If you get their support, I'll back Sauropsida too.

3927:

Feduccia, A., Lingham-Soliar, T. & Hinchliffe, J. R. 2005 Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence. Journal of Morphology 266, 125-166.

1168:

It has always bothered me that the problem of the inbetween category (missing link category) of so-called "feathered dinosours" (meaning feathered non-avian dinosaurs) is inadequately addresed.

2080:

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

1934:

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

1366: 1358: 1344: 1336: 644:

both laypeople and experts alike. There are lots of cases in the literature where people counted genera or families and believed they were measuring biodiversity in a scientific way. Ranks are

1705:

Some say the supposed furcula is an interclavicle. While this idea is so logical that it should probably go into the Knowledge articles anyway, there are no citable references on this, IIRC.

1560:

AFAIK he uses a clean break making Sauropsida consciously paraphyletic, but I'm mainly going by the figures and supplements available on his web site. The actual text may say something else.

561:(Except for "Order" Avicephala and "Suborder" Simiosauria. IMHO you should really remove these ranks – because Senter didn't give these names any ranks. You've done original "research".) 3519:

it is the final boss in the game on online (and offline for Freedom), and can only be reached when playing the game online (Also known as "The Town"), and also by beating the game.

2949:

the more I looked at it, the more I liked it, so I fired off a nice email just now requesting a low res image to use (was feeling pretty optimistic after Peter Trusler gave the OK.)

2746:. There might still be one or two people who think they were bipedal (maybe David Peters?), and if there's a source for it it could even go back in as a possible non-debunked theory. 2603:

It's just an idea, of course, and you're of course not obligated and can do whatever you like; I just figured I'd mention the idea, and see if you were interested. No harm, right?

2357:

If there are others working on fossil amphibians i'd like to pitch in. The whole tetrapods vs amphibians vs reptiliomorphs thing is kind of a mess I'd be interested in cleaning up.

2259:

I just got back and found big ugly redundant "paleo-boxes" stuck on articles. I don't think they're a good idea at all. The information in them should be in the article, if known.

3437: 977:

of invertebrate taxa? The process of starting afresh could take centuries, with periods of confusion intermittent. That's assuming a majority of biologists in various fields even

912:

But the fact that things like docodonts often aren't mammals and things like microraptorians often aren't birds, simply because of a definitional technicality, stick in my craw ;)

1058:

classification Sauropsida is part of the explanation of why birds are dinosaurs. And Theropsida is part of the explanation of why human ancestors could be sail-backed animals.

1033:. Under PhyloCode, Velociraptoridae now has priority over Dromaeosauridae, wheras the ICZN mandates that Dromaeosauridae must be the family name for the family which contains 666:

not forbid the use of ranks (and even if it did, it's not even active yet), the idea that all ranks should be purged from articles in an encyclopedia is completely unfounded.

2763:

Hi, are you aware of the copyright issue brought up w.r.t this image? It is FP standard to my mind, so it would be really good to have clarification on the copyright status.

2220:

I started fixing the info in the paleoboxes, but I only got through the first three (Ammosaurus, Anchisaurus, and Bactrosaurus). This is largely because I rewrote the entire

2477:: if you want to give the prehistoric penguins in general a shot, let it fly! I fear the day I finally decide nobody's gonna do it and have to do it myself until all those - 3591:

OMG! You have to read this one... I might even use this to start up my own section... This is hilarious!! And the sad thing is, I think this person went through highschool!

3871:

Yeah, I've checked Science on-line and the article is not there yet (will probably appear tomorrow). The original release seems to have been posted on the spanish website

2674:

for deletion. I have come to rely on google as a reliable source for checking if an article is real or a hoax. Guess google does not get new updates so quickly after all.

1155:

are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.

829:

That should be up to researchers in specific fields to decide and reach consensus on. In a perfect world, they'd come up with something like "perforated acetabulum as in

2174:

As per step three, I'm informing you that... A new userbox has been created!! Please give comments and feedback (not including the picture, which may be due to change).

3418:

No hard feelings man. And you'll have to thank Firsfron for suggesting I expand that section (see above post). I might have to start a collection of bad wiki edits :)

982:

would be based on potentially different definitions and priorities under different systems. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just because people don't like ranks.

3774:

Do you have a preference between lower teeth point outward or the drawing as is? It's easy to change, so whichever you think makes a better reconstruction, I'll do.

3585: 3576: 3475: 2651:

does benefit from it, too. If I happen across some early birds on the main dinosaur list that are not marked as such, I will do so (and have done so in some cases).

2410:

paper and agree that Meyer consistently talks about the feather in his Archie descriptions and just mentions that he "has heard" of the newlyfound London skeleton.

904:

Not "cladistically", but "phylogenetically". Cladistics is merely the method to find a tree; phylogenetic nomenclature is to give phylogenetic definitions to clade

2689: 2313: 2309: 790:

apomorphy-based definitions – are precise delimitations of a taxon. Once you apply a phylogenetically defined name to a tree, it is objective where the taxon ends.

2397:

Have you heard of the 2002 discussion about Archie's holotype (the feather vs the London skeleton)? I have referenced the Bühler/Bock paper that kicked it off on

359: 208:

I'll allow anyone to edit the above list if there is any more articles that need to be worked on. If there is no more articles that may need to be worked on, add

2732:, I read that in a book and since your sources disproved it I suppose it has become outdated. But could it still be added as an 'debunked theory', could it not? 1175:

in common usage a bird is an animal with feathers and wings. Therefore things like Velociraptor and Oviraptor (maybe even T.rex) are really birds, not dinosaurs.

163:

I reverted the classification of New World vultures with Ciconiiformes. this is not general practice outside the USA, nor is it the current Knowledge standard

3597: 2294:

Sorry to bother u mate, but you are a dino man can u check out my article and improve if possible? If its ok can I submit future articles to u late? Thankyou

1353:

The page has been moved, and all Zoids specific references have been redirected to the new page. Feel free to undo the redirect and move in at any time. :P --

2342: 736:

familis", this gives you a reasonable impression of relative diversity. If they'd said "1000 families in 8 phyla", you'd know even more about that diversity.

2902:

Every time I upload an image to Knowledge (or at least most of them) it gets removed! Could you at least tell me what's wrong with the picture I put in the

2351: 283: 263: 3884: 3875: 3862: 851:

On the one hand, the ranked name would jump around the tree with changing knowledge, on the other species would jump in and out of a set point on the tree.

378:

its descendants". Under this definition docodonts are indeed not mammals. Then there's a definition along the lines of "the most recent common ancestor of

153: 3040:

So I absolutely don't mind that you removed the sketch from the taxobox. Perhaps I'll consider making a few new anatomically correct sketches, maybe of

2936: 2373: 1460: 3136:

Thanks for the note, Dinoguy. Sorry you won't be around much for the next month, but everyone needs a wikibreak now and then. You (and your edits) will

2043: 1895: 1388: 372: 324: 3887: 3878: 3872: 2386:

has been going around adding the wrong caegories to dozens of paleo articles, and I've already had to revert his edits to Archaeopteryx several times.

782:

Definitions in Linnean nomenclature are something totally different. They consist of types and ranks. Rosaceae is defined as the family that contains

3762: 3311: 1179:

Maybe something along those lines would be a useful addition to the dinosaur article. Care to either make suggestions or be bold and make additions?

673:

phylogenetic nomenclature ranks are prevented from having influence on names. That's what I meant by "shut up and sit in the corner". IMHO Knowledge

3816: 1430:

paper mentions a detailed upcoming re-study of dromaeosaurid relationships--I'd wait for that before reccomending any changes to the articles here.

3670:

I know you're extremely busy, but would it be possible for you to take a quick glance at the Dinosaur image review page and review the entries for

2655: 2563: 2508: 1600: 223: 3356: 2708:

reliable, and actually I googled Trigonosaurus and did find a reference for it, so I was probably too hasty in declaring only literature valid :)

1622: 1306:

Putting the source in both places is the lazy man's (my) solution and not as good as using one of the referencing systems available at wikipedia.

1229:. Using footnotes is not mandatory or even preferred. Those editing the article may select other citation styles: for example, embedded links or 1068: 531:

is classified. Dropping ranks and paraphyletic taxa would have the added benefit of annihilating the question of whose classification to use. :-)

148: 3177:

page should be more general, and the aviation stuff be given it's own page, but the guys that wrote it don't agree. I need some reinforcements!

2390: 2361: 1097:

to the main page, especially on New Year's Day! It was not a one man job & I really appreciate the help you guys have done. Happy New Year!

3443: 2920: 2879:...that Dracorex hogwartsia was a dinosaur named for its resemblance to the Hungarian Horntail, a dragon in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series? 2037: 1889: 1564: 1434: 497: 487: 478: 468: 455: 442: 412:

Sheesh, Benton sure uses a lot of ranks. How many and which ones do you think we should generally include in dinosaur and pterosaur taxaboxes?

355:, like calling Hynerpeton an amphibian, when it was not a true amphibian. They may resemble rodents, but they are not closely related to them. 238: 177: 3623: 2422:

Yeah, but the whole sentence – the last sentence of the paper – is like "oh, and there's a recently discovered skeleton which could be called

2164: 1139: 3422: 3131: 3121: 1923: 1515: 1287: 1194: 3847: 3778: 3769: 3719: 3220: 3146: 2828: 2819: 2634: 2621: 1380: 1369: 1082: 1041: 986: 934: 769: 740: 593: 552: 511: 2953: 2789: 2712: 1474: 874:

No, I don't. I don't have any objections (in principle) against apomorphy-based definitions, in which both types of stability are the same.

2750: 750:

widest sense is classified by some as one phylum, by others as five or six. Again: it would be great if it were bookkeeping, but it isn't.

3026: 2189: 1578: 396:

Oh, and "plesion" is not "Linnean classification". It is Patterson & Rosen classification. Very few people have adopted this concept.

2944: 2347:

Just wondering would you be interested in collaborating on this project. It includes fossil and living forms except Dinosaurs. Thankyou

3471:

What a big head! Anyway, thought someone might like it & sicne you have a funny passage section, I thought you might want it... :)

2495:

Glad to see somebody else worknig on prehistoric birds! I'll help where I can, though my knowledge of everything but Mesozoic birds is

2130: 1696: 1489: 1317: 1261: 1251: 1125: 389:

Both definitions (and then some, I think) are currently in use. I fear we'll have to wait for one of them getting registered under the

96:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

3737: 3322:(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, 1536: 3949: 2540: 2489: 305: 3074: 3048: 2337: 1241: 1065:

As for changing terms when people are used to older concepts, I think eventually the idea that Pluto is not a planet will dominate.

3352:

No kidding? Mine was somewhat reversed to yours... I came up with the name first, then got a (now old) email address under it... --

1554: 3914: 3283: 1467: 1278:

proper style, an author and date must be listed). Using a combination of footnoes, Harvard notes, and linked sources is so sloppy

3696: 2578: 1733: 1641:. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow redirect portion of the 1112: 758:

write that higher ranks are "a useful proxy" for that purpose and use this as an a priori assumption. The ranks have misled them.

136: 3140:

be missed. Hope you enjoy your time off. Re:the photo: if a better image can be found, by all means. Have a great holiday! :) --

2778: 2610: 2515:

Alvarezsauridae assuming that's OK with you? If there are remaining uncertainties or equivocal taxa, let me know - I have taken

1765: 464:

they know what reptile means (insert bakkerian arguments here). I always feel silly describing pterosaurs as "flying reptiles".

2939: 2414: 2333:

Thanks for your help, if it doesnt annoy you I don an article on a Therapsid reptile and was wondering if u could do the same.

2023: 1875: 1751: 537:

I can't see how separate taxoboxes for extant and extinct organisms could have any benefit. There is one Tree of Life, not two.

120: 3790: 3755: 3250: 3196: 2263: 1746:

Hi, I've noticed you have some expertise on reptiles, and I would feel honoured if you commented on my peer review request of

1663:

Hi Dinoguy - saw you'd reverted some uncited stuff at bird; following links, I found more that you might want to check out at

632:

However, an entomologist who comes across "Microraptorinae" will assume it is a subfamily. Accordingly, he will assume it has

3919: 3905: 2210: 2156:

Well, above are a few photos that could replace the exsisting template photo. Please feel free to suggest more photos on the

2124: 297:. You said it was not a scientific source. Is Hynerpeton classified in any group? In articles refering to the early tetrapod 2994: 2376: 2298: 2248: 1120: 139:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

3865: 3012: 2470:

species in the list; as it stands, prehistoric genera don't have a species listing (that would make it entirely too long).

2320: 2157: 2067: 1999: 1851: 416: 3689: 3181: 2805: 2229: 368:"mammals", even though they are not true mammals in the cladistic sense. And yet, they don't call dromaeosaurs birds. Odd. 3725: 3067: 1653: 1484:

outside of Knowledge despite trying Google, Altavista, Amazon, my library's catalog, and Google Print. I noted that you

1200: 1183: 1101: 2282: 1719:

I was wondering if you had perused the information I have added to many of the dinosaur articles here (see for instance

1071: 837: 710: 432: 3831: 1913: 1454: 1391: 655:). They just need to shut up and sit in the corner, lest they mislead anyone into thinking they were somehow real. :-) 3657: 3396: 3328: 2426:". The name sticks to the London specimen, not to the isolated feather. The feather is a referred specimen. Check the 1500: 3264: 947:

Well, my personal opinion is that most names should not get apomorphy-based definitions(*), but this is a discussion

693:

Well, then I was exaggerating, but the point still holds. Extant bird subfamilies commonly contain dozens of species.

140: 2910: 2736: 1527:"Proof that all editors have at least completed High School, so we can avoid the butchering of the English language. 1347: 3346: 2980: 1521: 1234: 3432: 3411: 3103: 955:

it. I also don't like ranks, but if they are used within the PhyloCode they are much more harmless than otherwise!

3895: 3269: 3210: 3162: 2698: 2274: 2194: 2104: 2095: 1986: 1947: 1838: 1799: 1776: 1714: 1607: 1237:

for a list of options. It is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page." Hope this helps. --

3930:

unfortunatly putting up a URL would infringe my ATHENS user agreement, and I would probably get sacked from uni

925:

I do advocate these things, but most of the PhyloCode people I've talked too seem to not only dislike, but take

3713:

categories, but wanted to explain why I had originally stuck it in the dinosaurs cat in the first place. Best,

3414:... P.S. I like the section on horrible writing that you have on your talk page... Crickey that's bad writing! 2756: 1738: 3442:

Although this isn't bad writing per say, it's one funny & bigheaded read for you section maybe?? From the

2891: 1022:

and should not be confused with classification, which is an art, not a science, like the Dewey Decimal system.

690:

I'd question the validity of his degree if he thought a vertebrate subfamily contained a thousand species ;).

3186: 2774: 2569: 2326: 1760: 1682: 1541: 1485: 3005: 2999: 2529: 2372:

HI, Jurassic or cretaceous? 68.20.221.52 tagged it as creataceous, but the info box says Jurassic. CHeers,

2029: 1881: 169: 105: 93: 79: 71: 66: 3368: 1413:

exclusive of other dromaeosaurids and birds. Almost all researchers consider it a strong possibility that

156: 3838: 3742: 2439: 1998:

topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1850:

topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

958:

I can't see how replacing the type-and-rank definitions of Linnaean nomenclature with phylogenetic ones,

3572:

Tell me if you want them or not, cause I'm thinking of making my own sectio now... :) Thanks Dinoguy -

2867: 2525: 1463:'s edit (25 Jan) also needs to be double-checked, I don't have accurate info to hand to check myself - 1221:

concerning the embedded links that seemed to offend you: "The policy page regarding source citation is

38: 3387: 2985: 2866:. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on 2169: 2075: 1440: 1106: 1025:

One example of a possible conflict--PC goes into effect, and the clade Velociraptoridae is named for

565: 125: 3237:

recent (post-1985) news on its status? Some avian paleo papers I've read suggest that it might be a

3786:

A new Ceratosaurus is up - with crestier horn. Let me know if it meets your understanding. Thanks!

2929: 2801:

lot to the project, and I wanted to take a moment to honor your tireless efforts on our project. --

2630:

Naturally. I'm looking forward to the articles/stubs. Your articles always look good. And thanks.--

2215: 1638: 527:

Simply drop all ranks. Nobody needs them. The linguists have never had ranks. For example look how

356: 302: 280: 260: 3935: 2617:

Sounds like a great idea. I'll get started, though most of those will only warrent a stub at best.

1688:

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been working to clarify and add citations to the Longisquama page (

825:

than stability of apomorphy content, while it's really just a different way of looking at things.

3662: 2795: 2303: 1929: 1222: 528: 288: 3241:

due to inadequacy of publication (somewhat along the lines of "Archaeoraptor"). While reviewing

1313:

This was before I met you or Spawn Man, and I haven't changed. I'm happy. You be happy. Cheers.

147:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --

3563: 3555: 3516: 3504: 1446: 1226: 182:

I am providing you a list of articles of prehistoric animals that might need to be worked on.

100: 2990:

Thanks for comments and encouragement - sorry I somehow missed your contribution until now. -

2845: 3837:

Thanks for the response. I've left a politely-worded note. Thanks also for fixing stuff like

2852: 2757: 2481:

have my head spinning like a Sorvall centrifuge rotor... (indeed, the prehistory of penguins

2367: 2327: 2287: 1628: 1387:

therapoda pelvises have already been established as having similiarities with bird pelvises.

1144: 1088: 407: 132: 2308:

I know I haven't spoken to you in a while, but I really need your help. One of my subpages (

1331:

a Unenlagia dinosaur? I was wondering if such a thing existed. Moving now, sir *salutes* --

1018:

best way to describe evolutionary relationships in minute technical detail. But it sucks as

3819:. There's a reference to Don Lessem, but I don't get any hits on Lessem having worked with 3795: 3705: 3247: 3226: 3168: 2652: 2537: 2486: 2411: 2268: 2117:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

2060:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

1247:

I agree. Sorry you feel I don't have a right to my own opinion in the matter of footnotes.

651:

It is not an either-or situation. In fact, the PhyloCode does not forbid the use of ranks (

200: 779:

lacks formal ranks altogether, despite not using or mentioning phylogenetic nomenclature).

8: 3853: 3634: 3362: 3288: 2718: 1770: 1497: 1230: 1218: 301:, they call the animal an "amphibian". Is this true? Is Hynerpeton just a missing link? 3859: 2251:. BTW, Sheepy, remember to write for the masses, not for dino nerds like ourselves...... 1003:

Please elaborate on the "possible conflicts between family-level and genus-level names".

3647: 3255: 3062: 2958: 1995: 1847: 1637:

with the summary "rm inappropriate redirect". Blanking pages is generally considered a

1597: 1473: 483:

I think we should use Sauropsida for fossil reptiles, and leave living reptiles alone.

115: 47: 17: 2127:. BTW, I changed the template you put on your user page to be the new template above. 889:" for Superorder Dinosauria, and the ICZN would recognize this definition as official. 3277:

Thanks for the barnstar! That was really nice of you. :) See you on the WikiProject!

2770: 2348: 2334: 2295: 1726: 1593: 1322: 878:

That should be up to researchers in specific fields to decide and reach consensus on.

3338:

Hello there, might I ask how you came by your name? I never expected to see another

3019:

times I really carefully looked at fragments was when I drew the Berlin specimen of

2670:

I would like to apologize for not checking the sources thoroughly before nominating

885:

In a perfect world, they'd come up with something like "perforated acetabulum as in

3700: 3559: 3508: 3353: 3343: 3178: 2907: 2260: 1978: 1830: 1721: 1611: 1551: 1533: 484: 465: 439: 413: 754:

is that Jablonski, Benton, and so on don't even try to count species, but instead

382:

and all living mammals, and all its descendants". Under this definition docodonts

2665: 2593: 2559:) and Archie itself (which is avian by definition) should definately be excluded. 1658: 1634: 1596:. I assume that naming conventions would mandate that we should reverse this? -- 448: 447:

Yeah, and there were at least a few people advocating this for wiki as well (see

294: 249: 2142: 1480:

I've nominated this article for deletion because I could find no mentions of it

902:

If more widely-used Linnean taxa were defined cladistically based on apomorphies

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3620: 3582: 3573: 3551: 3512: 3500: 3472: 3429: 3408: 3401: 3390:(which still makes me laugh every time I read it). Anyway, thanks for the fix, 3201: 3100: 3082: 2897: 2383: 2317: 2279: 2245: 2207: 2161: 2121: 2064: 1910: 1689: 1650: 1646: 1507: 1493: 1314: 1295: 1258: 1248: 1190:

I'll get started on this after work, maybe others can help add/edit from there.

1180: 1136: 1098: 166: 3765:

skull to look more like masiakasaurus - take a gander when you have a moment.

2312:) has been picked out by a big time editor & is now up for deletion here, 857:

I would be like the dual system of node-based and stem-based taxa we have now.

3909: 3842: 3826: 3787: 3775: 3766: 3752: 3734: 3714: 3684: 3640: 3419: 3391: 3333: 3323: 3315: 3307: 3278: 3261: 3217: 3207: 3206:

Hey - they're some wicked images you've unearthed for the project - thanks -

3141: 3128: 3118: 3021: 2991: 2950: 2917: 2888: 2825: 2816: 2802: 2786: 2747: 2709: 2671: 2631: 2618: 2607: 2560: 2505: 2457:

stick to known fact and the current state of knowledge, but some taxa may be

2398: 2387: 2358: 2323:. P.S. I hope that my working with the project dinos has some sway with you? 2288: 1920: 1693: 1642: 1619: 1589: 1584: 1561: 1512: 1431: 1397:

This is debatable. Two recent cladistic analysis (Mackoviky's description of

1377: 1354: 1332: 1284: 1191: 1117: 1079: 1038: 983: 931: 834: 766: 737: 707: 652: 590: 574:

Anyway. I'll probably get an opportunity to talk to Benton personally at the

549: 508: 494: 475: 452: 429: 369: 321: 311:"Amphibian" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of tetrapod that's not an 245: 205:

I created the Platyhystrix, Leptictidium nasutum, and Halitherium articles.

110: 3156: 3054: 215:...By the way, I will also provide you with a list of innacuracies in WWM: 3898: 3804: 3704:

earlier today, Dinoguy. Actually, when I wrote the article, I was going by

3242: 3227: 3095: 2766: 2694: 2686: 2648: 2533: 2519:

under my wings, so to speak, from an early draft that was both inexact and

2516: 2453: 2226: 1755: 1730: 861: 349: 329: 298: 228: 190: 3302: 3290: 3193: 3004:

As you're the one who removed the sketch, maybe you'd want to read this:

2977: 2903: 2836: 2733: 2728: 1919:

You got it. I'll try to add the banner to nay pages I edit in the future.

1669: 1238: 195: 185: 3733:

With a stiffer neck, awaiting your inspection on the image review page.

1610:

lists T.rex as an exception under article titles. Now, I understand why

364:

You're probably right about that. They certainly would call things like

3933: 3821: 3727: 3558:. Most likely there are more places that Fatalis can be found, like in 2968: 2862:, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the 2597: 2221: 1006:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:16 CEST | 2006/7/18

969:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 18:37 CEST | 2006/5/27

761:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:29 CEST | 2006/5/14

732:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 17:28 CEST | 2006/5/14

658:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:00 CEST | 2006/5/12

545: 253: 219: 2536:

was listed under the last category and IMHO it definitely should not!

1572:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 10:04 CEST | 2006/5/12

1532:

Hey, I never completed High School, and I've never not been undone! -

918:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:54 CEST | 2006/5/25

797:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 12:11 CEST | 2006/5/15

581:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 1:23 CEST | 2006/5/10

540:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:28 CEST | 2006/5/9

3743: 3087: 3071: 3045: 3009: 2863: 2585: 2433:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:14 CEST | 2006/5/9

1708:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:19 CEST | 2006/5/9

1376:

Thanks! I hope to get at least a stub up for the dino Unenlagia soon.

1214: 399:

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 9:35 CEST | 2006/5/12

365: 234: 3461:

Age 13 Koretz is already reading up to seven business books a week.

3446:

article which will be deleted soon... (Picked out the best bits...)

2182: 2087: 1962: 1941: 1814: 1793: 1645:. If you believe different content should go there, please create a 896:

Incidentally, I really only support ranks for apomorphy-based groups

3428:

Thanks. I'll keep you posted on any bad writings that I find... :)

3030: 2973: 2858: 2742:

Well, I suppose, but it really applies to all pterosaurs, not just

2100: 1991: 1843: 1679: 1464: 1451: 1269: 1131: 1094: 818:

apomorphy-based definitions – are precise delimitations of a taxon.

341: 3496: 3174: 2589: 2501: 1747: 1740: 1664: 1550:

class sauropsida according to Benton's taxonomy? I can't decide.

575: 390: 352: 312: 2681: 3678:? You're our resident theropod expert, and... (I know, I know, 1615: 345: 333: 2149: 2107:, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. 1159:

And other adding and insisting on a paragraph that now reads:

3924:

the full reference in Royal Soc Proc Bio Sciences format it:

2135: 1361: 1339: 864:

what the PhyloCode says about different types of definitions.

460:

Hmm, that's sort of the reason I'd prefer Sauropsida, people

2972:

article I discovered you had previously made it redirect to

3815:

could constitute a valid taxon, and "Xiaosauridae" returns

621:(New column started to avoid squeezing the text too much.) 2028:

This article has not yet received a rating on Knowledge's

1880:

This article has not yet received a rating on Knowledge's

699:

In sum, the rank serves as an arbitrary and handy tool to

640:

In sum, the rank serves as an arbitrary and handy tool to

1546:

Matt, do you know whether class aves could be said to be

337: 3438:

Wow! Check out this big headed article for your section:

2314:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews

2273:

I've successfully created an open list of tasks on the

1725:). Spawn Man has a lot of issues with my edits (see my 1093:

I'm thanking everyone who helped me majorly in getting

2577:

There's currently less than 100 dinosaurs left on the

2427: 2103:. If you would like to participate, you can visit the 534:

Using Sauropsida instead of "Reptilia" is a good move!

3465:

a day full of business meetings. Koretz is thrilled.

1488:

from Ornithomimidae so I'm asking for you to vote at

438:

Doesn't Benton use Sauropsida in favour of Reptilia?

1990:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1968: 1842:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1820: 2120:I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... 2063:I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... 3841:. How far back thru the contributions did you go? 2042:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1894:This article has not yet received a rating on the 3861:. looks like a new entry to the Dinosaur list :) 3386:I think it actually tops the entry you listed on 1614:is there (there's already an article titled just 1014:I've said it before and i'll say it again--PT is 898:You can do this within the PhyloCode. No problem. 2099:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 252:was a diapsid, then it can't be the ancestor of 3566:but for now those are the confirmed locations. 3161:I've put a lot of work into getting it started 3106:. P.S. I'd do it, but I don't have photoshop.. 2206:I will inform on arrival of more improvements. 663:They just need to shut up and sit in the corner 3803:An editor has recently created an article for 3527:Swords, Great Swords, Hammers, and Dual Swords 2401:and read IZCN Opinion 607, which argued about 821:have now. You imply that stability of name is 729:In other words, it's not even bookkeeping. :-) 3883:No, it's actually there. Got the article. :) 3511:. While being one of the only two dragons in 2343:Knowledge:WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles 315:, but most of these are not true amphibians. 3008:. Good luck with the Dino Project! Cheers, 3581:Hid some sections to minimise length... :) 3550:Fatalis can be found in Castle Schrade, in 3027:Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences 1217:and I felt you might need a reference from 2856:has been updated. A fact from the article 1511:deletion on the discussion page.--Dinoguy2 1490:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Anatomimus 1235:Knowledge:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources 131:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 3033:. And I was like 13 or 14 years old, so 2824:Looks really great on your userpage! :)-- 2444:A big hello and many thanks for starting 1421:evolved flight independantly of birds or 1111:To answer your query on Dracontes' page, 3086: 3053: 2148: 2141: 2134: 1130:Thank you so much for footnoting in the 3216:Thanks! Moving to my main user page :) 3006:User_talk:Firsfron#Dilophosaurus_sketch 1113:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing 827:which apomorphies, if any, are "major"? 344:mammals, they would call mammals, like 14: 3908:. I've deleted them now. Best wishes, 3388:User:Dinoguy2#What_Wiki_Should_Require 2815:, sir! (moving image to main userpage) 1752:Knowledge:Peer review/Tuatara/archive1 844:only want apomorphy-based definitions. 178:Articles that may need to be worked on 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3807:, a "nomen nudum group of dinosaurs" 3507:, and one of the many that appear in 2726:About the supposed bipedal stance of 2461:or have been moved elsewhere; I know 1606:I would reccomend yes, but currently 212:to the list. I hope this helps you! 3858:Hey, Dinoguy! Have you seen this? : 3068:Image:Sketch_pachycephalosaurus2.jpg 2547:analysis at the moment. Things like 2177: 2158:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs 2082: 1984:This article is within the scope of 1836:This article is within the scope of 1786:pages. Not the articles themselves. 868:You imply that stability of name is 25: 1579:Tyrannosaurs and naming conventions 872:than stability of apomorphy content 684:Accordingly, he will assume it has 143:, ask me on my talk page, or place 23: 2131:New photos proposed for templates? 1673:. A look at the cited refs on the 1126:Thank you SOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!! 24: 3960: 3492:it. I am happy to hear opinions. 3099:velociraptor featured... Thanks, 1135:send a barnstar your way soon... 703:both laypeople and experts alike. 141:Knowledge:Where to ask a question 3547:Invent your own way to kill it. 3025:and a Iguanodon skeleton in the 2945:Todd marshall's Iguanodon family 2844: 2680: 2181: 2086: 1971: 1961: 1940: 1823: 1813: 1792: 678:the added benefit of being NPOV. 231:is 2 feet long, or about a meter 29: 3708:of J.Sweet's site, which says " 3163:Knowledge:WikiProject_Dinosaurs 2275:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs 2008:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1860:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1777:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1608:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs 336:. I'm also having a feeling if 332:are true amphibians also, like 272:list I will edit periodically 92:Hello, Dinoguy2/Archive 1, and 3811:. I'm not sure how a group of 3265:15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3260:Danke! Moved to main userpage. 3251:06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 2916:I did, check the talk page :) 2555:(definately more derived than 2428:Dinosaur Mailing List archives 2011:Template:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1863:Template:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1445:Hi Dinoguy - saw your note on 13: 1: 3950:18:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC) 3920:Info Re: fedducia et al. 2005 3915:23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 3888:21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 3879:21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 3866:21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 3848:19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 3832:04:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 3825:, either. What do you think? 3791:21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 3779:18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 3770:16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 3756:04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 3738:10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 3720:02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 3624:23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) 3586:05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 3577:05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 3476:05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 3433:03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 3423:02:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 3412:07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 3397:22:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 2868:the "Did you know?" talk page 2647:Thanks for the effort, guys! 2485:be worthy of a full article) 2430:for more precise information. 2002:and see a list of open tasks. 1854:and see a list of open tasks. 1766:16:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1734:04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 1697:16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 1683:16:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 1654:01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 1623:03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 1435:18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1392:17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1083:21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1072:20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 745:No, you would not. You would 479:22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 469:17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 456:14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 443:02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 433:01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 417:00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 170:16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 101:The five pillars of Knowledge 3690:06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 3658:04:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) 3639:Okay, thanks for the tip! — 3357:03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3347:03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 3329:19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3284:02:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 2530:Category:Feathered dinosaurs 1601:23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 1565:13:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1555:08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1537:06:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1516:20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 1501:02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 1468:09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 1455:09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 1401:and Norell's description of 1381:06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1370:03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 1348:02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 222:is not an amphibian, just a 157:05:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC) 121:How to write a great article 7: 3543:Just Lance it. 'nuff said. 3489: 3484: 3455: 3450: 3221:18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3211:05:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 3197:02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 3173:I've been arguing that the 2877:Apparently, the DYK reads: 1318:19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 1288:18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 1262:16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 1252:16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 1242:04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 1209:Wetmans said to Spawn Man: 1201:I never asked you to mop up 1195:20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 1184:20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 1140:22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 1121:22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1102:02:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 996:growing; slowly, but still. 512:14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 498:23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 488:19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 10: 3965: 3495:Fatalis is one of the two 3308:Featured Article candidacy 2906:article, so I can fix it? 2656:19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2635:17:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2622:17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2611:07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 2564:22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 2541:17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 2526:Category:Prehistoric birds 2509:21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2490:21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2391:20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2377:20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2362:01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 2352:01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 2338:07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 2321:01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 2299:05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 2044:project's importance scale 1896:project's importance scale 1213:I saw your recent edit at 587:evolutionary relationships 340:would create a special on 293:We discussed about WWM in 3936: 3342:member named Dinoguy#... 3310:. The article failed its 3182:11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 3147:06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 3132:21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 3122:21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 3104:23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 3075:17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 3049:21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3013:19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 2995:21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 2981:16:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2954:13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2940:12:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 2283:23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 2264:16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 2249:02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 2230:11:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 2211:19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 2165:19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 2125:00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 2068:00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 2041: 2027: 1956: 1924:13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 1914:03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 1893: 1879: 1808: 1042:15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 915:the PhyloCode main page). 566:phylogenetic nomenclature 3706:the Dinosauromorpha page 3499:that appear in the game 3480:Also found this beauty: 2921:22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 2911:20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 2892:14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 2829:22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2820:18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2806:02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2790:13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2779:13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1522:What Wiki Should Require 1417:flew. Therefore, either 987:19:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 935:13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 838:12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 770:21:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 741:15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 711:22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 594:02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 373:22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 360:21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 284:05:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 264:00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 3817:no non-wiki google hits 3619:Or not... Nevermind... 3270:Thanks for the barnstar 3060:I just tried to draw a 2751:12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 2737:09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 2713:17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2699:17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 2415:21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC) 2093:This user is a part of 1715:Dino article formatting 1633:On 10-Feb, you blanked 1592:currently redirects to 1506:After deleting it from 1225:and the style guide is 1223:Knowledge:Verifiability 553:12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 529:Northern Sotho language 325:00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 306:21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 3911:Firsfron of Ronchester 3844:Firsfron of Ronchester 3828:Firsfron of Ronchester 3716:Firsfron of Ronchester 3686:Firsfron of Ronchester 3564:Monster Hunter Freedom 3556:Monster Hunter Freedom 3517:Monster Hunter Freedom 3505:Monster Hunter Freedom 3393:Firsfron of Ronchester 3325:Firsfron of Ronchester 3280:Firsfron of Ronchester 3143:Firsfron of Ronchester 3091: 3058: 3044:, we'll see. Cheers, 2887:. I love Knowledge ;) 2758:Image:Brown lizard.jpg 2704:No problem. Google is 2310:User:Spawn Man/Reviews 2153: 2146: 2139: 1447:User talk:72.64.76.161 1227:Knowledge:Cite sources 3554:, and the Volcano in 3379:ever walk the earth!! 3367:Thanks for reverting 3300:I'm planning to send 3187:Verification Requests 3090: 3057: 3035:scientific work ethic 2584:You could take, say, 2579:Missing dinosaur page 2570:WikiProject Dinosaurs 2328:Eotitanosuchus olsoni 2196:WikiProject Dinosaurs 2152: 2145: 2138: 2096:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1987:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1839:WikiProject Dinosaurs 1542:Benton and Sauropsida 1409:to form a clade with 42:of past discussions. 3598:QP (graffiti artist) 3407:apologies. Friends? 3037:wasn't developed :). 3000:Dilophosaurus sketch 2963:Hi there, Dinoguy2. 2473:Oh, and speaking of 2382:It's late Jurassic. 853:Isn't that the same? 201:Leptictidium nasutum 3536:How to kill Fatalis 1643:deletion procedures 1231:Harvard referencing 1219:Knowledge:Footnotes 951:the PhyloCode, not 811:(resetting indent) 276:None for the moment 3943: 3942:"so emo, it hurts" 3092: 3063:Pachycephalosaurus 3059: 2154: 2147: 2140: 2030:content assessment 2014:dinosaurs articles 1882:content assessment 1866:dinosaurs articles 701:positively mislead 642:positively mislead 578:in two months. :-) 564:You're right that 241:, not an amphibian 106:How to edit a page 18:User talk:Dinoguy2 3941: 3761:I've tweaked the 3726:A new version of 3596:From the article 3157:Pterosaur Project 2986:Dino image review 2966:After I made the 2874: 2873: 2203: 2202: 2170:New improvement 3 2111: 2110: 2076:New Improvement 2 2054: 2053: 2050: 2049: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1754:. Many thanks! - 1594:Tyrannosaurus rex 1583:Saw your note on 1461:User:69.199.27.84 1441:Tyrannosaurus rex 1367:Expansion Project 1345:Expansion Project 1107:Missing dinosaurs 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3956: 3947: 3946: 3938: 3912: 3845: 3829: 3717: 3710:Pseudolagosuchus 3701:Pseudolagosuchus 3687: 3654: 3650: 3644: 3560:Monster Hunter 2 3509:Monster Hunter 2 3394: 3326: 3312:first nomination 3281: 3144: 2930:Mesoeucrocodylia 2848: 2841: 2840: 2723:Hello Dinoguy2, 2692: 2684: 2216:paleobox editing 2197: 2185: 2178: 2090: 2083: 2016: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2006: 1996:dinosaur-related 1981: 1979:Dinosaurs portal 1976: 1975: 1974: 1965: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1944: 1937: 1936: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1858: 1848:dinosaur-related 1833: 1831:Dinosaurs portal 1828: 1827: 1826: 1817: 1810: 1809: 1804: 1796: 1789: 1788: 1763: 1722:Acrocanthosaurus 1612:Dilong paradoxus 1486:removed the term 1364: 1342: 268:OK, below is my 146: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3964: 3963: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3934: 3922: 3910: 3903: 3856: 3843: 3827: 3798: 3748: 3731: 3715: 3685: 3665: 3663:Dinosaur images 3652: 3648: 3642: 3637: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3487: 3486: 3485:Funny section 2 3469: 3468: 3467: 3453: 3452: 3451:Funny section 1 3440: 3404: 3392: 3365: 3336: 3324: 3295: 3279: 3272: 3258: 3248:Dysmorodrepanis 3233:Have you heard 3231: 3204: 3189: 3171: 3159: 3142: 3085: 3002: 2988: 2961: 2947: 2932: 2900: 2839: 2798: 2796:Thanks Dinoguy! 2761: 2721: 2690: 2668: 2653:Dysmorodrepanis 2594:Shanyangosaurus 2572: 2538:Dysmorodrepanis 2487:Dysmorodrepanis 2442: 2412:Dysmorodrepanis 2370: 2345: 2331: 2306: 2304:Please help!!!! 2292: 2271: 2218: 2204: 2195: 2172: 2133: 2078: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2003: 1977: 1972: 1970: 1950: 1932: 1930:New improvement 1865: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1855: 1829: 1824: 1822: 1802: 1773: 1764: 1759: 1744: 1739:Peer review of 1717: 1661: 1635:Nemegtosauridae 1631: 1581: 1544: 1524: 1478: 1443: 1362: 1340: 1325: 1203: 1147: 1128: 1109: 1091: 860:PhyloCode. See 558:classification. 449:Talk:Sauropsida 410: 295:Talk:Hynerpeton 291: 289:Early Tetrapods 250:Petrolacosaurus 180: 144: 126:Manual of Style 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3962: 3944: 3921: 3918: 3902: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3874:then removed? 3855: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3797: 3794: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3747: 3741: 3730: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3664: 3661: 3636: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3612: 3611: 3602: 3601: 3593: 3592: 3552:Monster Hunter 3538: 3537: 3513:Monster Hunter 3501:Monster Hunter 3488: 3483: 3482: 3454: 3449: 3448: 3439: 3436: 3426: 3425: 3403: 3400: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3335: 3332: 3294: 3287: 3271: 3268: 3257: 3254: 3230: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3203: 3200: 3188: 3185: 3170: 3167: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3124: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3038: 3001: 2998: 2987: 2984: 2960: 2957: 2946: 2943: 2931: 2928: 2926: 2924: 2923: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2881: 2872: 2871: 2849: 2838: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2797: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2625: 2624: 2606:Take care, -- 2571: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2512: 2511: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2396: 2394: 2393: 2384:User:Elmo12456 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2344: 2341: 2330: 2325: 2305: 2302: 2291: 2286: 2270: 2267: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2217: 2214: 2201: 2200: 2193: 2186: 2176: 2171: 2168: 2132: 2129: 2109: 2108: 2091: 2077: 2074: 2072: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2040: 2034: 2033: 2026: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2000:the discussion 1983: 1982: 1966: 1954: 1953: 1945: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1892: 1886: 1885: 1878: 1872: 1871: 1869: 1852:the discussion 1835: 1834: 1818: 1806: 1805: 1797: 1772: 1769: 1758: 1750:, found here: 1743: 1737: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1700: 1699: 1690:User:Kazvorpal 1660: 1657: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1588: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1543: 1540: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1513:The Thagomizer 1508:Ornithomimidae 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1384: 1383: 1373: 1372: 1324: 1321: 1311: 1310: 1291: 1290: 1245: 1244: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1177: 1176: 1166: 1165: 1157: 1156: 1146: 1143: 1127: 1124: 1108: 1105: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1023: 1020:classification 1004: 1001: 997: 993: 967: 964: 956: 940: 939: 938: 937: 920: 919: 916: 909: 899: 893: 882: 875: 865: 854: 848: 845: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 780: 776: 759: 751: 730: 727: 696: 695: 694: 681: 680: 679: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 579: 576:2 ISPN meeting 572: 569: 562: 559: 538: 535: 532: 525: 425: 424: 409: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 397: 394: 387: 327: 290: 287: 278: 277: 258: 257: 242: 232: 226: 224:basal tetrapod 179: 176: 174: 161: 137:sign your name 129: 128: 123: 118: 113: 108: 103: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3961: 3952: 3951: 3948: 3940: 3931: 3928: 3925: 3917: 3916: 3913: 3907: 3901: 3900: 3889: 3886: 3885:ArthurWeasley 3882: 3881: 3880: 3877: 3876:ArthurWeasley 3873: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3864: 3863:ArthurWeasley 3860: 3849: 3846: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3830: 3824: 3823: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3801: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3780: 3777: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3754: 3745: 3740: 3739: 3736: 3729: 3721: 3718: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3688: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3668: 3660: 3659: 3655: 3646: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3575: 3567: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3546: 3542: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3481: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3447: 3445: 3435: 3434: 3431: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3413: 3410: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3389: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3358: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3345: 3341: 3331: 3330: 3327: 3320: 3317: 3316:user:Casliber 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3298: 3293: 3292: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3275: 3267: 3266: 3263: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3229: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3184: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3166: 3164: 3148: 3145: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3130: 3125: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3097: 3089: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3056: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3023: 3022:Archaeopterix 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3011: 3007: 2997: 2996: 2993: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2964: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2927: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2893: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2853:Did you know? 2850: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2804: 2791: 2788: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2724: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2683: 2678: 2675: 2673: 2672:Trigonosaurus 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2612: 2609: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2580: 2575: 2565: 2562: 2558: 2557:Archaeopteryx 2554: 2550: 2549:Shenzouraptor 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2471: 2469: 2464: 2460: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2424:Archaeopteryx 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2403:Archaeopteryx 2400: 2399:Archaeopteryx 2392: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2368:Archaeopteryx 2363: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2340: 2339: 2336: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2301: 2300: 2297: 2290: 2289:Preondactylus 2285: 2284: 2281: 2276: 2266: 2265: 2262: 2250: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2198: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2159: 2151: 2144: 2137: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2118: 2115: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2081: 2073: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2061: 2058: 2045: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2018: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1980: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1935: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1897: 1891: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1877: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1832: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1784: 1778: 1768: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1742: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1649:. Thanks! -- 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1629:Page Blanking 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1598:Writtenonsand 1595: 1591: 1590:Tyrannosaurus 1586: 1585:Talk:Guanlong 1571: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1530: 1528: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1476: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1448: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1309: 1307: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1289: 1286: 1281: 1276: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1260: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1243: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1207: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1145:Any comments? 1142: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1123: 1122: 1119: 1114: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1089:Helping Hand: 1084: 1081: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035:Dromaeosaurus 1032: 1031:Dromaeosaurus 1028: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 989: 988: 985: 980: 976: 971: 970: 968: 965: 961: 957: 954: 950: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 936: 933: 928: 924: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 910: 907: 903: 900: 897: 894: 890: 886: 883: 879: 876: 873: 869: 866: 863: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 842: 841: 840: 839: 836: 832: 828: 824: 819: 817: 796: 792: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 772: 771: 768: 763: 762: 760: 757: 752: 748: 744: 743: 742: 739: 734: 733: 731: 728: 724: 719: 714: 713: 712: 709: 704: 702: 697: 692: 691: 689: 687: 682: 676: 672: 668: 667: 664: 661: 660: 659: 656: 654: 649: 648:not science. 647: 643: 638: 635: 630: 626: 622: 595: 592: 588: 583: 582: 580: 577: 573: 570: 567: 563: 560: 556: 555: 554: 551: 547: 542: 541: 539: 536: 533: 530: 526: 523: 519: 515: 514: 513: 510: 505: 504: 501: 500: 499: 496: 491: 490: 489: 486: 482: 481: 480: 477: 472: 471: 470: 467: 463: 459: 458: 457: 454: 450: 446: 445: 444: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 431: 421: 420: 419: 418: 415: 408:Rank-Juggling 398: 395: 392: 388: 385: 381: 376: 375: 374: 371: 367: 363: 362: 361: 358: 354: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 330:Temnospondyls 328: 326: 323: 318: 314: 310: 309: 308: 307: 304: 300: 296: 286: 285: 282: 275: 274: 273: 271: 266: 265: 262: 255: 251: 247: 244:According to 243: 240: 236: 233: 230: 227: 225: 221: 218: 217: 216: 213: 211: 206: 203: 202: 198: 197: 193: 192: 188: 187: 183: 175: 172: 171: 168: 164: 160: 159: 158: 155: 150: 142: 138: 134: 127: 124: 122: 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 107: 104: 102: 99: 98: 97: 95: 90: 89: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3932: 3929: 3926: 3923: 3904: 3899:Deinocheirus 3897: 3857: 3820: 3812: 3808: 3805:Xiaosauridae 3802: 3800:Hi Dinoguy, 3799: 3796:Xiaosauridae 3785: 3749: 3732: 3709: 3699: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3669: 3667:Hi Dinoguy, 3666: 3638: 3606: 3580: 3571: 3549: 3544: 3540: 3539: 3530: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3494: 3490: 3479: 3470: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3444:David Koretz 3441: 3427: 3405: 3385: 3377: 3366: 3339: 3337: 3321: 3301: 3299: 3297:Hi Dinoguy! 3296: 3289: 3276: 3274:Hi Dinoguy! 3273: 3259: 3243:Fossil birds 3238: 3234: 3232: 3228:Palaeopteryx 3205: 3190: 3172: 3169:Gliding Page 3160: 3137: 3115:Velociraptor 3114: 3096:Velociraptor 3093: 3061: 3041: 3034: 3020: 3003: 2989: 2967: 2965: 2962: 2948: 2937:Mark t young 2933: 2925: 2901: 2884: 2883:...Which is 2878: 2857: 2851: 2812: 2799: 2765: 2762: 2743: 2727: 2725: 2722: 2705: 2685: 2679: 2676: 2669: 2649:Fossil Birds 2605: 2602: 2583: 2576: 2574:Hi Dinoguy! 2573: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2534:Fossil birds 2520: 2517:Fossil birds 2513: 2496: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2472: 2467: 2462: 2459:nomina dubia 2458: 2454:Fossil Birds 2449: 2445: 2443: 2423: 2406: 2402: 2395: 2374:Dlohcierekim 2371: 2349:Enlil Ninlil 2346: 2335:Enlil Ninlil 2332: 2307: 2296:Enlil Ninlil 2293: 2272: 2269:New Task bar 2258: 2233: 2219: 2205: 2190:participates 2173: 2155: 2119: 2116: 2112: 2105:project page 2094: 2079: 2071: 2062: 2059: 2055: 1985: 1933: 1907: 1837: 1782: 1781: 1774: 1745: 1720: 1718: 1674: 1668: 1662: 1632: 1582: 1547: 1545: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1481: 1479: 1444: 1427: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405:) both find 1402: 1399:Buitreraptor 1398: 1385: 1328: 1326: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1301: 1292: 1279: 1274: 1255: 1246: 1208: 1204: 1178: 1170: 1167: 1158: 1148: 1129: 1110: 1092: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1034: 1030: 1027:Velociraptor 1026: 1019: 1015: 1009: 978: 974: 963:example? :-) 959: 952: 948: 926: 911: 905: 901: 895: 888: 884: 877: 871: 867: 856: 850: 830: 826: 822: 815: 812: 810: 794:fashionable. 787: 783: 755: 746: 722: 717: 700: 698: 685: 683: 674: 670: 662: 657: 650: 645: 641: 639: 633: 631: 627: 623: 620: 586: 521: 517: 461: 426: 411: 383: 379: 350:Morganucodon 316: 299:Ichthyostega 292: 279: 269: 267: 259: 239:reptilomorph 229:Anomalocaris 214: 209: 207: 204: 199: 194: 191:Platyhystrix 189: 184: 181: 173: 165: 162: 151: 130: 91: 87: 86: 60: 43: 37: 3896:Copyvio on 3854:Turiasaurus 3813:nomina nuda 3695:Thanks for 3635:Rm Paleobox 3363:Spinosaurus 3354:Dinoguy1000 3344:Dinoguy1000 3303:Stegosaurus 3291:Stegosaurus 3239:nomen nudum 3179:John.Conway 3042:Stygimoloch 2908:Scorpionman 2904:deinonychus 2744:Dimorphodon 2729:Dimorphodon 2719:Dimorphodon 2261:John.Conway 2160:talk page. 1771:My Attempt: 1675:Longisquama 1670:Longisquama 1552:John.Conway 1534:John.Conway 1492:. Thanks. 1389:69.225.23.3 892:definition. 726:subjective? 485:John.Conway 466:John.Conway 440:John.Conway 414:John.Conway 380:Sinoconodon 196:Halitherium 186:Cephalaspis 36:This is an 3822:Xiaosaurus 3728:barosaurus 3340:legitimate 3256:Take that! 3138:definitely 2969:Mesosaurus 2959:Mesosaurus 2598:Shixinggia 2532:, because 2222:Ammosaurus 2188:This user 1951:Unassessed 1803:Unassessed 1475:Anatomimus 1171:You said: 756:mistakenly 686:a thousand 634:a thousand 546:Avicephala 317:Hynerpeton 254:Dimetrodon 220:Hynerpeton 145:{{helpme}} 133:Wikipedian 111:Help pages 3763:Noasaurus 3746:hand claw 3744:noasaurus 3672:Mononykus 3621:Spawn Man 3583:Spawn Man 3574:Spawn Man 3473:Spawn Man 3458:profits. 3430:Spawn Man 3409:Spawn Man 3117:as a FAC! 3101:Spawn Man 2951:Cas Liber 2864:Main Page 2586:Scaphonyx 2450:Chendytes 2440:"Paraves" 2318:Spawn Man 2280:Spawn Man 2246:Spawn Man 2208:Spawn Man 2162:Spawn Man 2122:Spawn Man 2101:dinosaurs 2065:Spawn Man 2005:Dinosaurs 1992:dinosaurs 1948:Dinosaurs 1911:Spawn Man 1857:Dinosaurs 1844:dinosaurs 1800:Dinosaurs 1727:talk page 1651:JLaTondre 1494:Superm401 1423:Unenlagia 1419:Rahonavis 1415:Rahonavis 1411:Rahonavis 1407:Unenlagia 1323:Unenlagia 1315:WAS 4.250 1259:WAS 4.250 1249:WAS 4.250 1215:Dinosaurs 1181:WAS 4.250 1137:Spawn Man 1099:Spawn Man 887:Iguanodon 831:Iguanodon 653:Article 3 391:PhyloCode 366:docodonts 320:actually. 235:Seymouria 167:jimfbleak 135:! Please 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3788:Debivort 3776:Debivort 3767:Debivort 3753:Debivort 3735:Debivort 3680:Eoraptor 3676:Eoraptor 3420:Dinoguy2 3262:Dinoguy2 3218:Dinoguy2 3208:Ballista 3129:Dinoguy2 3119:Dinoguy2 3070:Cheers, 3031:Brussels 2992:Ballista 2974:Mesosaur 2918:Dinoguy2 2889:Dinoguy2 2859:Dracorex 2826:Firsfron 2817:Dinoguy2 2803:Firsfron 2787:Dinoguy2 2775:contribs 2748:Dinoguy2 2710:Dinoguy2 2632:Firsfron 2619:Dinoguy2 2608:Firsfron 2561:Dinoguy2 2553:Yanornis 2506:Dinoguy2 2446:Mancalla 2388:Dinoguy2 2359:Dinoguy2 1921:Dinoguy2 1694:Dinoguy2 1639:bad idea 1620:Dinoguy2 1562:Dinoguy2 1482:anywhere 1432:Dinoguy2 1378:Dinoguy2 1355:Saberwyn 1333:Saberwyn 1285:Dinoguy2 1270:Dinosaur 1192:Dinoguy2 1132:Dinosaur 1095:Dinosaur 1080:Dinoguy2 1069:Dweisman 1039:Dinoguy2 984:Dinoguy2 975:millions 932:Dinoguy2 835:Dinoguy2 816:includes 788:includes 775:clades". 767:Dinoguy2 738:Dinoguy2 708:Dinoguy2 646:not just 591:Dinoguy2 550:Dinoguy2 548:article. 516:Eh, but 509:Dinoguy2 495:Dinoguy2 476:Dinoguy2 453:Dinoguy2 430:Dinoguy2 386:mammals. 370:Dinoguy2 342:Mesozoic 322:Dinoguy2 270:official 246:Fornadan 154:watz sup 116:Tutorial 88:Welcome! 3497:dragons 3175:Gliding 3094:On the 2767:Samsara 2706:usually 2677:Cheers 2666:Apology 2590:Shanxia 2502:Penguin 2475:Waimanu 2468:Waimanu 2227:Sheep81 1761:contrib 1756:Samsara 1748:Tuatara 1741:tuatara 1731:Sheep81 1665:furcula 1659:Bird rv 1548:part of 1428:Tsaagan 1403:Tsaagan 979:support 927:offense 688:species 669:Sorry: 518:neither 353:rodents 313:amniote 149:JAranda 94:welcome 39:archive 3906:Thanks 3697:fixing 3503:, and 3402:Sorry: 3371:edit. 3314:, but 3202:Cheers 3194:Kukini 3127:found. 3083:Photo: 2978:Jerkov 2898:Sheesh 2811:Thank 2734:Jerkov 2596:, and 2483:should 2479:dyptes 2407:Gripho 2032:scale. 1884:scale. 1775:Since 1616:Dilong 1327:There 1283:entry. 1239:Wetman 1233:. See 949:within 870:better 847:Right? 823:better 723:writes 675:should 671:within 520:ranks 423:code). 346:Eomaia 334:Eryops 210:(none) 3937:Mikey 3809:(sic) 3334:Whoa! 2885:false 1363:Zoids 1341:Zoids 1011:taxa. 1000:taxa. 953:about 906:names 718:count 462:think 248:, if 237:is a 16:< 3839:this 3674:and 3645:acan 3562:and 3515:and 3369:this 3072:Tbc2 3046:Tbc2 3010:Tbc2 2771:talk 2687:Srik 2551:and 2528:and 2521:very 2497:very 2448:and 1994:and 1846:and 1783:TALK 1667:and 1647:stub 1498:Talk 960:plus 862:here 784:Rosa 747:only 348:and 3641:coe 3306:to 3235:any 3029:in 2837:DYK 2813:you 2613::) 2600:. 2463:why 2405:vs 2038:??? 2024:??? 1890:??? 1876:??? 1680:MPF 1465:MPF 1452:MPF 1359:The 1337:The 1275:any 1118:Soo 1016:the 881:is. 522:nor 384:are 357:GBA 338:BBC 303:GBA 281:GBA 261:GBA 3939:- 3656:— 3653:lk 3626::( 3545:2. 3541:1. 3165:. 2870:. 2777:) 2773:• 2695:it 2592:, 2588:, 2192:in 1529:" 1496:- 1357:- 1335:- 1329:is 1297:: 152:| 76:→ 3945:© 3651:a 3649:t 3643:l 3610:" 3605:" 3600:: 2769:( 2691:e 2199:. 2046:. 1898:. 1587:. 1280:I 1029:+ 393:. 256:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index