Talk:Struthiosaurus

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So, easy question: What is S. occitanicus? It doesn't appear to be in use anywhere else. Have we a museum label name, an unpublished name in press, or an early name for something else on our hands? J. Spencer (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC) (I wonder if it could have something to do with S. languedocensis, given that Languedoc is within Occitania, but there doesn't seem to be a humerus included with the S. languedocensis material). (added J. Spencer (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC))Reply

This was the general name used by local (amateur) paleontologists for the French nodosaurid material. Fossils referred to S. languedocensis were limited to a single location and horizon.--MWAK (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@FunkMonk: There appear to be a few criticisms of the taxobox restoration in the "Feedback/Questions" of the original preprint.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I saw some mention if that on the Dinosaur Mailing List. It appears the author is responding, so perhaps there'll be an updated image? I think including the image is ok as long as we state the armour arrangement is hypothetical, it is more accurate than the old Nopcsa drawing in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Even if the armour isn't great (I don't think its right, I commented on the PeerJ article), the skeletal diagram of the known material from that museum is good enough to be in the taxon box on its own, we simply don't have any better images. IJReid ^discuss 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ouch, seems there is some controversy over how it was published, see the DML... FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, that shouldn't bother us too much. Published is published. Herr Frotzler has every right to put forward his hypotheses. The labour relations with his employer are not our concern ;o). Normally the "horns" would be placed on the front back, not the hip, and the large triangular elements would be seen as lateral shoulder spikes.--MWAK (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of Struthiosaurus reconstructions, how the hell did this monster[1] end up in a museum? FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The artist were given clear instructions: the head profile of Panoplosaurus, flat body, lifted tail, bent knee, straight forelimb, per side three longitudinal rows of osteoderms extended by a horn sheath, horns on the front back and ossicles all over. And a tonne of gypsum plus abundant ochre, sienna, umber and viridian. It is best appreciated as a fauvist work of art.--MWAK (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Bunzel stated that he only provisionally named the taxon and gave no etymology of the name. The generic name is derived from new Latin struthio, itself derived from Ancient Greek στρούθειος, stroutheios, "of the ostrich". Bunzel chose the name because of the birdlike morphology of the braincase.[2] The specific name refers to the provenance from Austria."

Does the first sentence just mean Bunzel didn't include the etymology in the paper where the fossil was first described, with the second and third sentences being the etymology he provided in later papers?

--2601:206:8003:4060:715A:8158:48A3:518D (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply