Talk:Majungasaurus

References for Majungasaurus/Majungatholus

Add these references to this page:

The premaxilla of Majungasaurus (Dinosauria; Theropoda), with implications for Gondwanan palaeobiogeography. Sampson, S.D., Krause, D.W, Dodson, P. and Forster, C.A. JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY 16; 601 - 605 (1996).

Sur une portion de mandibule de Théropode provenant du Crétacé supérieur de Madagascar. Lavocat, R. BULL. MUS. HIST. NAT. PARIS 27; 256-259 (1955).

Predatory dinosaur remains from Madagascar: Implications for the Cretaceous Biogeography of Gondwana. Sampson, S., Witmer, L., Forster, C., Krause, D., O’Connor, P., Dodson, P. and Ravoavy, F. SCIENCE 280; 1048-1051 (1998).

H. Sues and P. Taquet. 1979. A pachycephalosaurid dinosaur from Madagascar and a Laurasia-Gondwanaland connection in the Cretaceous. Nature 279(5714):633-635.

To-Do toward FA...

I really like the idea of a Sthn Hemisphere dino FA so am keen to help propel this one along though it is going along very nicely thankyou very much without anything from the rest of us...so.... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Blue redlinks Maevarano Formation and authors (not essential but straightforward)

• This dinosaur was briefly referred to the genus Majungatholus, - can be worded better for laypeople
  • Changed this sentence. How's it now? Sheep81 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Better. BTW I'm having trouble finding anything to improve here.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okie-dokie... I read through it and liked it, although someone may comment on the technical language toward the end ("respiratory system" to "pathology"). A few specific comments after going through the article:

• • I thought I explained or at least linked technical terms but I'll look at it. If you think of anything specific that could be simplified, let me know or don't hesitate to do so!

• Well, I knew what was going on, but it's certainly hard to predict what novices or FAC reviewers will catch on. J. Spencer 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

True, hard to predict. Well I'll see what I can do. Sheep81 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• "All abelisaurids had a rough, sculptured texture on the outside faces of the skull bones, and Majungasaurus was no exception."

• This just seems a bit awkward to me ("no exception" sentences do that to me, and "all" rubs me the wrong way)

• • Gotcha. Deleted the no exception clause, it was redundant with the next sentence anyway.
• You may or may not want to keep my qualification on the humerus being the only bone described. A) I usually make this distinction anyway and B) I can say no more. :)
  • Yep. :) Hence: "A significant quantity of specimens, some very complete, were excavated in 2003 and 2005 and await preparation and description in future publications." Thanks for the addition!
• "Fieldwork in 1996 turned up a spectacularly complete theropod skull preserved in exquisite detail (FMNH PR 2100)."

• It may just be me, but someone will probably call on you to tone down the adjectives here.

• • I thought that too but those adjectives are actually used in the papers! They're also true, but I'll delete them in a heartbeat if anyone brings it up.
• "The papers are in English, although each has an abstract written in Malagasy."

• This might be superfluous detail. J. Spencer 17:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • You know, it totally is, but they kind of made a big deal about the Malagasy abstracts so I thought I'd stick it in. It's interesting I think. I'll leave it and I guess we'll see if it lasts. No big deal. Thanks for having a look and making all those changes. Sheep81 05:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aww..I think it's sorta cool. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

What happened here? All went quiet. Ready to nominate Sheepy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(.......should get Rapetosaurus worked up for a real Malagasy soiree of dinos...)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I could also do Rahonavis, Masiakasaurus and Maevarano Formation for a featured topic... Sheep81 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic idea - will support as I can. OK 24 hours it is then -with fingers at the keyboard ready............cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it and I'll do my best to keep up with it. How about in like 24 hours though? Sheep81 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK ready now?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep anytime. Sheep81 07:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Righty-ho then....you happy for me to do it or do you want to do the honours? :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I did it! Sheep81 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kewl - this one is one of the best prose-wise so should be a shoo-in. Just fixed the dashes. Fingers crossed for dino FA #14....(thought you were gettin' cold feet or somethin')cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism?

Couldn't the majungasaurs have just gotten the tooth marks in a fight over mating or territory? Not that they wouldn't have eaten their own kind but tooth marks on bones seem like pretty flimsy evidence for this kind of behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case you would expect the bite marks to be healed. Instead they show no signed of healing, and are not only bite marks but scrape marks indicating flesh being removed from bone, very unlike known combat bites like those found in some T. rex specimens. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Type specimen

If the species name was based on some teeth, how can the dentary found later be the type specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. TTD lists it as a referred specimen. Maybe he intended to change the type in violation of ICZN? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here's an explanation, perhaps it should be clarified before this article goes to the front page: http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.dk/2014/12/neotyping-past-diagnostic-syntype.html The summary in our article appears to be wrong and incomplete. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reclassification.

Tortosa et al. (2013) found Majungasaurus to be a member of a new subfamily, Majungasaurinae. However, I can't work out how to edit the automatic taxobox. Can somebody with a better grasp of how to use the taxoboxes change it for me? Gruekiller (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article:

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2015--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majungasaurus. 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/20070927204236/http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/contents-16-4.cfm to http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/contents-16-4.cfm

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) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

@FunkMonk: On a recent change of the taxobox image, the edit was subsequently undone on the basis that the legs of the skeleton were largely not visible in the new image. The current taxobox image is quite unclear, and is very dark. The new image that was put up is much more clear, and was also the image used by the Ultimate Dinosaurs exhibition(the exhibition displaying these Majungasaurus casts). Even though the legs aren't visible, the new image suggested is much more clear, and all the bones are clearly shown. In the current image, the foot of the mount is obscured by the Rapetosaurus mount behind it. All parts in this new image are visible other than the bones beneath the pelvis and small portions of the tail. In the current image, though it includes almost all of the skeleton, it almost looks like the display is sinking into a black hole, because the current image is so dark. BleachedRice (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• 
  The new image I'm suggesting.
• 
  The current taxobox image.

None of them are perfect, but at least I think we should show as much of the animal as possible. The new skull image, though, is worse than the existing one, being cropped both at the top and bottom, not even showing the horn. This image could be better for the taxobox[1], yet it also has problems with shadows, and the hand may be too developed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The suggested one is certainly much better looking, but not fully showing the legs is unfortunate, their length is rather characteristic. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The "new" image is certainly sharper, which is as plus. The best solution would of course be a photo in similar quality with the entire body visible. But at present, I am not sure what is better, but leaning towards the full body shot. Maybe we should get some more opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:In the new image, the mount is actually the exact same as the ROM mount, just the exhibition was in a different place. Also, the head isn't cropped, so I don't see any problem there. Since the mount is actually exactly the same as the ROM mount, the hands are both the same, too developed or not. BleachedRice (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no one said there was anything wrong with the mount, it is simply the crop that is iffy. The one with the wrong hand is the one in Japan I linked. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way, I think both should be in the article somewhere. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If the Japan mount is as wrong as I think it is (are the legs too short as well?), it can be replaced by one of them. Or maybe with this one, where the Rapetosaurus mount is also shown:[2] Would look good in the feeding section, and it is very similar to the proposed replacement image anyay. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you replace the huge resolution, very clear image of the Field Museum skull with a smaller, darker, blurrier, and glarier version? FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)