Talk:Tetanurae

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Tyrannosaurus does in fact have an extremely tiny third finger, you can see it in its skeleton. GreatGatsby 03:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a carpal, as I recall, not a full digit. 69.227.175.66 05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check a skeleton, it is not just a carpal. GreatGatsby 02:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a metacarpal :o). In all probability it was fully enfleshed in life in one unit with the other metacarpals and not apparent as a "finger", though it is of course part of the digit. So T. rex had three digits but two "fingers".--MWAK 11:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of the relevant bones in a human hand. The metacarpals are the ones inside your palm. If you had an extra one, you would not have six free fingers.Dinoguy2 16:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Irezhang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Group?

"Some believe Tetanurae is a false group consisting of two entirely seperate lineages..."

I've never seen this anywhere. Does someone have a reference?

"Oddly enough, recent Ceratosaurus finds indicate that the species may be in fact a basal Tetanurae carnosaur..."

This needs a reference, too. And since Tetanurae is defined as excluding Ceratosaurus, this is actually impossible.

I'm removing these until someone provides a reference.--Keesey 23:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Range

A new tyrannosauroid tetanurine has been discovered and dated to 200 million years ago. So should we up the fossil range to 200 or should we wait until the animal is completely described?

DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source...? MMartyniuk (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article you linked in your edit to Tyrannosauroidea. The source doesn't specify any actual group for this fossil. All it says is a member of the "T. rex group." You're assuming this means Tyrannosauroidea, but it could just as well be Saurischia as far as we know. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if it wasn't a "T. rex relative" than it wouldn't say that, and every article I see on the subject calls it a T. rex relative, so what else would it be? DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In my personal experience, 80% of "news" articles on a theropod that's not a T. rex or a "raptor" will refer to their subjects as a "T. rex relative" or "raptor relative". The news story is clearly extremely dumbed down, and other news sources probably just copy this one. The reporters have no confidence that their audience will know what theropods, let alone tetanurans, are, so they have to relate it to a well-known dinosaur "type". MMartyniuk (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Tetanurae

Would it be possible for someone to clarify exactly what defines a theropod as belonging to Tetanuare? What I mean is, the name means "stiff tails", but what exactly does that mean? Do tetanurans have anatomy in their tails that's different from other theropods? -- Myrddin_Wyllt 4/9/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.242.12 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

I don't understand one of the sentences under this section, where it states: "Soon afterwards the niche of terrestrial apex predator ceratosaurs and tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs, which dominated terminal Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems." Could there possibly be a word or a clause missing from the statement? Maybe something along the lines of "Soon afterwards the niche of terrestrial apex predator ceratosaurs and tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs ARRIVED, which dominated terminal Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems."? Kabesang Tales (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal for Orionides and Avetheropoda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no opposition to the merge proposal. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These node-based clades have little value of their own aside from discussing the classification of tenaturans in more detail. Furthermore, the exact classification of these groups has been called into question by recent research. "Orionides" and "Avetheropoda" might be synonyms of one another, or even of Tetanurae as a whole. The articles are also very scrappy on their own, and offer largely redundant information, which could be easily covered by expanding this article (especially since the infobox already includes these groups). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.