Talk:Theropoda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dinosaurs This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Theropoda is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Difficulty in locating Tyrannosauroidea, Compsognathidae, and Coeluridae

On the box on the right of the Theropoda page marked Infraorders, there is no link that will take you to the Tyrannosauroidea, Compsognathidae, or Coeluridae. This should be changed so that they can be easily seen and located. Either put a link to the two families and superfamily there, make an informal grouping for ease (that is why classification was originally made after all) such as "Tyrannosauriformes" or something of the sort, or change the heading of Infraorders to something else. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.34.130 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] spinosaur vs t.rex

The Spinosaur was not bigger than the t.rex it was taller from tail to snout, but it didn't weighted as much as the tyranosaurus. It had a crocodilic mouth, off course it is taller but it dosen't weight as much as a t.rex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.178.178 (talk) 08:09:49, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Dinosaur size. Most of the relevent size estimates are sourced, with the full range of upper estimates. No scientists have suggested T. rex weighed over 8 tons, and most now think that's too high. The highest estimates for Spinosaurus are in the 20-ton range, more than twice as heavy as T. rex, though more realistically, 9 tons is generally accepted, a bit bigger than the highest estimates for rex. Dinoguy2 11:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coelophysoids and Ceratosauroids

It is my understanding that the paraphylitic Ceratosauria hypothesis is only a minority opinion, but the article makes it sound like it has been widely accepted.

Well, the clade Ceratosauria is not paraphyletic of course. What species are part of it, can only be decided by cladistic analysis. Some analyses will have the outcome that some species traditionally included are if fact more basal. Whether individual scientists are personally convinced of the one or the other, is not very relevant and in itself extremely difficult to measure :o).--MWAK 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-biped theropods

Are there any theropods that walked on all four legs?

No, though some older depictions of spinosaurs and segnosaurs erroneously show this. Theropod hands were built like a chicken wing--it was impossible to make the palm face towards the ground without completely splaying out/raising the upper arm, so using the hands to walk would have required a ton of anatomical changes.Dinoguy2 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the Herrarasauria

The herrerasaurs are actually not theropods, but instead saurischians ancestral to the Eusaurischia (theropods and sauropodomorphs). This is based on research done by Paul Sereno at the Chicago University in the 1990s.

This is a contentious point, as some researchers still consider Herrerasaurs and even Eoraptor to fall within Theropoda. This is why they are included, but marked with "?". Note that other researchers don't think either of these groups even fall within Dinosauria.Dinoguy2 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I'm looking, I can't find any recent sources that place the herrerasaurians within theropoda. I'm going to go ahead and remove them from the lists but leave the discussion portion in the text.Dinoguy2 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why The Theropods Got So Big

There is evidence that when the oxygen levels got very high, the dinosaurs got bigger. This may have been why the nonavian dinosaurs died out, also (the oxygen levels dropped rapidly). Benosaurus 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Source of classification

I think there should be an explicit mention of the source of the classification used. Is it based on The Dinosauria, for example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.197.5.19 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Carnivorous Dinosaurs

According to my non-expert knowledge, Theropod dinosaurs were/are primarily carnivorous with a few individual species evolving omnivorous or herbivorous lifestyles, but there were no non-Theropod dinosaurs that developed carnivory.
Obviously, animals with quadrupedal, non-Theropod bodyplans can be highly effective predators, as evidenced by all modern mammalian carnivores. In fact, humans and chimpanzees are the only mammals immediately occurring to me that are both predators and not "true" quadrupeds.
So, why did no non-Theropod, carnivorous dinosaurs ever develop? Are the Theropods and early (quadrupedal) mammals theorized to simply have had a lockdown on all available niches for a terrestrial carnivore? --Raphite 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget crocodilians, which were much more diverse and had both quadrupedal and bipedal terrestrial offshoots in the Mesozoic. It might be a speed thing. When a dinosaur lineage went quadrupedal, it also went slow; there are no ungulate-like quadrupedal dinosaurs. This probably has to do with skeletal anatomy somewhere (i.e. for whatever reason, maybe arm and shoulder build, a quadrupedal dinosaur can do power but not speed). However, there's nothing saying that the more beak-endowed sorts, like horned dinosaurs, could not have been omnivorous: see here and here for discussions. Probably the theropods and other full-time carnivores were just too good at what they did for other groups using the dinosaur body plan to break through, although maybe on islands or other isolated landmasses other dinosaurs could take that niche. J. Spencer 02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Averostra

I notice there is no Wiki entry for the new "Averostra" (grouping Ceratosaurs and Tetanurae together as sister clades of derived theropods...something that's been a long time in the making apparently ever since Ceratosaurs were divorced from Coelophysids)...there's enough evidence and backing to at least mention it somewhere, and from the Paleontologists I've talked to it seems like it's pretty solid.

[edit] Bee hummingbird

Not an expert on the subject, but the mention of the bee hummingbird as the smallest theropod seems a bit out of whack. Birds = Class Aves. Theropods = Class Sauropsida. It doesn't make sense a hummingbird and T-rex would share the same sub-order.68.88.66.217 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, unless theropoda is a clade. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What makes a Theropod?

The article states that they had hollow bones, wishbones, and three toes, and weren't they all bipedal? This should be added to the article, but in a "What makes a Theropod?" section. Comments? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)