|
Main Stock Dinosaurs Discussion
Can the edit storm mode for this trope at least fall back and recognize Megalosaurus' role as a waste-bin taxa?
Because at this rate, I won't be able to get in and make that change among a dozen other minor corrections this trope now needs.
Deleted the following sentence from "Apatosaurus" (it's just too much detail for this article): (the later having mistakenly had the head of another dinosaur: once thought to be a Camarasaurus
head, ironically it ended up being the skull of the American Brachiosaurus, found NEAR the aleged Brontosaurus, but not quite associated).
head, ironically it ended up being the skull of the American Brachiosaurus, found NEAR the aleged Brontosaurus, but not quite associated).
Since thecodont has been separated into various Archosaurmorphs, should we really be using it to guide the order of the page since Science Marches On and all that?
(Darn reply buttons got me to reply instead of start a new topic).
Well... One could also say that all paraphyletic groups, such as "Amphibians" and "Mammal-like reptiles", shouldn't be created since Taxonomy Marches On... :-) I've willingly chosen the traditional wiew since "thecodont" archosauromorphs from Proterosuchus to Postosuchus were all rather returnable to crocodiles in shape (excepts Euparkeria and Lagosuchus), while the "non-thecodont" Tanystropheus, Rhynchosaurs and the enigmatic Longisquama were not; while the croc-like Choristoderan deserved a separate mention in my opinion, because they were not true pre-dinos.
p.s. Thecodonts are not polyphyletic, but make a natural group (the "Archosauriformes") if you include their descendents as well, exactly like Synapsid if you consider mammals within. This link explains why.
explains why.
Hello guys... somebody recently told me that this trope has become EXAGGERATELY LARGE and rather unreadable because of all corrections, precisations and add notes.... maybe should we cut off some material without deleting the examples? I mean...not deleting voices like "Coelophysis" or "Hypsilophodon", simply summarizing them....
I added an entry on Teratosaurus. Back about 2 and a half decades ago, Teratosaurus was thought to be the first Carnosaur. This was back when the species lines were described as "coelurosaurs = small, carnosaurs = big", so being the first Carnosaur was a big deal. Since then, Teratosaurus has been discovered not to be a dinosaur, and the Carnosaur genus? was discovered to be a lot smaller than originally thought and only covered the Allosaurids.
Anyway, it was removed by Eriorguez with the summary "Not a dinosaur, not a theropod, not stock... Postosuchus got somewhat popular with WWD, but it'd go in another section"
Based on that edit summary I'm going to assume that editor came into the dinosaur fandom well after it was discovered that Teratosaurus wasn't a dinosaur, but - I don't think that's reason to remove him. For a while at least, as I explained, Teratosaurus was "woah teh first carnosaur~!" and for that matter the top predator in the Triassic, and that made him stock.
I'm a bit older, I come to existence when the ankylosaur Minmi was described; I had two books (written in the eighties) which feature Teratosaurus as the first large meat-eating dinosaur.
Don't worry Mc Jeff, actually our Teratosaurus has an hidden mention in this trope, in the "Triassic Archosaur" section (click on "some"):
Other reptiles living in the "age before dinosaurs" show up only sporadically. They include those that were once named "Thecodonts", actually an artificial assemblage including basal Triassic archosaurs, some of them were the ancestors of crocs and dinos; actually some of them were once believed true dinosaurs, precisely the very first large carnivorous dinosaurs.
P.S. Plateosaurus wasn't the largest prosauropod, Riojasaurus was even larger.
was described; I had two books (written in the eighties) which feature Teratosaurus as the first large meat-eating dinosaur.
Don't worry Mc Jeff, actually our Teratosaurus has an hidden mention in this trope, in the "Triassic Archosaur" section (click on "some"):
Other reptiles living in the "age before dinosaurs" show up only sporadically. They include those that were once named "Thecodonts", actually an artificial assemblage including basal Triassic archosaurs, some of them were the ancestors of crocs and dinos; actually some of them were once believed true dinosaurs, precisely the very first large carnivorous dinosaurs.
P.S. Plateosaurus wasn't the largest prosauropod, Riojasaurus was even larger.
Hello again :-)
I've read carefully the examples of Stock and Non-Stock dinos in films and so on.... and found that the distinction among the two categories appears somewhat subjective, either because Your Mileage May Vary about considering stock some "border-line" dinosaurs, or because Alternative Character Interpretation. Examples:
1) Which dino is actually Rudy - a Baryonyx, a Suchomimus or simply a Spinosaurus with its sail removed by film-makers?
2) Ankylosaurs: many alleged fictional Ankylosaurus may be not such: As an example, I'm sure now that Rooter from LBT is an Euoplocephalus (although drawn with the older, incorrect portrait with two spikes on the tip of the tail); and I once had one rubber ankylosaur toy that I recognized as a old-fashioned Polacanthus. I think there is some confusion between Ankylosaurus (genus) and "Ankylosaur" (infraorder) in pop-culture.
3) It may look odd to you, but in Italy Procompsognathus is actually more popular than Compsognathus because the former name was used in the translation of Jurassic Park 2 :-O
4) The Sauropod Confusion: I have seen someone has interpreted Littlefoot as Mamenchisaurus: and when I was a boy, I identified it as Diplodocus....
5) Some people say that Jurassic Park novel used both Stock and Non-Stock dinos, and they list Dilophosaurus and Velociraptor among the stock ones... I think it's not exact, since these dinos became stock just thanks to Jurassic Park, as they were rather unknown before Crichton even by many dino-fans, myself included :-)
6) And what about non-dinos like Quetzalcoatlus, Phorusrhachid or Archelon? It looks like they are stock if you consider only non dinos, but they aren't if you consider all prehistoric beast as a whole...
I say we go with what they're officially listed as in the original language source for the first 4.
For #5, those dinosaurs should get their own seperate notation.
For #6, I say we keep it as "All Prehistoric Beasts" because most of them will be lumped together with dinosaurs (via varying degrees of They Just Didnt Care and whatnot) due to them being just prehistoric.
Though perhaps an animal should have a specific number of appearances outside of informational books before it is considered stock. I'd say 3 or more appearances in fiction/literature, TV, Movies, etc.
Toys would honestly have nearly as much variety as in books, so only the major lines/series should be mentioned (IE: sets with more than 20 pieces, or decade+ reprint runs), and we should only consider one appearance from that media as one instance (IE: they won't get multiple instances points for appearing in more than one toyset). Otherwise, we'd have to add things like Sphenacodon to the list of stock Therapsids.
Here is a place where we can double check things.
Aside from Dilophosaurus, it may remove others as well (Ginanotosaurus may just squeeze in due to Dino Crisis, Dinotopia and Toys).
is a place where we can double check things.
Aside from Dilophosaurus, it may remove others as well (Ginanotosaurus may just squeeze in due to Dino Crisis, Dinotopia and Toys).
A thought crossed my mind regarding, well, "Fake" dinosaurs. Dinosaurs that did not exist, but are nonetheless part of the pop-cultural image when we think of Dinosaurs.
I can think of only two at the moment, but I'm pretty sure there's at least 5.
- Agathaumas - a Synonym of Triceratops, achieved fame from an image painted by Charles R. Knight and an appearance in the 1925 version of "The Lost World". It's made several book appearances since then as well as toy appearances.
- "Rhedosaurus" - The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms is more like a Rausuchian or Ornithosuchid than a dinosaur. Semi-aquatic, quadrupedal carnivore. Has 2 other appearances: Planet of Dinosaurs and The Giant Behemoth.
Hello, I've noted a strange thing: many non-dinosaur sections mention animals that are not part of pop-culture in broader sense but appear regularly in illustrated books and/or documentaries (Therapsids, Amphibians, Modern reptiles and so on); while true dinosaurs have only examples from portraits in wide-fandom media. However, even only book-related dinos have a sort of "stock/non-stock" distinction, since only some of each group is regularly depicted in book (and they are not necessarily the most important ones in fossil record or scientific relevance, but rather those with the most distinctive look or the largest of their group. Since many boys and children can see them on these books, I think these dinosaurs deserve at least a mention in this page, even though they aren't stock among large audience. However, if you don't agree, I will delete without problem the examples that I have written for now (ornithopods).
Hey, shall we organice the tons of info we have about different dinosaurs in folders, rather that subsections? Would make the page faster to scroll.
Hello!
I've created a new trope about prehistory (Prehistoric Monster), but sadly I have few example that I know. Since your trope is the most complete dinosaur trope of all, Can I ask anyone here to help filling Prehistoric Monster with examples? Thanks for everyone.
Hello everyone. Finally I've ended to add infos about dino-world. But I've always felt a bit of doubt about my job: could a layman really get an enlightenment about the argument, or it is just a new read only-for-dino-fans? :-( It may seem stupid, but I fell this.
Another doubt I have: using "->" to make the page shorter is useful or not? Maybe it would be better with no "->" ?
Thank you.
Well, now that the page has been cleaned up, would adding images of the involved creatures help the page, or the links to the Wiki pages would suffice?
Also, YMMV Stock, in my opinion is not a catchy name. Should that category be renamed?
What is the stock status of the assortment of ceratopsids, do each one count as stock? Also, why is Pentaceratops not a part of that list?
On a side note, wouldn't Baryonyx be a YMMV stock? It may be me, but I think it is quite well known.
A consideration about the ranking of stock and non-stocks: I see we are not always in agreement about which animals are stock and which aren't.
Should we create a sort of "sounding" like: How would you put dinosaur X?
- ***
- **
- *
- Non-Stock
Completed Prehistoric Life except for hominids (the hardest stuff to talk about...)
I know my English is quite unpresentable (European troper here), I'll ask everyone to make some proofreading to make the text more catchy, otherwise NOBODY'll read it anymore :-(
Thank you!
I've finished at last to put examples of dinosaurs in Prehistoric Life: after having added several recently-discovered species, I'd think they represent well the subject.
I tried to do the best, but two problems still remain unresolved, hominids and proofreading. Sadly, I cannot afford further about these; Albertonykus, Eriorguez, Majin, Vasha etc, can you help finishing the whole thing, please? Thank you! :-)
This page has become too large, thus I followed the guy who has had the good idea to split Prehistoric Life in three sections.
In Stock Dinosaurs Non Dinosaurs, I'll accept if somebody'll help me to write the Trope Maker and entry times of pterosaurs, sea reptiles, mammals and so on. Thanks.
I believe the article may be misleading in describing Spinosaurus as a great "stock" Dino, when it's been featured very little. Offhand, I can think of only three works to have featured a Spinosaurus: Jurassic Park 3, Primeval, and Monsters Resurrected. Both Primeval and Monsters only showed Spinosaurus once, and while spino may have entered public conciousness with JP 3, it's rare to ever see many people beyond Dino fans that know of it. I request it be looked into for the useful notes page as well, perhaps demoted to a rare stock instead of secondary stock.
I think it might be good to separate examples into a different set of examples for each dinosaur, because a lot of the examples focus on the non-stock animals that are used in the work, rather than the stock ones.
Is the Pterodactylus REALLY so low down in the list? Surely it's been mixed up with Archaeopteryx or something!? My instincts tell me that "Bronto"saurus*, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Triceratops and the "Pterodactyl" are the basic Dinosaurs everyone knows (even girls!). Basically, the ones you see in the current picture on this page. It's the basic rubber dinosaur set. It's the ones the Dinobots transform into.
I don't think I've ever seen an Archaeopteryx in a movie, but plenty of pterodactyls attacking from the sky, protecting their eggs or whatever. Or am I misunderstanding something...? Maybe I've just not seen enough Dinosaur media...