Discussion Main / StockDinosaurs

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=85924&type=att

And, for the record, those genera seem to have been the work of a single troper, unilaterally expanding significantly the list, and giving individual entries to genera that usually shared one.

I'm going to revive this discussion. The Stock Dinosaurs pages have expanded far beyond the intent of the trope (seemingly done in bulk by one troper). Just because it appears in a few books - particularly educational or encyclopedic books - does not mean it qualifies as Stock. Many entries lack the pop-cultural familiarity that the trope entails. Scipionyx and Gasosaurus are not stock in the same way Spinosaurus is stock. Entries like Mesonyx and Eusmilus - which have no entry times, ambiguous/undefined trope makers, and very little (if any) information about their pop-cultural impact - give no reason why they should be listed as stock. Information for obscure taxa like these belongs on Prehistoric Life, not Stock Dinosaurs. I vote to remove entries from the Stock Dinosaurs pages and move them to Prehistoric Life. Looking at the discussion below, this issue has happened before, and I think it needs to be cleaned up again.

It's been over a week and the user has not stopped (in fact they've added more, with insufficient credentials - "Dinosaur Media" is not a trope maker). I move that these pages get a deep cleaning.

Because some people were abusing it to shoehorn in ANY prehistoric animal that EVER appeared in fiction, even though obviously some writers go out of their way not to avert this trope and don't use the stock ones.

I think it's partly because it's because non dinosaurs are being listed separately from dinosaurs, and partly because most generic "pterodactyls" are based more on Pteranodon.

Yes. Re-read the article and realised I'd totally missed that Pteranodon was there at the top of the 'not-a-dinosaur' list! Happy to see it there at number 1! :)

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.

Amphibians are not a paraphyletic group, as Amphibians sensu stricto are Lissamphibians, which are monophyletic. "Thecodonts" are Archosauromorphs, but, yeah, shouldn't be used. We have things like Proterosuchus and Euparkeria as basal, Crurotarsian archosaurs like Postosuchus or modern crocodilians, and Ornithodiran archosaurs like pterosaurs and dinosaurs.

Synapsids are not reptiles; and, well, mammals pretty much are a group of cynodonts that were sucessful and diversified, so yeah.

I'm a fan of cladistic too, and knew that "Mammal-like reptiles", "Thecodonts" and "Amphibians" (intended as non-amniote tetrapods) are totally wrong terms. So Yeah. However, I have already found the traditional Linnean approach when I started writing on this trope, and thought that it was better following it, also because it's much simpler to understand by non-specialists...

But, NOBODY uses Thecodont anymore. People just call the archosaurs that are not crocodiles, pterosaurs or dinosaurs archosaurs, not thecodonts. The term has fallen out of use, we have to thank Walking With.

You're right: nobody uses Thecodonts anymore....maybe in USA, but the cladistic method has yet to enter in public consciousness in my country, and many Italian popular-science writers still use the term Thecodonts (sigh!)..... Anyway, I've already changed the "thecodont" references in the trope to "basal archosaurs"...but have left al least one reference, specifying that it's an abandoned term now :-)

P.S. "Thecodontia" is not synonym with basal Archosauromorpha but basal Archosauriformes instead. Tanystropheus and Rhynchosaur have never been considered thecodonts, the latter "started" from Proterosuchidae in the tree.

Amphibia sensu stricto is monophyletic, but Amphibia sensu lato is paraphyletic because of the Reptiliomorpha.

I think one thing: let's face it, talking about species of the genus Homo is really hard for everyone. I've got an idea: only leaving the non-Homo hominids in Prehistoric Life.

Thank you Eriorguez for your help about hominids!

I wonder if I should mention the best/greatest/most important documentaries in the main trope page...

Or at least ones I really liked besides Walking With Dinosaurs. ;)

I think pop-science works and works for larger audiences should remain separed... otherwise the stock roost would become huuuuge, with 40-50 dinos at least!!!!! >:-D

So it's all OK, thank you!

This is going to be one link-tastic page...

Let's add other links? Or we should remove some? I have no idea what's the best thing to do :-(

And images: how to put images without hotlinking? *sigh*

I really wish I knew that later one.

But to the former, I was thinking that because we're removing some of the lesser known stocks, when they do appear in a documentary, they'll need to be linked to Wikipedia then and there.

Remotion has already been completed about Dinosaurs and Non Dinosaurian Reptiles (all material transferred to Prehistoric Life with some new infos added, and several links to this page). Non-vertebrates still work in progress.

Again, I agree with you: The non-Triceratops/non-Styracosaurus ceratopsids aren't true stock in my opinion, Chasmosaurus for example has perhaps appeared only in one old film, "Thick nose" only in Disney's Dinosaur and one of the Land Before Time sequels (not much...), while Torosaurus seems more a documentary animal (Walking With Dinosaurs), as well as Monoclonius and Centrosaurus (Cronkite's Dinosaur!)... Furthermore, the ceratopsid list in Useful Notes appears disproportionately short compared to the others. If we ask laymen about these ceratopsians, they'll respond these are simply Triceratops. Only Styracosaurus is usually not confused with the latter because of its look, and has made several apparitions in films since the 1920s, so I think it is secundary stock.

I'm a fan of Baryonyx (it used to be my favourite large theropod when i was kid). Since it was portrayed in the Ice Ages with a very relevant role.... yes, if Carnotaurus is stock, so Baryonyx would be, i think.

Anyway, Majin Gojira seems the most well-informed among us about dinosaurs in pop-culture, we should tell him for the final word.

I think links are not enough at all, images will surely help a lot. Let's put as images as we can.

I also agree about YMMV, it's not so cool... maybe Great/Average/Little stock or something similar?

I ask Majin Gojira and other dinotropers searching for wittier ideas :-)

I hate to speak up because you've put so much enthusiastic work into this. But since you're asking now, yes, I do think the page is too long and too full of information... it's gotten a long way away from the theme of "stock" dinosaurs. It wasn't originally intended to be a source of information about dinosaurs in general. A lot of what's on the page now is quite irrelevant to appearances in popular culture, let alone "stock" appearances.

I would be willing to help rewrite it, but the job of proposing what to delete is one I don't look forward to. You, and MajinGojira, and ttsbpiadmscdp, and a few other dino-fans put in things you found interesting; how will you respond to someone else suggesting deleting any of it?

I wouldn't want to delete it—at most, I'd split it into Useful Notes: Prehistoric Life and Stock Dinosaurs.

I totally agree with both. I've already thought about a similar thing: creating a Useful Note page just for Real Life information. Furthermore, a similar page do exist now, and I find it excellent. But it talks only about dinosaurs in general while lacking informations about single kinds of dinos.

I've already transferred the Non-Stock dinosaurs from one page to another. The biggest trouble is all the non-dinosaurs: let them here or put them in the useful notes as well? I'm trying to resolve.

Thank you!

Excellent job! :-)

I've put again the distinction between Thyr. and Marg. because there are now more than two example of the former. I've also joined the separate parts of each paragraph to ease telling apart one from another.

Agathaumas is an obsolete term about a "true dinosaur" (just like Brontosaurus) while Rhedosaurus was a totally fictional Slurpasaur thing....

I think Rhedosaurus shouldn't be mentioned because it's a fictional critter, thus not adapt for this page (Dinosaurs Are Dragons and Somewhere A Palaeontologist Is Crying probably mention it already).

On the other hand, Agathaumas should be mentioned because it was an authentical scientific genus of dinosaur, but where can we put it in the list? I'm beginning to think about that...

...I've found a solution! :-D

The page is pretty huge as it is...I'm not quite sure about that level of listing.

But if they're kept as small as they have been, we might be ok.

I promise I will try to be more concise as possible ;-)

Uh, what I forgot to say in the first post was, "but where should he be included in the article?". Even if he only deserves a name drop rather than an individual entry, he should be mentioned.

You're misunderstanding the basic concept of stock.

This trope discusses only dinosaurs that appear regularly (or at least notably) in fiction.

Teratosaurus has no appearances in film, of that I am certain. I have not heard of an appearance in either literature or television.

I came into existance after Teratosaurus was properly described. And, no, it is not stock, it just appeared as sensationalism in old books. Then, there is the fact that it would be misplaced where you placed it (there is a section with crocodilians and company, down the article).

But no, it is not stock, just some misidentification that is to blame because of its utter incompleteness (a single maxila; and mixed with sauropodomorph remains). Also, Postosuchus, known from better remains and featured on TV programs, is standing for all Raisuchuans. So well, nothing. Not stock, just a popular name in old books.

I came into existence just on the cusp of its proper identification. I've gone through many dinosaur books in my life (and a lot of Paleo-Art), and I only encountered 2 books that had mention of the animal.

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.

I remember Riojasaurus now... I was a huge dinosaur nerd as a kid but I kinda quit following the dinosaur news circa '95 or so. As I recollect, they were trying to determine whether Riojasaurs and Melanorosaurus were big prosauropods or the first sauropods.

Anyway. I thought that "name dropped in kids' books about dinosaurs" was enough to make them stock, which is why I thought Teratosaurus (and the aforementioned sensationalism) was worthy of being listed. My mistake.

The sauropod doubt is for Melanorosaurus, but Riojasaurus seems to be a true prosauropod....unless Science Marches On again....

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 Didn't 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).

mmmh....I think that the number of apparitions isn't the only relevant thing, there is also the relief of single portraits: that say, Dilophosaurus is strictly tied with the single apparition in the first Jurassic Park, but this apparition made it abruptly more familiar among people than, for example, the multiple-portrayed Ceratosaurus (al least according to my personal experience). So I agree that our list is good and represents well the stock roost :-)

About toys, you're perfectly right! I remember a collection from 1994 that contained thing such as Dicraeosaurus, Camptosaurus, and even a dragon!

Mmm, it feels like too much material was cut; rather that unreadable, was a good read, but now is just too abridged... :/

This is one of the few tropes that provides darn decent real world information on the subject. I say keep it as is by and large.

You are right, I put again all the old material, with a more hyerarchical style :-)

.

I'm sorry.... The mistakes that I have made are due to the fact...well... I am Italian, and although have made linguistic school at the Liceo, I am far from a master in English.... I hope that the corrections weren't too much. Anyway, I've tried to do the best, though I'm still an amateur about dealing with Internet...

Thanks for the advices, I tend to blur a lot the boundaries between Pop Culture and educational works (I have literally 'devoured' lots of books and documentaries about prehistoric life in the past, but I haven't traditionally watched many popular work about dinosaurs (excluding Jurassic Park and Disney's Dinosaurs)

They weren't too bad, I was more worried on some science related points.

I actually have a play-list on youtube that covers the (largely non-animated) "History of Dinosaurs in Film". The only things I don't have clips of these days are a few foreign films I'm aware of. I'm sure there are a dozen more obscure old dinosaur movies made outside the US that...

Oh, great, I just forgot about a Greece/Spain co-production I could mention for averting Stock Dinosaurs completely!