Talk:Oviraptorosauria

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is possible that in the future, new specimens of already-known oviraptorosaur genera will be found with feather impressions. This would place the oviraptorosaurs, along with the therizinosaurs, in the Aves. Also, Paraves would be synonymous with Maniraptora.

Only if using the apomorphy-based definition of Aves (that is, if you define Aves to mean "animal with feathers"). Anyway, why would this only happen if previously-known genera are found with feathers? Several species already preserve them, like Caudipteryx and Protarcharopteryx. Also, some paleontologists, including osome of the foremost experts on oviraptorosaurs (Osmolska, etc.), think they're avians based just on skeletal features.

While I personally favor an apomorphy-based definition of Aves, most paleontologists use a node-based definition (Archaeopteryx+modern birds). Therefore, if oviraptorosaurs are birds, it has to be shown that they're more advanced than Archaeopteryx (which, again, Osmolska et al. have attempted to do).Dinoguy2 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way this has been handled, J. But maybe we could go just a step further and include this type of material in a separate section (like "Technical description") at the bottom of the article? That way the information will be here, and your average reader will not get turned off and give up reading because they think it's over their heads. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. Ok, let's do it. I'll volunteer to write the non - technical anatomy part for Oviraptorosauria, then see if you think it's readable enough, ok?Jbrougham (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this merge took place here.