Talk:Sinornithosaurus

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

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

Despite the copyvio it deserves it's own article, so I wrote a new one from scratch. 68.81.231.127 23:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mention of the orange and black color was removed by Dinoguy, with the edit summary no specific colors mentioned in this paper. But the Nature article states, "The two most common types of melanin are the reddish-brown to yellow pigment phaeomelanin and the black-grey pigment eumelanin. [...] Our identification of both eumelanosomes and phaeomelanosomes implies that some basal birds and non-avian theropods had black and russet coloration. In Sinornithosaurus the filaments are locally dominated either by eumelanosomes or phaeomelanosomes, indicating significantly different colour tones."

Can we please restore the color? Right now, the article states that Sinornithosaurus was multicolored, but doesn't mention what those colors were. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could put two and two together, but saying "orange and black" is unsubstantiated. Why not red brown and gray? Yellow and black? Red and black? The Sinosauropteryx section says specifically chestnut and white, so that's verifiable, but in this case I don't see why orange and black are, especially given that another paper detailing specifics of the colors and patterns if forthcoming, so anything we write will probably be shown wrong (or at least in more detail) in a few months. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; we'll wait for the forthcoming paper. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says: "This contradicts one argument made by critics of the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.[3]"

It should say: "This supports one argument made by critics of the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.[3]"

The fact that the earliest dromaeosaurs were more like birds than the later dromaeosaurs contradicts the dinosaur to bird theory and therefore supports critics of the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If there is no objection I will change it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterosaurus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the source concluded. When you publish your fascinating theories on the pterosaur origin of birds, you can add your objections to Wikipedia. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be contradictory? If anything, it supports birds+dinosaurs. If dromaeosaurids and birds shared an ancestor, later dromaeosaurids *should* be less bird-like than early dromaeosaurids because they've diverged more. J. Spencer (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMartyniuk- you realize that what I have proposed has nothing to do with pterosaurs, right? It would be a shame if people misunderstood you. Pterosaurus (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not trying to support the same OR theory from you blog, why all the recent edits in your User Contributions section which seem to cherry pick data from papers and then draw the opposite conclusion from what the authors wrote? Including the example you proposed above. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR theory? What are you talking about? Pterosaurus (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMartyniuk. I had been respectful and collegial when I posted the change (see above) that I was proposing. And even though I am correct in what I was proposing I did not post it (or dispute it) when you and J. Spencer indicated that you had reservations. You are being disrespectful and confrontational. And you have unilaterally removed another entry I made at "Evolution of Birds", because you yourself do not see the relevance and because it seems to you to be a misinterpretation of the source's conclusion. You did not inquire of me first about your removal. I quoted a legitimate research article in accord with Wikipedia standards. If you have a problem with such material consult with me first. I will reinstate the material on "Evolution of Birds" shortly, unless you correspond with me about your concerns. Pterosaurus (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sinornithosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "longrich&currie2009":

• From Hesperonychus: Longrich, N.R. and Currie, P.J. (2009). "A microraptorine (Dinosauria–Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(13): 5002–5007. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811664106
• From Velociraptor: Longrich, N.R.; Currie, P.J. (2009). "A microraptorine (Dinosauria–Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America". PNAS. 106 (13): 5002–7. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.5002L. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811664106. PMC 2664043. PMID 19289829.
• From Shanag: Longrich, N.R.; Currie, P.J. (2009). "A microraptorine (Dinosauria–Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America". PNAS. 106 (13): 5002–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811664106. PMC 2664043. PMID 19289829.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinornithosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928080539/http://www.cgs.gov.cn/magazine/dzyuqk/tb04/200408/008.htm to http://www.cgs.gov.cn/magazine/dzyuqk/tb04/200408/008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I'm suggesting a change in the taxobox image, replacing the current image with a new photo of the entire holotype specimen. While the proposed image isn't the best in clarity, it is the holotype and we can be sure that this is a real specimen, not a cast. With the one at the Hong Kong Science Museum, we don't know if it is a cast or not. A second opinion would be better.BleachedRice (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  The photo I'm suggesting.

• It is very hard to see what the image depicts, though. We should generally have recognisable images in the taxoboxes, but we don't really have great photos of any Sinornithosaurus fossils. Maybe one of the skeletal diagrams would be best. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The was proved a hoax years ago. National Geographic and Smithsonian apologised for falling for it. 79.106.203.94 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Archaeoraptor. Nothing to do with this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]