Talk:Puertasaurus

Puertasaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed
December 28, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 31, 2019.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Puertasaurus (illustration shown), one of the largest dinosaurs, is known from only four vertebrae?

Current status: Good article

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Puertasaurus, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance

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

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 15, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.

Comment[edit]

Autochthony writes:

Plainly an enigma, given the lack of material available. I lack the expertise to criticize, and deny the 'denial by astonishment' form of critiscism. Can we reasonably expect any more material - from, frankly, a very long time ago? The largest land animals today [admittedly after 10,000 years of increasingly effective hunting by Home sapiens] are African Elephants, which rarely excee ten tonnes/tons. What conditione - except Homo - may have been different then, allowing a weight of something like a hundred tons/tonnes? THE LARGEST LAND CREATURE OF THE POST-cRETACEOUS WORLD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BALUCHITHERIUM - possibly 20 to 30 tonnes/toms. Help me ort this in my head. Autochthony wrote at 2255 Z, 16 May 2012. 86.143.233.70 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment. Be that as it may, the TP is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. If you need information to show that humans were not responsible for the demise of any large mammal species - rhinos/elephants - I would suggest exploring the climatic changes for those extinct species to get a grip on why they went extinct. The material on Wiki on the large sauropods and their large theropod predators are readily available on their individual articles, along with the atmospheric conditions that allowed for such large animals to develop. 50.111.22.143 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Puertasaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822233602/http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar:80/cont_Publicaciones/Rns-Vol07-1_37-41.pdf to http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/cont_Publicaciones/Rns-Vol07-1_37-41.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what - if any known - predatory theropods?[edit]

There would have been large allosaurid predators around these guys - are any known from the area and time period? If they have not yet been formally described, mention should be made that 'teeth have been found ...' yada-yada in the article.50.111.22.143 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the paleoecology section, as usual. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally, I already did! :-) Neither of those animals would have been able to prey on juveniles once they got beyond a specific size - you know that very well. Are any large "Giganotosuarus" theropods from that area/timeframe known? 50.111.22.143 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the writer Slate Weasel, but since such animals are not mentioned, it seems not. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, of course, they just need to be found. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there HAD to have been a large predator around at the time, as has always been found around the great sauropods. It's just a matter for them to have been/to be discovered, fossil-record willing ... 50.111.22.143 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the information pretty thoroughly - due to its naming controversy, there's no other way to go over this formation :). The Cerro Fortaleza Formation does not preserve any (unless you include Orkoraptor) carcharodontosaurs at all, to my best knowledge. In fact, if the Campanian date is correct, carcharodontosaurids would have been extinct. Their absence is interesting, but I don't think that anyone's commented on it in the literature before. If I find anything on it I'll post it here. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth it to add that "HAD" is a bit strong. Consider Giganotosaurus, the largest carcharodontosaurid currently known. The largest sauropod in its formation, Andesaurus was not more than 20 meters long. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern estimates[edit]

"Its size is difficult to estimate due of the scarcity of its remains, but modern estimates place it around 30 meters (98 feet) long and 50 metric tons (55 short tons) in mass."

It was discovered in 2001. 18 years isn't enough time to differentiate an older and a modern era. It would be better to use the term current. --The Vital One (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]