Talk:Atrociraptor

Untitled

"Atrociraptor is most closely related to Deinonychus." Based on whose opinion? Atrociraptor is classified in the Dromaeosaurinae; Deinonychus belongs to the Velociraptorinae. Perhaps somebody got their names mixed up, and this was meant to state that it is most closely related to Dromaeosaurus? 75.210.173.183 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Atrociraptor actually been referred to dromaeosaurinae, or was that done as original research based on its relationship to Deinonychus (which has tended to jump between subfamilies is studies recently)? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find hardly anything online that talks about Atrociraptor, at least not its taxonomic status. DinoData claims it is velociraptorine but I'm a little leery of using DD as a definitive source with nothing to back it up... although, if it is in fact most closely related to Deinonychus then the taxobox needs to be revised--obviously it cannot be most closely related to something in an entirely different family. 75.211.103.38 (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Deinoncyhus has variously been referred to both dromaeosaurinae and velociraptorinae. So even if somebody assigned Atociraptor to dromaeosaurinae, they'd probably place Deinonychus there as well. Subfamily classification is extremely variable, especially in dromaeosaurs, which seem to shuffle subfamilies with every new study. I think it's not a great idea to list subfamilies in the taxoboxes at all, but somebody went around adding them a few months ago. I've removed it from here, barring a published referral. Also, you keep referring to "family"--make sure you're not confused on this point--both Atrociraptor and Deinoncychus are most certainly dromaeosaurids, just not necessarily dromaeosaurines. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Subfamily. I know. 75.211.103.38 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

anyone thing there should be a pop culture selection added do to dominion

You know that update it 71.172.160.155 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I added it. 35.129.185.139 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

An appearance in a single film is not enough for an entire section. It may be noted in the history section, but I'm not sure it's even significant enough for that. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

GAN expansion

Copying this over from our former discussion so it doesn't disappear, A Cynical Idealist: I think Atrociraptor is pretty close to GAN (I'll take care of the intro soon), but I have a few questions about the Classification and Palaeoecology sections:

• "Modern dromaeosaurid systematics is dominated by a few phylogenetic datasets which recover slightly different results. One of the most widespread is the so-called "TWiG matrix" (named for the Theropod Working Group)". The source used doesn't seem to say anything other that it using the TWG, so while probably correct, much of the sentence is uncited.

• "The holotype of Atrociraptor is the only fossil discovered from its locality,[26] so it is not known for certain if any of these animals directly coexisted with it, but many of them are known to have been contemporaneous.[1]" Should probably be reiterated here that Atrociraptor teeth are known from other parts of the formation, including alongside Albertosaurus.

• I wonder if there is more in the sources about what the phylogenetic results mean in regard to evolution and biogeography, now the text mainly gives positions without their implications.

This source[1] goes a bit further into biogeography that doesn't seem to be covered? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Could be nice with something about the plant life of the formation as well.

• Not sure why, but the images under classification still seem to push the cladograms down, though they are well free of them? FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "so it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" While this is true, does the source say this explicitly? Not sure if such editor "inference" is ok, might be.

Having read WP:What SYNTH is not, it seems that the above statement should be fine under "SYNTH is not explanation", "SYNTH is not primarily point-by-point", "SYNTH is not just any synthesis". The fact that no other fossils have been found at the same locality as the type and (possibly) only specimen of Atrociraptor is verifiable by the listed sources. The quoted line of prose is simply restating that verifiable fact in a different way. At least, that's what I gathered from my own reading of the guidelines. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• "dated to one of the upper members of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, preserves several Albertosaurus individuals, which are believed to have been killed and buried during a major storm" Is this the same bonebed where Atrociraptor teeth have been found? Info should be consolidated, then.

• Now that we're done with GAN, next step is adding WP:alt text to images and replacing anatomical links with the dinogloss. And make sure all citations use citation templates and are formatted the same way. And user made images should have citations that back them up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atrociraptor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 04:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC) & A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Atrociraptor is a genus of dromaeosaurid dinosaur that lived during the from the – during the what?

Fixed to "lived during the Late Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada". FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that "lived during the Late Cretaceous in what is now Alberta, Canada" is more correct. Alternatively, you could write "from the Upper Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, yeah, that's also what I usually do. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• premaxillae (frontmost bone of the upper jaw) – "bones", if indeed the left and right are both preserved? Same with "dentaries"?

Made both plural, both are preserved. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• and in that its maxillary teeth are more strongly inclined towards the throat than in most other dromaeosaurids, and in the teeth – remove the first "and"?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• maxillary fenestra – could link that to the dinogloss, or explain the term

Yeah, the goal is to replace all anatomical term links with dinogloss links before FAC, so I might wait with that until after GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Velociraptorine – lower case?

Seems to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• they used them to restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth, and flapping the wings to stabilise its position. – since you start with "they", whould it be "their" instead of "its"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• isolated block of sandstone – what exactly does "isolated" mean here? Ex situ?

Just removed it, the source doesn't elaborate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The specimen was in an isolated block of sandstone that was relatively hard, and preparation revealed the right maxilla (main bone of the upper jaw) exposed in outer side-view and the right dentary (tooth-bearing bone of the lower jaw) exposed in inner side view, and both of these bones were left in the block. – So when the block is still intact, shouldn't it be "The specimen is in an isolated block"?

Changed to "Much of the specimen was in a relatively hard block of sandstone" since various elements were since removed from the block, and some were found outside it to begin with. The sentence already also specifies that parts were left in the block. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• and the full name can be translated as “Wayne Marshall’s savage robber” – should the "Wayne" really be inside there? It does not appear in the species name at all.

Good question, that's what the more informal source[2] says, and I guess it's technically correct, since it honours this specific person? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the translation would be just "Marshall's savage robber" though, otherwise the name needs to be "Atrociraptor waynemarshalli". I may be wrong. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Atrociraptor does not have unique autapomorphies – You could remove the "unique", this is not needed, and the provided explanation in the bracket already states "distinct").

Removed, but replaced "distinct" with "unique" in the parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• but it has a unique combination of features that are so far unknown in relatives. – It is important to write "that is unknown" instead of "that are unknown", because the combination of features is unknown, not the individual features, which is the whole point.

Right, done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• inclined towards the throat – wording seems strange to me, I would write "inclined backwards", but only personal preference.

Yeah, the source put it that way, but it is oddly specific, so changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• the promaxillary fenestra is well in the lower front of the maxillary fenestra – wording confuses me. Do you mean it is in front and below the maxillary fenestra?

Tried with "the promaxillary fenestra is well in front of and below the maxillary fenestra". FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• and, Unusually – unusually

Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• there are no gaps left by shed teeth. – you already stated that there are no gaps

I believe this is a different kind of gap than what's meant under "which are closely packed in their sockets with no gaps between them". One is that there are no gaps between the sockets, the other is that there are no gaps caused by shed teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• When you start with the description of the maxilla, I would start with a new paragraph.

Moved the text around. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• A labelled diagram of the holotype showing the different bones and fenestrae would greatly help here, I believe.

I instead added this[3] annotated Dromaeosaurus skull diagram which already existed, because it then also shows the bones in their context. What do you think? But there are no labels for the naris and maxillary/promaxillary fenestrae (which are key to understanding the text), I've asked on the Discord server if someone can add them... FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• In general, I found the description section a bit lenghty and overly detailed, but perhaps only personal taste. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right, any parts you found especially so, as a general pointer? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this part particularly tedious: The preserved part of the maxilla measures 92 mm (3.6 in) in length, missing the short process behind the tooth sockets that articulated with the jugal bone. The tooth row of the maxilla measures 85 mm (3.3 in) in length. As preserved, the maxilla is 45 mm (1.8 in) high, excluding the missing process for the lacrimal and nasal bones above. – I don't think all these measurements are necessary, and details on the preservation of the fossil could also be discussed in the "Discovery" section (if you want to keep them)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, removed that part. Don't think those missing parts are important enough to mention on their own. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• In this analysis, Acheroraptor was found to be a velociraptorine. – I found that this is not very relevant here and distracts from the main points.
• although they did comment on this recovered classification. – not sure what this means.
• A 2020 study by examined – by who?

Seems to have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Early Maastrichtian – "early"? Also check "Late Campanian".
• to populate both continents. – You did not mention any continents, or what am I missing?
• The uncertainty of the internal classification of Eudromaeosauria complicates discussion of the placement of Atrociraptor. – This paragraph was slighlty confusing, it does not really seem to fit where it is. Shouldn't this rather be the first paragraph of the "Systematics" section?
• The last two paragraphs of "Systematics" are not really about systematics, but about Palaeobiogeography. What about a new section "palaeobiogeography" for this content?

Seems done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Cladogram: Velociraptor sp. – "sp." should not be in italics.

Looks like this was fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• The development of deep snouts in addition was probably an adaptation for handling vertebrate prey; while velociraptorines with their elongated snouts that allowed for rapid biting at the cost of power perhaps specialised in smaller prey in their desert environments, and Acheroraptor and Saurornitholestes with their intermediate snout dimensions may have had more generalised diets in their more diverse ecosystems, the deep-snouted Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have had more specialised diets of large-bodied prey. – Sentence is too long and therefore quite difficult to read.

Split in two and elaborated on the latter part. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• about 5 km (3.1 mi) West – "west"?

Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• and a small number of mudstones. – Sounds wrong to me; we cannot possibly count mudstone, can we?
• These are reflective of a highly saturated environment – "These reflect" or "These indicate"?
• How these climatic changed affected – changes?
• to either move elsewhere or else become extinct – should "else" be removed?
• That's all! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, will get to it soon. By the way, A Cynical Idealist has some info about the flora of the formation on the way as well. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A Cynical Idealist, I wonder if it would maybe make sense to move the plant info into the section with the fauna, to have a contemporary flora and fauna section? Or what does Jens think about the current placement? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it makes sense to group flora and fauna together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll fix that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made most of the changes you suggested for the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. However I do have some follow-up questions and explanations for some of the concerns you've raised.

1. The use of plurals for particular sedimentary deposits is common in the literature. It can also be seen on the WP article for Mudstone. One excerpt from that article reads "...and mudstones have historically received less attention from petrologists than have sandstones". Therefore, I believe the use of "mudstones" is appropriate. I believe the reference for this sentence also uses a similar phrase.
2. The "Classification" section is generally organized in chronological order (the first paragraph discussing the initial classification from 2004 and the later paragraphs discussing developments from the last 2-3 years). Therefore the paragraph that begins with "The uncertainty of the internal classification...", which discusses its omission in a 2021 study is placed where it is. Is there another possible arrangement or wording you suggest that might make it appear less confusing?
3. The final two paragraphs of the "Classification" section, which also discuss paleobiogeography, are interpretations of biogeography based on different results from phylogenetic analyses. It seemed inappropriate to move this section. If these paragraphs were put into a "Paleobiogeography" section, the discussion of the different phylogenetic hypotheses would seemingly be devoid of this necessary context. Adding this context to that section would probably be repetitive for the article and would make the section mostly about phylogeny anyways.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these. Thank you again for your quick feedback! A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

• Regarding the use of plurals, my concern was just with a small number of mudstones, which doesn't make sense to me. It should be "a small percentage of" or similar.
• For the classification section, I suggest to place the general information (e.g., "The uncertainty of the internal classification …") into the first paragraph, and then either mention the 2021 study later in chronological order, or keep it in the first paragraph and generalize ("therefore, not all studies have included this taxon in their analysis") without explicitly mentioning this example.
• I still personally think that the paleobiogeography should be it's own section, this is what we do in other articles, too. Of course everything needs context, but with the same argument, the entire Classification section would have to be placed within the Description section since it completely relies on those features … I think that a new "paleobiogeography" section needs some additional introduction sentences providing the larger picture though.

Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the rest of the changes you suggested in your response. I also made some sentences less meandering and more concise, so hopefully those sections read more coherently. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. Re-reading the "Evolutionary implications" section, I fear that I absolutely cannot follow. Some points below to illustrate my confusion:

• However, if Atrociraptor and its relatives are more closely related to velociraptorines – What precisely does this mean? What do you mean with "and its relatives", does this refer to Saurornitholestinae? "More closely related to velociraptorines" means that they are not velociraptorines but also not saurornitholestines? I can't really follow.
• The authors remarked that the Maastrichtian age of this specimen suggests that – That does not make sense to me; Atrociraptor itself is also Maastrichtian, so how can the Maastrichtian age of the Prince Creek specimen suggest something that the Atrociraptor specimen cannot?
• suggests that a dispersal event may have taken place during the Early Maastrichtian in which velociraptorines and saurornitholestines, or their close relatives, – How can a saurornitholestine fossil possibly inform about the dispersal of velociraptorines?
• may have migrated to populate both Asia and North America. – Migrated from where to where? From Alaska to both Asia and North America?
• some time during the Early Cretaceous before developing their unique morphologies by allopatry, – are you trying to say that eudromaeosaurs migrated to North America, and only then diversified into the separate subfamilies (Saurornitholestinae in North America and Velociraptorinae in Asia)?

Other comments:

• Furthermore, the term "Eudromaeosauria" should be explained somewhere. In the lead, you introduce it as a dromaeosaurid, but later you only talk about eudromaeosaurs without explaining what the difference is, and since Dromaeosauridae does not appear in the cladograms, I fear this could be confusing to readers. I suggest to add a sentence in the lead before "The fragmentary nature of the holotype has made the exact relations of Atrociraptor uncertain …"; the sentence could be "Within Dromaeosauridae, Atrociraptor is a member of Eudromaeosauria (or "true dromaeosaurids"), a group that includes the subfamilies Saurornitholestinae, Velociraptorinae, and Dromaeosaurinae."
• You link 2021 to the "Years in palaeontology" page. However, you do not do this with other years, so this is inconsistent. We usually do not link the years except for in the taxonbox.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I added your suggested definition of Eudromaeosauria to the beginning of the classification section. Regarding the confusion around the paleobiogeography, my answers to these questions are as follows:

• The phrase "Atrociraptor and its relatives" was meant as a substitute for saurornitholestines to avoid excessive word repetition, but if its leading to confusion, I can change it back.

• The general rule of thumb is to always use the same term for the same thing. If you use a different word or phrase like in this case, the reader has to assume that you mean something different. Clarity is much more important than avoiding word repetitions. So yeah, I would suggest to always write "saurornitholestines" if you mean the same. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Prince Creek specimen being a saurornitholestine suggests that this clade may have been present in Asia because Beringia connected the two landmasses intermittently during the late Cretaceous. Atrociraptor itself cannot be used to infer this because it is from much further south.

• But then, your wording The authors remarked that the Maastrichtian age of this specimen suggests is wrong, right? The Maastrichtian age would not suggest anything; it would be the location in Alaska that's the point here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• A saurornitholestine fossil may inform about the dispersal of velociraptorines because if one group is able to exist in Beringia, then both could feasibly have used the landmass to move between the two continents. Its also not confidently known when the two groups diverged from their most recent common ancestor. The more recent that common ancestor is, the more likely that a dispersal event occurred later. The affinities of taxa like Acheroraptor and Dineobellator (which are both from North America) are uncertain and whether or not they are velociraptorines, saurornitholestines, or neither has implications on the dispersal of these groups.

• Ok, but you seem to assume that the reader has a lot of background information already (knowledge about Beringia; that velociraptorines are thought to be an Asian clade and saurornitholestines an North American clade, and so on). I don't think we can assume that our readers know any of these. You have to provide them with the information necessary to understand the text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The hypothesis suggested in the paper is that saurornitholestines migrated from North America to Asia and velociraptorines migrated in the opposite direction, after which both groups would have theoretically populated both continents.

• Ok, but can we make the article text a bit more specific here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• The place where eudromaeosaurs evolved is not confidently known. The source I'm referring to in that section suggests that dromaeosaurines originated in North America and migrated to Asia, and only later the common ancestor of saurornitholestines and velociraptorines split into two populations (one of which remained in North America). These two populations would later evolve into Velociraptorinae and Saurornitholestinae.

• Good explanation, can we make that clear in the article too? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack I've added the additional context and clarified some of the confusing wording. Hopefully, that section is a little more coherent and understandable now. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool, just a few minor issues remaining:

• you write "via a land bridge", and later "via Beringia". Again, stick to the same term if you mean the same thing. Maybe write "via the Bering land bridge".
• The authors remarked that the Maastrichtian age of this specimen suggests that a dispersal event could have taken place during the early Maastrichtian. – Maastrichtian age suggest early Maastrichtian dispersal, that does not make much sense. Maybe write "The authors remarked that the early Maastrichtian age of this specimen suggests that a dispersal event during that time."
• There is still at least one incorrect capitalisation of a substage (early Maastrichtian).

Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I fixed those, that should be everything for the Classification and Paleoecology sections unless you noticed something else in there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, but shouldn't The authors remarked that the Maastrichtian age of this specimen suggests state "early Maastrichtian" instead of just "Maastrichtian"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to fix the remaining issues in "my" sections later tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I've now addressed the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.