Talk:Bienosaurus

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

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.

Untitled[edit]

I'm not sure why the word "primitive" was removed here, but I'm reinstating it for now. The edit summary (context for primitive please?) doesn't seem to indicate why it was removed, only that "context" for the word is needed. Anyone can feel free to elaborate. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a big push led by the DML in recent years to completely abolish the words 'primitive' and 'advanced', which are not anti-evolutionary in any way, and replace them with 'basal' and 'derived', which are not synonymous with the former terms and do require a very specific context to convey any real meaning. So, probably somebody who meant well but was mis-informed :) Dinoguy2 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, if someone wants to replace the word with something more appropriate, I certainly have no objections. It's just the removal of the word with no replacement at all, and an edit summary I didn't quite "get" that worried me. Since basal/derived =! primitive/advanced, though, the rewording could be tricky. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Primitive"[edit]

The term primitive is subjective. How does that make it non-scientific? The wiki definition also says it is relative, so given context, the term is scientific. Saying "Bienosaurus was primitive" is non-scientific. Saying "Bienosaurus was a primitive armored dinosaur" conveys clearly that is is closer to the ancestral condition than most other members of that group. It orients the readier wrt the relative position of this animal on the dinosaur family tree, and illustrates its relationship to other dinosaurs. Another way to say this would be plesiomorphic, a highly technical term, and as such discouraged by the manual of style. Or, you could say "Bienosaurus is a basal armored dinosaur relative to the clade Ankylosauridae", but this conveys the same information as "primitive", is longer, and uses more jargon. What's wrong with "primitive"? My dictionary defines "primitive" as related to or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something. That's exactly what we're talking about here. I (and a few recent discussions on the DML, which ironically led the charge to make 'primitive' taboo about six years ago), find nothing wrong with using that term in a scientific context. Dinoguy2 07:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bienosaurus Crichtoni[edit]

Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, claims that Dong Zhiming named a dinosaur after him, Bienosaurus Crichtoni, back in 2000. That would be this one, right? Was the name changed, or is lufengensis another sub-species or something?

A source: "In 2000, a newly-discovered, small armored dinosaur was named for him: Bienosaurus crichtoni." http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1521.htm Funkynusayri 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaded nomen nudum struck. For whatever reason, Dong decided to not use that species name, but later named Crichtonsaurus for him instead. J. Spencer 23:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification[edit]

I've read that Dong did not consider Bienosaurus to be an ankylosaur. Does this matter removing Bienosaurus from the category "Ankylosaurs" and placing it in the category "Ornithischian dinosaurs"? 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian[reply]