Talk:Chasmosaurus

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.

Eoceratops[edit]

I'd like to put up an Eoceratops page, but the name redirects to this one. However, this article has no mention of Eoceratops. Shouldn't there be something on this page if there's a redirect? How do I cancel a redirect to set up a new page? CFLeon 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eoceratops is a synonym of Chasmosaurus, so I'd recommend adding a section here discussing this and other synonymous genera.Dinoguy2 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, a page discussing Lambe's concept of Eoceratopsinae and his classification later revised by Lehman maybe worthwhile. I stuck in a mini-reference so the genus at least appears on this page anyway. Cas Liber 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stance[edit]

Here's a new development, by Stefan Thompson and Robert Holmes in Palaeontographica Electronica: [1] It's nominally about C. irvinensis, but it has implications for all horned dinosaurs. They favor a half-sprawl, something not entirely unlike Bakker's "semi-erect" crocodiles. Kind of a crouch, really. J. Spencer 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, as I've been reworking Styracosaurus of late. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another species?[edit]

I have a personal record of another species, C. kaiseni. Can anyone else verify this?Ninjatacoshell 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site,C. kaiseni named by Brown (1933) is a skull (AMNH 5401) and is now considered a synonym of C. belli. ArthurWeasley 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=63914, Chasmosaurus canadensis (Lambe, 1902) is a junior synonym of C. belli (Lambe, 1902). There are currently three species of Chasmosaurus: C. belli (Lambe, 1902), C. russelli C.M. Sternberg, 1940, and C. irvinensis Holmes, Forster, Ryan & Shepard, 2001. 72.194.116.63 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 10.43 29 April 2007[reply]

Horns[edit]

At the Museum Of Nature in Ottawa, Canada there are several model Chasmosauruses irvinensis shown without horns over their eyes, and plaque which reads "Unlike its larger cousin Triceratops, Chasmosaurus had only a single horn on its snout". This article describes only three-horned ones. Are there sub-species? Unregistered User, Kie, 22.15 30 April, 2007 (UTC)

It's a line that needs to be adjusted, and we haven't gotten to it yet. Chasmosaurus has quite a bit of variety in horn length, incidentally. J. Spencer 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IJReid, you just added a taxobox photo which is arguably aesthetically nicer than the previous one, but it is problematic in that the angle and crop does not show the diagnostic features of the frill and ornamentation (vaguely related to this section). Preferably, we should probably use a photo hat shows the shape of the frill and its parietal ornamentation, and ceratiopsid postcrania do not appear to have diagnostic features anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, feel free to replace it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, it isn't like we have a lot of other good ones. These[2][3][4] of the same mount do show the frill better, but not sure otherwise. This one maybe too:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

In a Calvin and Hobbes comic, Chasmosaurus was depicted as the main prey for tyrannosaurs in F-14 fighter jets.

Chasmosaurus appeared in When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth.

Chasmosaurus was also featured as the only aggressive herbivore in the Carnivores 2 hunting game, but was more similar to Triceratops.

Chasmosaurus was also a mecha in the Super Sentai series Bakuryuu Sentai Abaranger and a zord in its American counterpart Power Rangers: Dino Thunder.

A baby Chasmosaurus named "26" appeared in the TV series based on James Gurney's Dinotopia books.

Chasmosaurus was seen in Prehisteria.

-- (unsigned)

Removed from article as trivia and cameos. J. Spencer 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one, Chasmosaurus had a brief cameo in Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how someone writing in 2007 could miss an appearance in a movie that didn't come out until 2009! ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual dimorphism[edit]

The recognition that Chasmosaurus kaiseni is not congeneric with Chasmosaurus casts serious doubts on the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism for Chasmosaurus. Lehman (1990) considered C. kaiseni to be a junior synonym of Eoceratops canadensis (as C. canadensis). The provisionally referral of C. kaiseni to Mojoceratops could explain the differences from C. belli, because the holotype of C. kaiseni (AMNH 5401) was reconstructed in plaster (Longrich, 2010). Perhaps Chasmosaurus is not sexually dimorphic after all.

Lehman, T. M. 1990. The ceratopsian subfamily Chasmosaurinae: sexual dimorphism and systematics,. 211–230. In P. J. Currie and K. Carpenter (eds.). Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

Nicholas R. Longrich (2010). "Mojoceratops perifania, A New Chasmosaurine Ceratopsid from the Late Campanian of Western Canada". Journal of Paleontology 84 (4): 681–694.68.4.61.237 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Or someone's oversplitting things. :P Abyssal (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the analysis today by Mortimer on the DML (not on the archive yet, but should be soon). There's no reason to consider Mojoceratops distinct from Eoceratops to begin with, except Longrich's assertion that only the parietal can be diagnostic in ceratopsids (Eoceratops lacks a parietal and would be a nomen dubium in this case), which he contradicts in his own paper by listing non-parietal features in his codings and diagnosis. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]