Talk:Amphicoelias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
 |
Amphicoelias has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Contents |
[edit] Pronunciation
According to the pronunciation guide, the "coe" in Amphicoelias is to be pronounced "koi". Is there any rational reason for this? Is it etymologically different from the "coe" in "coelacanth", which is pronounced "see"? SpectrumDT 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- You pronounce coelacanth with a "see"? :o0 Just kidding. There are no pronunciation rules. "Koi" is as in Greek. In Latin they said something like the French "eu". Both options are less confusing than making it sound as if it were Amphicelias--MWAK 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dinosauria online [1] lists the pronunciation as AM-fi-SEEL-ee-as, so I'm gonig to switch to that. I can't think of any dinosaurs where "see" is not used for coe; coelurosauria, Coelophysis, etc. Even if this is a situation like Centrosaurus (correctly pronounced KEN-tro-saur-us), or Caeser (correctly pronounced Kaiser), I think common usage should be preserved.Dinoguy2 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be a sound like a "k". In latin the c has the sound of a greek kappa, therefore it should be a "k" not a "C". The pronounciation of the common name is one thing, the scientific name must be pronounced in the best way possible, not differently in every country.
[edit] Title and content
Following the guidelines of Wikiproject Dinosaurs, I believe this article should be expanded to include more discussion of A. altus, not just A. fragillimus, and be merged into the article Amphicoelias. I'm going to put in a request for moerge, but i'd appreciate it if anyone with access to papers on A. altus could provide at least a little info in that department. If nobody has anything, I'll start adding info from secondary sources.Dinoguy2 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, this article should be moved back to Amphicoelias fragillimus. It is a good example of an article where there should be a genus-level article (Amphicoelias) which provides some basic information (a stub) on the legitimate species and a brief summary of this article. This article is a discussion of a fragmentary, legendary, possibly fictional species, and is large enough to stand alone. Combining it with a stun on A. altus and tossing them into a single article means the legitimate species would be overwhelmed with more... legendary elements. 68.84.34.154 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- You should take this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs and see what the folks there think.Dinoguy2 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Length of Amphicoelias
Even if the Amphicoelias vertebra is very high, it would mean that Amphicoelias 180-200 feet long, almost the length of a B-52 Stratofortress. Amphicoelias might have had high vertebrae 8 feet above the back, suggesting that diplodicoids had sails, similar to those of spinosaurids.
- Diplodocids did have tall processes on their verts, but they were much more robust than the "sails" of spinosaurs. They most likely formed muscular ridges. Either way, this is taken into account by size estimates, I think.Dinoguy2 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catalog number for Amphicoelias fragillimus holotype
According to Carpenter (2006), the holotype of Amphicoelias fragillimus is AMNH 5777. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] GA Passed
I passed this article because I found it to be well written and comprehensive with citations of reliable sources and with appropriate treatment of the controversial aspects (the missing bones) of the subject. Beyond that I enjoyed the balance between the current science (the paleobiology section) and the historical material (Cope and Marsh). I have one very minor quible. The following sentence Carpenter (2006) also noted that, due to the extraordinary size and mysterious disappearance of the fossil, Cope's description of A. fragillimus has been met with skepticism, especially since there were several typographical errors in his measurements. Implies that there were typo's in Cope's description. My reading of the source cited (thanks for the convienent link to the paper) indicates that others have ASSUMED that there were typographical errors, which is not quite the same thing. However that is not a serious enough issue to negate what I consider to be a very good article.Rusty Cashman 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I may have misread that bit about the errors. I'll look into this and fix it accordingly. Thanks for your comments! Dinoguy2 16:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
