Talk:Anchiornis

Roadrunner Comparison By Cornell

@WildBot

What makes that observation "offhand"? "..striking little roadrunner-shaped dinosaur" is very specific. The similarity was noted by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. And looking at a road runner the observation appears to be dead on and was therefore linked to wikipedia Geococcyx (roadrunner). The similarities likely proves roadrunners clearly have roots in dinosaurs. I think that's important information.

Can anyone find another source on the roadrunner comparison? I've seen the roadrunner comparison made on a lot of science blogs. The roadrunner similarities are indeed striking.

Here is the Cornell Lab article making the comparison. I'm sure they aren't the only science lab making this observation.

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1892

And of course wikipedia (Geococcyx) "Roadrunners" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Geococcyx

Atheistman666 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@Josh Parris

Did you read the Cornell article? Cornell's "roadrunner-shaped" observation is not offhand but clearly deliberate. It's an authoritative third party source. I think it's legit. I'll take a look around but I think it's good enough. Atheistman666 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's citable but is it more correct than comparing to a pheasant or any other ground bird? For one thing, roadrunners don't have big honkin wings enveloping their hind legs. A ptarmagin is probably a better, though still completely arbitrary and superficial, comparison. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, I'd be more comfortable too if this were a direct quote from someone knowledgeable on the subject and not editorializing by the reporter. This is obviously not as egregious as the hundreds of "science journalists" who continue to refer to pterosaurs as flying dinosaurs, etc., but it's just as authoritative. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My take on it, and why I removed it, was that it seemed like the kind of thing that always ends up in reporting on dinosaurs: a simplification to something familiar to a wide audience. Granted, it's not on the level of a gratuitous reference to Tyrannosaurus rex (which shows up in practically every example of dinosaur coverage by the media, no matter how tenuous the connection). J. Spencer (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What brought my attention was I was reading a blog somewhere comparing Anchiornis to a roadrunner. I took a look and was kind of stunned at the similarity. Could be completely superficial, but could be the forerunner to a modern roadrunner. Then I found a science writer at Cornell making the comparison and thought there is really something to this. It at least deserves a mention in the article. But I agree, would like to see at least one more good source citing the similarity. Shelf it for the moment but I think that label might stick. The Dino Roadrunner... hard to ignore. I suspect more good sources will appear as time goes on. Atheistman666 (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool! If it does catch on, it would be something interesting to mention. J. Spencer (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The roadrunner genus is not any more closely-related to birdlike dinosaurs than any other clade of birds, so I'm not sure how Anchiornis could be a "forerunner" to roadrunners, even if there is some specific cursory similarity. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all modern birds evolved from a single common ancestor, not from various different bird-like dinosaurs. Anchiornis in no more or less the forerunner of the roadrunner than Tyrannosaurus or Hesperornis (in fact its much more closely related to the later than the any of the former. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here's a roadrunner skeleton: [1] and and Anchiornis skeletal: [2] I suspect any similarity you or the reporter are seeing are due to coloration. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Paper link

The doi link to the new paper doesn't work. Why not just link directly to the paper? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/pdf/nature08322.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect that'll be paywalled come tomorrow... Evercat (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the doi will work tomorrow as well? If so we can just switch it back. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

The original "green image" that was showed in this article (and that was removed) has been changed to the actual coloration. You can put it again.--Edsova (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, must not have purged on commons, was still showing green to me until I just checked. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anchiornis_BW.jpg. --81.35.43.65 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only green I see is the background color. J. Spencer (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys happy that things are sorted out? Can I unprotect this? Evercat (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the new image looks fine. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Did Anchiornis have a sickle claw? Some restorations show it, while others don't... FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

@FunkMonk: I'm proposing a new taxobox image, in which the feathers are much more clearly shown and the body is much more visible, unlike our current image, in which the specimen is sort of splayed out, and the feathering of the wings isn't as visible. Since the proposed image does crop out tiny sections of the tail and feet, there's also an alternative image of the same specimen, in which the full specimen is shown. However, the full specimen image has less clarity.

• 
  The image I'm proposing.

The specimen currently in the infobox is currently shown twice too, so there might be a point in replacing it. Would be nice to hear some more opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I think it should be changed to the proposed image for now. Once we get more opinions on the matter, we can reevaluate it.