Talk:Dryptosaurus

"In 2017, it was given the new generic name Teihivenator." This generic name is not available according to the ICZN.^[1] This should not be treated as a valid or available generic name by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.93.51 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This really would be better off at the Teihivenator talk page, in my opinion. And in any case, we'd need to wait for published works stating that the name is invalid before making it so on Wikipedia; that's how we do things here. Raptormimus456 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is only relevant to note details about validity in the article about the new genus, not here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Dryptosaurus was 6.5 m long, 1.8 m high at the hips, and weighed about 1.2 tons." -- Anybody have a clue whether the "tons" here were (in the original source) short tons, metric tonnes, or what? (The weight "estimate" should be more or less the same either way, but it's nice to avoid sloppiness in these matters.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The restoration to the right of the "Classification" section looks effing ridiculous! The distribution of the feathers is just bizarre, and overall it looks like little more than a rex with a chicken's head. I would suggest replacing it.

The feather distribution may be too restricted but it's not outside the realm of possibility. I don't see what's chicken-like about the head other than the color (anything red-faced is chicken-headed, huh?) and the throat pouch (which is known in other tyrannosaurs). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Many extant creatures look totally ridiculous, so ridiculous and realistic are not incompatible qualities in a depiction of extinct animals :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, it doesn't even look half as bad as some of the older tyrannosaurid illustrations, and since Yutyrannus, most tyrannosaurids have been thought of to have feathers on at least some parts of their body. And if the distribution of feathers is bizarre on that Dryptosaurus, Confuciusornis must have looked absolutely ludicrous with those tail feathers, right? Dryptosaurus is also known from pitiful elements. The skull is also accurate, by the way, a Tyrannosaurus skull is much taller and more robust then that of Dryptosaurus. There's no reason as of yet to swap the picture out for another one, so it will most likely stay on the page. ~ Raptormimus456 —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Even six years ago, the feathery idea across-the-boards for tyrant dinos was just an opinion among some scientists. Today, it has lost some of its appeal. 50.111.3.9 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really, Yutyrannus showed that it was undeniable reality, the question is just whether the tiny patches of naked skin on more derived tyrannosaurids shows that they lost them, or that those specimens simply lost their feathers after they died, as most dead birds do. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: have you read this blog post by Mark Witton on thermodynamics of large body size? I think it's very likely that T-Rex was largely featherless for thermodynamic reasons, but Dryptosaurus is not really big enough for thermodynamic considerations to apply, so I think either a feathered or featherless interpretation is ok. I agree with other commenters that the distribution of feathers on the restoriation is weird, and the arists appears to be trying to hedge their bets. It should be either a largely complete covering or nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I certainly have, and as Andrea Cau commented there, "Thermodynamically, the Yutyrannus shouldn't be able to survive hyperthermal stress with its fuzz, but the Yutyrannus doesn't know it so it goes on live anyway." It's kind of like that study that found bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly (they do). But yeah, giant dinosaurs probably weren't woolly, but I'm not convinced they would be entirely naked (not that my opinion matters). As for Dryptosaurus itself, it was closer to Yutyrannus than Tyrannosaurus, and more basal as well, so anything goes, if we go by phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've heard that the environment of the Yixian Formation was relatively cold with an annual temp of around 10 deg C^[1], which makes the thick Yutyrannus covering make much more thermodynamic sense given that context. So I'm not really sure what Andrea Cau is getting at, Woolly Mammoths also had large amounts of integument despite large body size, but it also made sense due to the cold climate. Also, what's your source for Drypto being closer to Yutyrannus? Most studies I've seen have both Drypto and Appalachiosaurus As members of Eutyrannosauria, just outside of Tyrannosauridae, while Yutyrannus is usually recovered as a basal Tyrannosauroid or member of Proceratosauridae. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah yeah, meant it was more basal, hinting that long covering may have been lost in the large derived tyrannosaurids. As for temperature, Witton himself says "Maastrichtian Mongolia, for instance, which many artists are now populating with woolly Deinocheirus, shaggy Therizinosaurus and fuzzy Tarbosaurus, had a mean annual temperature of between 5-10°C and a climate similar to Shijiazhuang, northeastern China". Which is the same as given for Yixian above, which still resulted in a very shaggy creature (yes, those other animals were larger, but their hypothetical covering would not need to be as extreme). Anyway, even Sumatran rhinoceroses have unevenly distributed shaggy fur, while other modern rhinos do not, though they are all large and live in hot places. By comparison, the Dryptosaurus here has a pretty sparse covering of feathers, and Witton also stated "This does not rule out sparse fibres for heat loss or display of course, but a thick, shaggy pelt would surely be stifling". My impression is that he showed completely naked animals in that post to make a point, not because he does not think they could have sparse covering, it is the full-body, thick, long fur he is arguing against. Here's a large, fuzzy elephant in Australia, it looks very much alive: FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point about the Nemegt Formation, but as you say it's only the thick coats that seriously need questioning. My issue with the reconstruction isn't that it's sparse, but that the actual placement of the integument as a dorsal racing stripe looks absurd,. It looks like it has been stuck on with glue, and there's not any natural looking transition to scales at all, like one of those awful tarred and feathered raptors. Why would only the dorsal portion of the tail be feathered for instance, as we know from the burmese amber tail, the primitive condition is that the entirety circumference of the tail is feathered, only having the dorsal porion feathered is simply implausible, as is the bizzare tuft on the arms. It simply looks cartoonish and fails to be convincing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it looks too far off from those furry rhinos or elephants, though, where the distribution varies even between individuals. You'd probably expect that from animals that only retain vestigial covering (which would be hard to directly compare with much smaller, fully covered relatives). Witton also makes a similar case in his very next post: "I like the fact that Luis works within, but is not a slave to, phylogenetic bracketing, and his work implies that the appearance of fossil species may have varied significantly within clades. His large dromaeosaurs, for example, aren’t just larger versions of the ‘ground eagles’ indicated by small-bodied fossil specimens, but instead have ostrich-like naked legs and shaggy, messy feathers which could reflect flightless habits. He is unafraid of applying large tufts, long fibres and fleshy skin to his restorations in ways which can seem odd, but only because Bornean bearded pigs, porcupines and turkeys are not our go-to reference taxa for most dinosaurs." So well, I'm not arguing the Drypto restoration is necessarily correct or that I'd draw it like that, just that we don't have evidence right now that proves it wrong, and that furry tyrannosaurs are not a myth at all, as the IP indicated. We really don't know how widespread the feature was at all, and the thermo stuff only rules out thick coats that interfere with body heat, not for example the hair we see on giraffes or some elephants. FunkMonk (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dryptosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://collections.naturalsciences.org/resultsVertPaleo.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607003939/http://www.dryptosaurus.com:80/ to http://dryptosaurus.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607003939/http://www.dryptosaurus.com:80/ to http://dryptosaurus.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Opened a topic based on the discussion I had with User:Bubblesorg about the Tar Heel Dryptosaurus specimen. I'll first include what I said in Bubblesorg's talk page (just as a starting point).

"Hi. I do understand that Brownstein (2018) did describe potential Dryptosaurus specimens from Tar Heel Conchman formation, but the edit I recently did after your first revert was not because I didn't see that statement (sorry about the IP appearing differently, as I'm right now in a different location using a different wifi). The reason is the more I research about the attributed specimens, the less likely they belong to Dryptosaurus.

So the "Dryptosaurus" specimens from that formation were first described by Baird and Horner (1979), as noted in Brownstein (2018): "The theropod dinosaurs also left behind an extensive record at Phoebus Landing. Hindlimb material comparable to Dryptosaurus aquilunguis was noted by Baird and Horner (1979). The femoral material compared to D. aquilunguis and figured by Baird and Horner (1979) may show an autapomorphic feature of this taxon. This is the presence of an ovoid fossa on the medial surface of the femur just above the distal condyles (Brusatte et al., 2011). More recently, Weishampel and Young (1996) also regarded Dryptosaurus aquilunguis as present at Phoebus Landing."

As noted in Brownstein (2018)'s appendix (see here on page 33), they are the following:

• USNM V7199 Tooth (Dryptosaurus sp.)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• ANSP 15332 Two teeth (Dryptosaurus sp.)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• USNM V7189 Partial femur (Dryptosaurus aquilunguis)(Tyrannosauroidea)
• ANSP 15330 Partial femur (?Dryptosaurus aquilunguis)(Tyrannosauroidea)

However, other authors did not describe these specimens as Dryptosaurus in their paper/database, or doubted the Dryptosaurus classification. For instance, in 2023, Gallagher referred ANSP 15330 (noted as ANSP-DU 15330) to just as a medium-sized theropod without specific classification. I also checked the Theropod Database of Mickey Mortimer (she's a well trusted figure who's source has appeared in various paleontology articles including FAs; you can even ask other users), and she noted that ANSP 15332, ANSP 15330 and USNM 7199 do not belong to Dryptosaurus as cited below from Mortimer's Theropod Database Tyrannosauroidea page (Mortimer, 2024):

"unnamed Eutyrannosauria (Cope, 1869) Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous Marl Pits of James King, Tar Heel Formation of the Black Creek Group, North Carolina, US Material- (USNM 7189 in part; syntype of Hypsibema crassicauda) femoral shaft fragment (lost), distal femur (Cope, 1869) Early Campanian, Late Cretaceous Phoebus Landing, Tar Heel Formation of the Black Creek Group, North Carolina, US (ANSP 15319) pedal phalanx III-3 (62 mm) (Miller, 1967) (ANSP 15330) distal femur (Horner, 1979) (ANSP 15332; 'ANSP 15331' of Miller, 1967) two incomplete teeth (FABL ~12.1, ~12.8 mm) (Miller, 1967) (USNM 7199) tooth (20 mm) (Stephenson, 1912)"

So what about USNM V7189 (which was in part a syntype of a separate dinosaur Hypsibema)? Mortimer (2024) has noted this specimen as D. sp., so she tentatively agrees that this might be Dryptosaurus, yes, but it's still not certain enough to classify it directly as representing D. aquilunguis.

"D? sp. indet. (Horner, 1979) Late Cretaceous Marl Pits of James King, North Carolina, US Material- (USNM 7189) two femora Comments- Horner (1979) referred these to Dryptosaurus, though this is not confirmed, as they are also similar to tyrannosaurids. Reference- Horner, 1979. Upper Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Bearpaw Shale (marine) of south-central Montana with a checklist of Upper Cretaceous dinosaur remains from marine sediments of North America. Journal of Paleontology. 53, 566-577."

Now you might ask why is Brownstein (2018) study not cited, and honestly I too wonder about this (maybe because Chase Brownstein is still a graduate student without doctor's degree yet?). However, it is a fact that some authors do not consider these specimens as definitive Dryptosaurus specimens; and the attributed specimens themselves are extremely fragmentary to assign them confidently to any taxon (like just search up "USNM V7189", you'll see what I mean), with considerable amount of age difference, so it is uncertain whether these specimens actually represent Dryptosaurus. Like just think about it: what tyrannosauroids ever lived for over 10-12 million years as a genus based on good fossil evidence that are not fragmentary? Even the fragmentary T. mcraeensis (though within the same genus) was described as a species separate from T. rex due to the age difference much shorter (5~7 million years) than the age difference between the Tar Heel specimens and the Dryptosaurus holotype (over 10-12 million years), so it is highly unlikely to consider that they represent the exact same species (though it is possible that they belong to the same genus, which is why I put "earliest=Campanian" at the fossilrange to reference this).

Overall, it is still uncertain whether these fragmentary specimens truly belong to Dryptosaurus, and there are researchers who disagree with or consider them uncertain. I personally think they could potentially belong within Dryptosauridae, but we'll have to see other papers for that. I hope you understand the reasoning behind my edits, and the fact that there are some people who classify those specimens differently from Brownstein (2018)."

Just to note: the degree thing I briefly mentioned is just my opinion, since I really can't think of a reason why Brownstein was not cited. 198.30.200.57 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Also to add on, while Brownstein tentatively classified some of the Phoebus Landing specimens as Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, he also refers them to as "material comparable to the tyrannosaur Dryptosaurus aquilunguis" and not directly Dryptosaurus itself in at least one of his later publications (see here). 198.30.200.57 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that is fair to some extent. Uh, I will tell you what. lets keep the Maastrichtian date then but with a note of a possible Campanian record? --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that. I'll do it right away. 198.30.200.57 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Perfect then--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)