Talk:Elaphrosaurus

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.

Diet[edit]

Now that Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus are recognized as basal ceratosaur (a ceratosaur that is neither a ceratosaurid nor an abelisauroid), their diets is very interesting Now Limusaurus is a basal ceratosaur too: Limusaurus skull clearly shows herbivory. Limusaurus postcranial skeleton resembles so much skeletons of Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus. But neither Deltadromeus skull nor Elaphrosaurus skull has been ever found: this means we cannot be sure about their carnivory. What if Deltadromeus and Elaphrosaurus are actually herbivores? This could explain why there were much more carnivores than herbivores in their habitats: Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus, Kemkemia, Suchomimus, Rugops. And the only herbivores are Rebbachisaurus and Ouranosaurus. Maybe there were herbivorous ceratosaurs! Note that Deltadromeus, Elaphrosaurus and Limusaurus are so closely related each other that a new family "elaphrosauridae" could even be created http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/limusaurus_is_awesome.php http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/limusaurus-%E2%80%93-an-herbivorous-ceratosaur/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely possible, but not suggested in print as far as I'm aware. And the position of Deltadromeus as a ceratosaur is controversial. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At all. Deltadromeus is clearly a ceratosaur. Wilson et al. (2003), and Carrano and Sampson (2008) recovered it as a basal ceratosaur outside of Neoceratosauria

-Wilson, Sereno, Srivastava, Bhatt, Khosla and Sahni, 2003. A new abelisaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Lameta Formation (Cretaceous, Maastrichtian) of India. Contr. Mus. Palaeont. Univ. Mich. 31, 1-42. -Carrano and Sampson, 2008. The Phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6, 183-236 -Xu, X., Clark, J.M., Mo, J., Choiniere, J., Forster, C.A., Erickson, G.M., Hone, D.W.E., Sullivan, C., Eberth, D.A., Nesbitt, S., Zhao, Q., Hernandez, R., Jia, C.-K., Han, F.-L., and Guo, Y. (2009). "A Jurassic ceratosaur from China helps clarify avian digital homologies." Nature, 459(18): 940–944. doi:10.1038/nature08124 All latest studies found it to be a ceratosaur, and da two lastest ones found it to be neither ceratosaurid nor abelisauroid ceratosaur (this means basal ceratosaur) Otherwise what could it be? And did u read last posts by Andrea Cau's Theropoda? http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/01/coming-soon-dove-corri-deltadromeus.html http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/01/kem-kem-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of.html

World War 2 fate?[edit]

If it was in the Berlin Natural History Museum upon its discovery, was it lost when the museum was bombed or did it survive?184.186.4.209 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Giraffatitan and others, it was likely transferred elsewhere at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"very short hindlimbs" ?[edit]

The lead section currently says

it has very short hindlimbs in comparison with its body.

Is this an error? Is "forelimbs" intended?

- 189.122.97.18 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]