Talk:Procompsognathus

Dinosaurs Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Untitled[edit]

Plural, even... --Wetman 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

In The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Robert Burke clearly identifies the compies as "Procompsognathus triassicus". I don't know where all this thing about them being the "Compsognathus" species came from. 193.2.73.150 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like Compsognathus triassicus to me. The producers probably couldn't decide which it was so they combined them.Dinoguy2 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smudge on a rock[edit]

Was it Procompsognathus that was described as a "smudge on a rock"? Does anybody know where that might have come from? John.Conway 10:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search turns this up [1], and it's related to dinosaurs, so maybe? Though, from what I've read of Procompie's preservation, "smudge on a rock" might be a good description...Dinoguy2 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procompsognathus called "Compys"?[edit]

Was it actually Procompsognathus which were called "Compys"? This is what it currently states in our article, but it just seems more likely to me that they were Compsognathus, as one would naturally expect a shortened version of the name to be something like "Procompys" (or something similar). Anyone have the book or movie handy?--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked--they are called compys in both the book and the movie. However if I heard right, the animal in The Lost World movie is "Compsognathus triassicus", I guess some kind of bizarre hybrid name compromise...Dinoguy2 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"C. triassicus", hmmm? Alrighty then... Thanks for checking. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect[edit]

I've fixed the redirects, so that no articles link to procomposaginids anymore.CynicalMe 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Have a donkey! Spawn Man 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procompsognathus skull[edit]

The skull (SMNS 12591a) referred to Procompsognathus may represent an early tetanuran (Knoll and Schoch 2006) in contrast to the holotype (SMNS 12591) being a coelophysoid (Knoll 2008). Knoll (2008) has further cast doubt on SMNS 12591a being the same taxon as SMNS 12591 by noting that SMNS 12591a does not preserve the first four cervical vertebrae, and that SMNS 12591 and SMNS 12591a differ in the color the matrix. Because SMNS 12591 is greyish and SMNS 12591a is yellowish, it makes sense to treat SMNS 12591a as separate from Procompsognathus. Regardless, SMNS 12591a could be a non-tetanuran theropod rather than a genuine tetanuran because Benson (2010) believes that the earliest tetanurans may have diverged from all other theropods in the Middle Jurassic rather than the Late Triassic/Early Jurassic time frame, since he considers all putative Early Jurassic tetanurans to be outside of Tetanurae.

Benson, Roger B. J., 2010, "The osteology of Magnosaurus nethercombensis (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Bajocian (Middle Jurassic) of the United Kingdom and a re-examination of the oldest records of tetanurans", Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 8(1): 131-146

F. Knoll. 2008. On the Procompsognathus postcranium (Late Triassic, Germany). Geobios 41:779-786

Knoll, F., and R. Schoch. 2006. Does Procompsognathus have a head? Systematics of an enigmatic Triassic taxon. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26:86A. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I believe I have now inserted most of the relevant literature. Benson does not directly address Procompsognathus, so invoking his work is a bit circular, though admittedly the long ghost lineage is suspicious.--MWAK (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrasic Park[edit]

Would a gropu of 'compies' really attack a larger animal in groups as is seen Jurraisc Park?Nothing to do with the article just wondering. Dermo69

Nobody knows, though there is zero evidence that either Procompsognathus (or its distant relative Compsognathus for that matter) lived in any kind of groups at all, so there's no good reason to suppose they hunted in groups.Dinoguy2 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull of Procompsognathus[edit]

Sereno and Wild (1992) demonstrated the skull of Procompsognathus to be from Saltoposuchus, a sphenosuchian crocodylomorph. However, Chatterjee (1993, 1998) re-prepared the skull of Procompsognathus and concluded that it is actually from the same animal as the Procompsognathus skeleton.

Sereno, P. C. and Wild, R. 1992. Procompsognathus: theropod, "thecodont", or both? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 12, 435-458.

Chatterjee, S. 1993. Procompsognathus from the Triassic of Germany is not a crocodylomorph. Abstract, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 13(3): 29A.

Chatterjee, S. 1998. Reassessment of Procompsognathus skull. Abstract, DinoFest International Symposium, Academy of Natural Sciences, p. 6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A late response: but thank you for the last citation which was new to me!--MWAK (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]