Errata

On this page, please post a comment for any possible errors in the publicly available database or any changes that you might think necessary. These might include: taxonomic (genus/species name) updates; specimen number changes; numbers in error; duplicate entries; etc.

  1. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    These may be duplicate entries as of the 7 FEB data release:

    1) Sill 1974 PVL 2472
    2) Sanz et al. 1983 “Morella”

  2. christian foth
    February 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    the specimen-no. from stenopelix is now GZG 741/2 (Butler & Sullivan 2009)

  3. Henrique Niza
    February 10, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Note sure if it’s an error or an occultation by the paper but in one entry for USNM 4929 specimen (Stegosaurus) by Maidment et al 2008 is missing the species name, which is stenops.

  4. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 11, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Three of the Heterodontosaurus are listed as Ornithopoda.

  5. Andy Farke
    February 12, 2010 at 5:48 am

    We’ll want to change “Lexovisaurus” to “Loricatosaurus” for some specimens.

  6. Andy Farke
    February 12, 2010 at 5:52 am

    (Thanks for the notes – I’ve been swamped with some other things, so it might be a few days before I get it changed online)

  7. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 15, 2010 at 9:29 am

    For the 14 FEB release:

    1) Acanthopolis platypus (Specimen ?) has Clade = Dinosauria (was Ankylosauria)
    2) Some side specific measurements are still included in: a) Femur; b) Humerus, and; Ulna
    3) Some e(stimated) measurements are still included in: a) Humerus; b) Manus; c) Radius; d) Scapulocoracoid, and; e) Tibia

  8. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 15, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Some of the Heterodontosaurus are listed as Ornithischia (2) or Ornithopoda (5) for their clade.

  9. William Miller
    February 15, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Acanthopholis platypus is a mess; the metatarsals (what the measurements are actually from) are probably from a sauropod, some of the other bones (not limb bones, so not used in this project) are legitimately ankylosaurian. Thus, Dinosauria; it’s discussed in the comments on the “What’s Next” post.

    (Sauropoda, actually, might work – since only the metatarsals are actually in our data.)

  10. Andy Farke
    February 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    The Corythosaurus specimen USNM 358394 appears to be duplicated unnecessarily.

  11. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    For the 15 FEB release:

    All of the new combined entries are blank in the measurement fields, along with AMNH FR 970 from the 14 EB release. These can be found by looking for combined entries with a blank Entry 1 field (except for ROM 804 which does have measurements but no Entry 1).

  12. Andy Farke
    February 17, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Hmm. . .I think the blanks you’re seeing are basically blank lines that I added in yesterday to indicate that the measurements need to be combined. Will check on the AMNH one.

  13. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 17, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    This is more of a question. We’re averaging the Manus and Pes measurements across the sides for the combined entries? Should this also be done for specimens that are not repeated? I suppose this could be done during the actual analysis, rather than before.

  14. Andy Farke
    February 18, 2010 at 5:11 am

    David Dreisigmeyer :

    This is more of a question. We’re averaging the Manus and Pes measurements across the sides for the combined entries? Should this also be done for specimens that are not repeated? I suppose this could be done during the actual analysis, rather than before.

    Yeah, let’s leave them for now. . .good question, though.

  15. Rob Taylor
    February 19, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    I inadvertently posted the following under the “Found an error?” intro to the Errata page, rather than the Errata page itself. Re-posting here to keep like with like:

    While working on the combined entry for Triceratops sp. specimen USNM 4842, I encountered a measurement of 30 mm in the “Shaft AP L” column for the femur (ref: Chinnery 2004b [supplement]). In comparing it to Matt Carrano’s personal measurement of 120 mm in the row immediately above (and also eyeballing the proportions of similar specimens), I couldn’t help but to raise an eyebrow. I checked the Chinnery supplement and failed to find a measurement of 30 mm for that specimen anywhere in the femur table, so I’m inclined to believe it’s just a stray entry that made it through. For the purposes of the combined entry, I have disregarded the 30 mm figure and keyed a note to that effect, but I didn’t want to remove the measurement without first running it past a pro…

  16. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 19, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    CMN 8676 is listed as Corythosaurus excavatus (4) or casuarius (2)

  17. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 19, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    David Dreisigmeyer :
    CMN 8676 is listed as Corythosaurus excavatus (4) or casuarius (2)

    Sorry, this isn’t correct for the final genus and species.

  18. Rob Taylor
    February 20, 2010 at 12:51 am

    I believe that the correct genus name for specimen ZDM 0019 is Gigantspinosaurus, as opposed to Gigantospinosaurus, as is presently shown on the public data page. (The former name matches my original ODP entry, as well as the name given in the brief description published by Ouyang in 1992. Took me a LONG time to get a copy, but there’s definitely no “o” showing after the “t” in the original work.)

  19. Rob Taylor
    February 20, 2010 at 12:59 am

    As a follow-up to my above comment, Gigantspinosaurus is also how it appears in the supplement to Maidment et al. 2008, from whence the database measurements came. I went ahead and corrected the spelling in the “combined data” worksheet.

  20. February 20, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Rob, you are right: appalling though it may be, “Gigantspinosaurus” is the correct name (and may be the single ugliest dinosaur name ever coined, despite stiff competition from Futalognkosaurus and others.)

  21. William Miller
    February 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Worse than Pantydraco?

  22. Rob Taylor
    February 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I’ve corrected a misspelling of the species name for Herrarasaurus specimen PVL 2566 on the combined data sheet – ischigualastrensis –> ischigualastensis. Thinking we should also correct (at a minimum) the SpeciesFinal column on the public data page.

  23. Rob Taylor
    February 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    A similar issue with Homalocephale specimen GI SPS 100/1201. I changed H. calathoceros to H. calathocercos in the combined data sheet, but the misspelling remains on the public data page under SpeciesFinal.

  24. Rob Taylor
    February 21, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    … and also, Iguanodon atherfieldiensis (IRSNB 1551, Norman 1986) should be I. atherfieldensis. (Fixed on combined data page.)

  25. Andy Farke
    February 22, 2010 at 3:46 am

    The Bactrosaurus specimens that are combined probably shouldn’t be – they’re all bonebed specimens, with multiple individuals under a single catalog number.

  26. Andy Farke
    February 22, 2010 at 3:48 am

    The “circumference” for the femur in the Edmontosaurus annectens type in Parks 1935 looks to be incorrect.

  27. Andy Farke
    February 22, 2010 at 3:49 am

    The Gilmoreosaurus specimens are incorrectly combined, too.

  28. Andy Farke
    February 22, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Same for some of the Maiasaurus.

  29. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 22, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    MNA Pl.175 should have

    Scuttelosaurus -> Scutellosaurus

  30. William Miller
    February 22, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    We should probably pick a format for the BMNH numbers; some are in the format BMNH R12345, some as BMNH R. 12345, and some as BMNH R.12345.

  31. William Miller
    February 23, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Thecodontosaurus caducus is now, sadly, in the genus Pantydraco.

  32. Andy Farke
    February 23, 2010 at 6:50 am

    I went through and updated the public spreadsheet with everyone’s suggestions/comments/corrections. . .I think everything should be caught up now (as of the writing of this comment). Please let me know if I missed anything!

  33. February 23, 2010 at 11:02 am

    All BMNH number should now be NHM numbers.

    I have never seen anyone from the museum use the format R. 2095 or R.2095 — only R2095 or R 2095. There seems to be little consistency between the formats, but for what it’s worth I’ve uniformly used R2095 in my own work.

  34. Andy Farke
    February 23, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Mike Taylor :

    All BMNH number should now be NHM numbers.

    I have never seen anyone from the museum use the format R. 2095 or R.2095 — only R2095 or R 2095. There seems to be little consistency between the formats, but for what it’s worth I’ve uniformly used R2095 in my own work.

    Just updated that accordingly on the public spreadsheet – these will get sifted out on the in-progress combined spreadsheet as we move forward.

    Rob Taylor just got a listing of the old/new ROM specimen numbers, so we should be updating those soon, too.

  35. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    BMNH P77/1 may be repeated.

  36. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    BMNH RU B.17 (small) is repeated in the latest xls file which is making the combined entry incorrect

  37. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    The combined entry for BYU ESM-163R doesn’t appear to be correct

  38. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    For CMN 2288 it looks like the Brett-Surman, MK (1989) measurements are not used for the combined entry. There’s a note on this entry: “Edmontosaurus annectens”, but the rest of the CMN 2288 entries are listed as E. regalis

  39. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    DMNH 2818 appears to be listed under three different species names

  40. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    David Dreisigmeyer :
    The combined entry for BYU ESM-163R doesn’t appear to be correct

    I didn’t notice the MCZ 4454R (cast of BYU ESM-163R) entry which makes this correct

  41. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    The Hayashi et al 2009 DMNH 1483 may not have the species name

  42. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    The HMN Wy 9051 entry may need to be included in the HMN MB.R.1539 (= Wy 9051; dy V,4a), which also seems to include the HMN dy V entry.

  43. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    ROM 787 may have multiple combined entries (Carrano 2006 seems to have added new measurements here). Also, ROM 4971=ROM 787 may or may not be included in the averages. Additionally, ROM 7871 (mount; = 4971ct?) for one of the entries, so maybe ROM 7871 also needs to be included in the average?

  44. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    David Dreisigmeyer :
    The HMN Wy 9051 entry may need to be included in the HMN MB.R.1539 (= Wy 9051; dy V,4a), which also seems to include the HMN dy V entry.

    I should clarify that there is a pers. obs. of HMN Wy 9051 that differs from the HMN MB.R.1539 (= Wy 9051; dy V,4a) one.

  45. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    There was a YPM 1882 (2nd skeleton / unmounted pes) Galton 1983 that seems to be missing in the YPM 1882 combined.

  46. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    David Dreisigmeyer :
    There was a YPM 1882 (2nd skeleton / unmounted pes) Galton 1983 that seems to be missing in the YPM 1882 combined.

    Sorry, didn’t read the note on this one — it’s being used as a stand-alone measurement.

  47. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    This is probably an error on my part, but I have YPM 5456 variously listed as Tenontosaurus and Sauropelta. Only the Tenontosaurus entries are in the current combined data.

  48. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    And now I apologize for the numerous posts and any errors…

  49. Andy Farke
    February 26, 2010 at 6:10 am

    No need to apologize – thank you for hunting down all of these errors and inconsistencies. Our data are all the better for it!

  50. Andy Farke
    February 26, 2010 at 6:11 am

    David Dreisigmeyer :

    This is probably an error on my part, but I have YPM 5456 variously listed as Tenontosaurus and Sauropelta. Only the Tenontosaurus entries are in the current combined data.

    No, this isn’t an error on your part. Ostrom’s original pub with these specimens has YPM 5456 listed as both Tenontosaurus and Sauropelta in the tables.

  51. Andy Farke
    February 26, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Update specimen numbers for Swiss Stegosaurus specimens. . .

  52. David Dreisigmeyer
    February 26, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    The humerus length for NHM R1111 combined should be verified.

  53. Andy Farke
    February 27, 2010 at 3:29 am

    David Dreisigmeyer :

    The humerus length for NHM R1111 combined should be verified.

    Checked – turns out to be a transposition error. The humerus length for BCM Ce 12785 was entered by accident for the “combined” data.

  54. March 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Going over the table of ages and dates, Orodromeus makelai should be listed as from the Two Medicine Formation, not the Blackleaf Formation (it is mentioned as such in the Oryctodromeus description). Also, the possible late Campanian record of Thescelosaurus neglectus was based on teeth from the Judith River Formation which Galton later reassigned to Orodromeus makelai (Galton 1995).

    Galton, P. M. 1995. “The species of the basal hypsilophodontid dinosaur Thescelosaurus Gilmore (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda) from the Late Cretaceous of North America.” Neues Jahrbuch fèur Geologie und Palèaontologie Abhandlungen 198(3): 297-311.

  55. David Dreisigmeyer
    March 15, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    It looks like NHM R5764 is in the final database twice.

  56. Rob Taylor
    June 2, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I don’t know that this will impact any of our pending analyses, but the following paper – recently announced on the Dinosaur Mailing List – might necessitate updating some names in the database:

    Norman DB (2010) A taxonomy of iguanodontians (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) from the lower Wealden Group (Cretaceous: Valanginian) of southern England. Zootaxa 2489: 47-66.

    (Introduces the new combinations Barilium dawsoni and Hypselospinus fittoni.)

  57. Rob Taylor
    June 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    … and then of course there are the two new works by Prieto-Márquez on the phylogeny and biogeography of hadrosaurids in ZJLS. (I’ve been frustrated to no end that I haven’t had an opportunity to read these! Day job’s keeping me too busy.)

  1. February 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: