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.
-
Recent Comments
David Dreisigmeyer on Some (finalish) results! Fernando Racimo on Some (finalish) results! Museums and the Tric… on Key Concepts: Osteology I (The… William Miller on Some (finalish) results! Matt Wedel on Some (finalish) results! Get an ODP T-shirt
The Open Dinosaur Project 
Pingback: Found an Error? Have a Change to Suggest? « The Open Dinosaur Project
These may be duplicate entries as of the 7 FEB data release:
1) Sill 1974 PVL 2472
2) Sanz et al. 1983 “Morella”
the specimen-no. from stenopelix is now GZG 741/2 (Butler & Sullivan 2009)
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.
Three of the Heterodontosaurus are listed as Ornithopoda.
We’ll want to change “Lexovisaurus” to “Loricatosaurus” for some specimens.
(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)
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
Some of the Heterodontosaurus are listed as Ornithischia (2) or Ornithopoda (5) for their clade.
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.)
The Corythosaurus specimen USNM 358394 appears to be duplicated unnecessarily.
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).
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.
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.
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…
CMN 8676 is listed as Corythosaurus excavatus (4) or casuarius (2)
Sorry, this isn’t correct for the final genus and species.
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.)
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.
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.)
Worse than Pantydraco?
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.
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.
… and also, Iguanodon atherfieldiensis (IRSNB 1551, Norman 1986) should be I. atherfieldensis. (Fixed on combined data page.)
The Bactrosaurus specimens that are combined probably shouldn’t be – they’re all bonebed specimens, with multiple individuals under a single catalog number.
The “circumference” for the femur in the Edmontosaurus annectens type in Parks 1935 looks to be incorrect.
The Gilmoreosaurus specimens are incorrectly combined, too.
Same for some of the Maiasaurus.
MNA Pl.175 should have
Scuttelosaurus -> Scutellosaurus
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.
Thecodontosaurus caducus is now, sadly, in the genus Pantydraco.
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!
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.
BMNH P77/1 may be repeated.
BMNH RU B.17 (small) is repeated in the latest xls file which is making the combined entry incorrect
The combined entry for BYU ESM-163R doesn’t appear to be correct
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
DMNH 2818 appears to be listed under three different species names
I didn’t notice the MCZ 4454R (cast of BYU ESM-163R) entry which makes this correct
The Hayashi et al 2009 DMNH 1483 may not have the species name
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
And now I apologize for the numerous posts and any errors…
No need to apologize – thank you for hunting down all of these errors and inconsistencies. Our data are all the better for it!
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.
Update specimen numbers for Swiss Stegosaurus specimens. . .
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.
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.
It looks like NHM R5764 is in the final database twice.
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.)
… 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.)