Talk:Icarosaurus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Icarosaurus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Icarosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New image?

I like the image in this article a lot, but I'm starting to doubt its integrity. We all know the dangers of trying to illustrate paleo-art through a computer (if you enlarge it, you can see), and it looks like we have some faults. The eyes seem a little too...well, bug-eyed. But the main reason is in the legs. The front legs are unrealistically splayed out straight like metal rods, and the back legs seem too fluid, with no visible joints. Otherwise it's fine, but what about the rest of it? Crimsonraptor (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, computer generated images can be ok but a lot of them tend to look a little... rubbery, or short on realistic detail, compared to 2D drawings. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this book's illustration I talked about a while back on the Anomalocaris tallk page, and the image was utterly horrendous. Don't get me started on the Placerias in that book...Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But getting back to the image inclusion, it might just be better to get a pic of an actual fossil. There are plenty of small New Jersey geology museums out there, although I'm not sure whether they have something. If all else fails, I can just go find one myself, I live in the darned county... :) But I believe there should be a specimen (whether it be real or cast) in a nearby museum. So, would a fossil be better? Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think fossil images are always better than artistic restorations for the infobox. This is also pretty much the de-facto standard for dinosaur articles. But images of fossils are often not available. If you can find one and get a free-to-use photo, that would be great :) MMartyniuk (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the holotype and a few potential referred specimens are housed at the AMNH: [1] News story about it here, maybe we could incorporate some of this into the article [2]. I'm not sure if it's on display or not, or if any of the various small NJ museums would have casts or something. The AMNH site says they have a cast as well as a life restoration model, so it's a safe bet it's either on display now or was at some point. I'll be at the AMNH in March or April so I can look around for it then if you don't have a chance i the mean time. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just been to AMNH and no Icarosaurus specimens are currently on display, sadly. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I am a regualar visitor to the AMNH (when I can :)), so I'll bring a camera or something next time. Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The news article (from 2000, if you didn't notice) says the fossil is on display , so it's (obviously) viewable by now! Must start making arrangments and finding train tickets :) Aside from that, we probably couldn't use that exact picture, but I'd know what it looks like and the fossil looks pretty good to be taxobox-standard.

And in case you beat me to the occasion, the Hall of Vertebrate Origins would probably be your best bet at finding it. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the fossil in my to-do pic list here now. We're all set. Crimsonraptor (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AHA! I've found a certain place where a cast is displayed. A quick trip to the library (never underestimate your library, kiddies) reveals that a full cast of Icarosaurus is on display at the New Jersey State Museum. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Anybody near Philly? ;) Given their apparent rarity I wonder if it would be worthwhile (or possible, verifiable?) to list which institutions display casts. This kind of thing is problematic when numerous casts exist and people start playing spot-the-fossil and adding long lists, but if there are only two or three... MMartyniuk (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a short hop away (contradicting myself earlier, I got confused with another fossil), and I can get into Trenton semi-regularly. Not going off-topic, but they also have Hypsognathus pieces and a phytosaur skull to check out. Will bring camera, after I do my rounds at the Rutgers Geology Museum in a few days...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]