Talk:Allosaurus#Proposal to merge Epanterias into Allosaurus

On this page, the temporal range for the genus Allosaurus is currently set to 155–145 Ma.

Allosaurus jimmadseni was officially described in 2020 by Chure & Loewen (https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7803) and in their open access paper, the authors referred the new species to the following age:

"Age — Allosaurus jimmadseni was found in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation and its lateral equivalents. The Tidwell Member near the base of the Morrison (below the Salt Wash Member) produced a date of 154.82 ± 0.58 Ma (RAIN-1325-4+4 of Kowallis et al. (1998)) and a date of 150.18 ± 0.51 Ma (LCM-1 of Kowallis et al. (1998)) was recovered at the base of the overlying Brushy Basin Member. These two dates constrain the Salt Wash Member between them. These single-crystal, laser-fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages on sanidine crystals were recalibrated (Irmis, Nesbitt & Sues, 2013) to 157.32 ± 0.61 Ma (RAIN-1325-4+4 of Kowallis et al. (1998)) and a date of 152.77 ± 0.3 Ma following the Monte Carlo method of Renne et al. (2010). This places it in the Kimmeridgian Age of the Late Jurassic Epoch (Walker et al., 2012)."

So if Allosaurus jimmadseni is aged 157.32 Ma to 152.77 Ma, then the start of the temporal range for the genus Allosaurus on Wikipedia should be adjusted to 157.32 (or 157) Ma.

So, 157–145 Ma.

Thanks for considering. AlexanderDecommere (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

:The current range is consistent with the authors describing A. jimmadseni as Kimmeridgian-aged. The Kimmeridgian begins at 154.8 Ma. The 157.32 Ma estimate, note, is a loose upper bound for the age of A. jimmadseni because it does not come from the Salt Wash Member, it comes from underlying strata. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is rather lackluster in information regarding the Allosaurus specimens from Portugal, other than the A. europaeus holotype. The Andrés Allosaurus, thus far classified as Allosaurus cf. fragilis, is much more complete but is barely mentioned. Furthermore, the material mentioned in the text is (to quote, "a quadrate, vertebrae, ribs, gastralia, chevrons, part of the hips, and legs") is not the complete material attributed to the specimen, since the skull is relatively complete, although disarticulated. No mention is made of the putative juvenile Allosaurus from the Guimarota mine either. I might also say that there is research being done on all of these specimens, and that more information is to be published soon-ish.

I was thinking of adding this information on the "Recent work: 1980s–present" section, on a sub section titled "Allosaurus from Portugal", given that the discoveries in Portugal were all done after 1980. This would greatly enrich the article and bring more attention to these important specimens. This would also complement the discussion on the species in the following section, since the taxonomic status of Allosaurus species in Portugal is still not consensual.

I am writing here to see what the other users think of these changes, and if I start to can write them. All in name of courtesy :) Pfonseca1999 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hi, yes, this article became a Featured Article way back in 2007, and has not really been consistently updated since then, just random additions of varying quality over the years. There are talks about reworking it at WP:PALEOAW, but that will probably take a while to get off the ground, so in the meantime feel free to add improvements you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::Meanwhile, the re-diagnosis of A. europaeus has been published (https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/1/29). Further publications on the other specimens are to be expected.

::I will update the article when I have time. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah, quite a coincidence, if you weren't informed beforehand. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• {{ping|Pfonseca1999}} The section has now been re-written. Your thoughts and suggestions would be most welcome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose merging Epanterias into Allosaurus. The fossil material referred to Epanterias has been largely considered synonymous with Allosaurus fragilis by most modern studies. Since Epanterias lacks unique diagnostic features distinguishing it from Allosaurus, maintaining a separate article may be unnecessary. Instead, relevant information about Epanterias could be incorporated into the Allosaurus article under a subsection.

Detailed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epanterias#Merge_proposal_with_Allosaurus KATgeneral1900 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{strikethrough|Oppose as noted in the Epanterias talk page already, due to the presence of at least one study (Allosaurus neotype designation) that directly argues against the synonymy.}}Junsik1223 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Weak support, then. This may seem like an almost 180 flip on me, but I guess based on what others state below, I slightly agree that there may be some sort of a consensus. Junsik1223 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support From my search, the only use of Epanterias since the 90's (outside of papers arguing for its synonymy with Allosaurus) was the mention of it "probably [being] a different taxon from YPM 1930 [=Allosaurus fragilis]" in Paul and Carpenter's 2010 neotype designation.https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v67i1.a7 Even then, this only argues for it to potentially be seperate from the type species of Allosaurus and not the entire genus, in an offhand mention. Considering this, and the fact that the Epanterias article is on the smaller side, I'd support merging it into Allosaurus. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Actually it has been mentioned in the 2025 study about A. europaeus that "New analysis on this specimen needs to be performed to test the validity". https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/1/29

::Also I thought it wasn't considered sufficient enough to merge pages even when there is no strong argument against the synonymy by paleontologists (not unless there is a definitive consensus, which I can't really say for certain in this instance). Junsik1223 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It is worth noting that the 2023 ICZN ruling did not address Epanterias, and this omission is significant. In the 2010 paper by Carpenter & GSP, they proposed that the holotype of Allosaurus (YPM 1930) does not provide enough unique autapomorphies to clearly differentiate it from other species in the genus. They also highlighted the challenge of relying on YPM 1930 as the holotype for resolving species-level taxonomy. To address these issues, they recommended designating USNM 4734 as the neotype for Allosaurus, to provide clearer material for study.

:::However, the authors did not thoroughly discuss the status of AMNH 5767, nor did they provide any clear, irrefutable unique autapomorphies that could prove it to be different from USNM 4734, beyond the expected variation within Allosaurus. This lack of a detailed, robust argument makes it problematic to treat AMNH 5767 as a species-level taxon in the same regard as USNM 4734. Such a treatment, when compared to the extensive research conducted by Chure starting in the 1990s, seems inadequate and not well-supported.https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v80.a015

:::Furthermore, Chure’s 2020 study clearly placed AMNH 5767 within Allosaurus, reinforcing the idea that it should not be treated as a separate species, as suggested by some researchers.https://doi.org/10.7717%2Fpeerj.7803 KATgeneral1900 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There is a more definitive consensus here than, for instance, Nanotyrannus, which was merged into Tyrannosaurus (also being a much more extensive article, besides). Research on AMNH 5767 seems to be quite lacking outside of its inclusion in studies on Allosaurus, where it obviously is not the main topic of discussion. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with you and most of these therapods discovered in the morrison during the "bone wars" seem to be allosaurus wannabes or the allosaurus itself. I also think that alot of species are becoming invalid at the moment I just hope to God that chilantaisaurus and deltadromeus mystery is solved. danke 2600:8800:2F2E:C200:2A86:8F3E:95E6:498A (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been notified of this discussion. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be a clear consensus. Even the mentioned 2025 A. europaeus study does not discuss (and therefore does not question) synonymy at genus level (they seem to discuss it as a potentially valid species of Allosaurus). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - is it considered a synonym or a dubious taxon that's merely likely to be Allosaurus? Dubious taxa conventionally get their own articles. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :synonym,I'm sorry to reply so late. KATgeneral1900 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest you not to merge with allosaurus 2601:246:5B83:89D0:C88:5110:9E1D:6AB4 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have a reason for this? The Morrison Man (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Is this IP user the "restore the content" guy? I've noticed this discussion has mostly ended but since similar IP accounts have been leaving these comment elsewhere for paleo merge requests over the last few weeks I thought I would bring it up. It seems someone very unhappy with the recent page merges on WT:DINO has been block evading, so I wonder if this is the same person. Gasmasque (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes because merging is bad 98.223.194.198 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Lol The Morrison Man (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::👍 98.223.194.198 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::With more and more articles, it's less likely unpopular articles will get read, which destroys the whole point: to read the articles. Therefore, merging is not bad. 68.48.8.60 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No point of keeping the pages separate if Epanterias is continuously being considered synonymous with Allosaurus by many modern studies. ExplorerKing (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::merging is terrible 98.223.194.198 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Can you stop. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No 2601:246:5B83:89D0:2042:6DCA:D730:EFBC (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - per above discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)