Contents

Talk:Janenschia

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Holotype display[edit]

Are those really the holotype bones, covered in stones and dust at the Naturkunde Museum, or are they just casts (maybe HMallison knows)? Seems like a bit haphazard way to store them. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a dsiplay showing what the excavation looked like in the field. Nopthing haphazard. HMallison (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they're covered in stones, dust, and equipment, doesn't it damage the bones (if only slightly), by scratching or withering them? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that is around them, not on top of them. HMallison (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright, just wondering! I guess it's similar to this Stegosaurus display[1] (isn't it a holotype as well?), though it seems a bit less "gritty". FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's not the holotype, a right hindlimb in Stuttgart! From Bonaparte (2000), it's clear that the humerus is identical to MBR 2095.7 excavated at Site P. But the picture in that article shows a bone covered in a thick layer of shellac, its parts connected in a continuous restoration. So either this is a cast or someone has removed the varnish and the connective filler in the shaft...--MWAK (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photos in 2009 and 2012, so perhaps something was done in the meantime. The bones certainly looked real, but who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me too, they do not look like a cast. It's puzzling.--MWAK (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]