Talk:Wessex Formation

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Wessex Formation is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location Location Location

is it really too much to ask that the article tell us where this formation is? 87.115.79.248 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in England; note the sixth word of the article. Abyssal (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update to faunal list

Thecocospondylus daviesi is the type species of Thecocoelurus von Huene, 1923. It could be an oviraptorosaur (Naish et. al., 2002) or a therizinosaur (Kirkland et. al., 2004).

Pleurocoelus valdensis is a nomen dubium and should apply only to the holotype specimens, and the referred vertebrae don't overlap with the teeth (Upchurch et. al., 2011).

For more info on the systematics and info of Yaverlandia bitholus, see Naish (2011).

Kirkland , J. I., Zanno, L. E., DeBlieux, D. D., Smith, D. K., and Sampson, S. D., 2004, "A new, basal-most therizinosauroid (Theropoda: Maniraptora) from Utah demonstrates a Pan-Laurasian distribution for Early Cretaceous therizinosauroids", Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 24(3) 78A

Naish, D. 2011. Theropod dinosaurs. In Batten, D. J. (ed.) English Wealden Fossils. The Palaeontological Association (London), pp. 526-559.

Upchurch, P., Mannion, P. D. & Barrett, P. M. 2011. Sauropod dinosaurs. In Batten, D. J. (ed.) English Wealden Fossils. The Palaeontological Association (London), pp. 476-525.68.4.61.168 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Suchosaurus

Suchosaurus (and thus the type species s. Cultridens) is a nomen dubium that is virtually indistinguishable from other baryonychines (Mateus et. al, 2011).

Mateus, O., Araújo, R., Natário, C. & Castanhinha, R. 2011. A new specimen of the theropod dinosaur Baryonyx from the early Cretaceous of Portugal and taxonomic validity of Suchosaurus.PDF Zootaxa 2827: 54–68.68.4.61.168 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Pleurocoelus image

The image for Pleurocoelus is that of Pleurocoelus nanus (see http://svpow.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/pleurocoelus-the-birth-of-excellence/), not Pleurocoelus valdensis. Therefore, this image should be removed.68.4.61.168 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Regnosaurus; Ornithocheirus

The supposed presence of Ornithocheirus in the Wessex Formation was based on a proximal left humerus (NHM UK R558) that Lydekker (1888) tentatively referred to Ornithocheirus. However, this specimen is an indeterminate pterosaur (Martill et. al., 1996), so there are no confirmed records of Ornithocheirus from the Wessex.

Regnosaurus northamptoni is from the Grinstead Clay Formation of Sussex, not the Isle of Wight (Barrett and Upchurch 1995). The pubis NHM UK 2516 (which does come from the Isle of Wight) was referred to Regnosaurus by Olshevsky (1996) but does not overlap with the Regnosaurus holotype and instead represents an iguanodont (Maidment et. al. 2008; Galton 2009).

BARRETT, P. M. and UPCHURCH, P. 1995. Regnosaurus northamptoni, a stegosaurian dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of southern England. Geol. Mag. 132 (2), 213-222.

GALTON, P. M. 2009. Notes on Neocomian (Lower Cretaceous) ornithopod dinosaurs from England - Hypsilophodon,Valdosaurus, “Camptosaurus”, “Iguanodon” - and referred specimens from Romania and elsewhere. Revue de Paléobiologie, 28, 211-273.

Lydekker, R., 1888. A Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part 1, Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squmata, Rhynchosauria, and Proterosauria. British Museum (Natural History), London, 309 pp.

Maidment, S. C. R., Norman, D. B., Barrett, P. M., & Upchurch, P. (2008). Systematics and phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 6, 367–407.

Martill, D.M., Frey, E., Green, M., Green, M.E., 1996. Giant pterosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous of the Isle of Wight, UK. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaeontologie, Monatshefte 1996, 672-683.

Olshevsky, G. 1996. Regnosaurus. The Dinosaur Folios 1: 1–8.68.4.61.168 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Wessex turtles

Joyce et al (2011) do not consider Helochelydra anglica referrable to the Wessex genus Helochelydra and instead refer H. anglica along with Trionyx bakewelli (also assigned to Helochelydra by Milner 2004) to the genus Compsemys. This restricts Helochelydra to the type species, H. nopcsai de Lapparent and Murelaga, 1999. As a matter of fact, the species Tretosternon ambiguum is a nomen dubium (Gaffney et. al. 2006).

Joyce, W. G., Chapman, S. D., Moody, R. T. J., and Walker, C. A., 2011, The skull of the solemydid turtle Helochelydra nopcsai from the Early Cretaceous of the Isle of Wight (UK) and a review of Solemydidae): Palaeontology, v. 86, p. 75-97.

Milner, Andrew R. 2004. The Turtles of the Purbeck Limestone of Dorset, Southern England. Palaeontology. Vol. 47. part 6. pp. 1446-1447

F. de Lapparent and X. Murelaga. 1999. Turtles from the Upper Cretaceous of Lano (Iberian Peninsula). Estudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Alava 14(1):135-211

E. S. Gaffney, H. Tong, and P. A. Meylan. 2006. Evolution of the side-necked turtles: The families Bothremydidae, Euraxemydidae, and Araripemydidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 300:1-318. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Geological map of southeast England

The "Geological map of southeast England" that is imaged in the article at present in not very helpful for this article. It does not show the Vectis Formation, and makes us guess that the Weald Clay (9 Green) either is the Wealden Group, or perhaps just part of it. I suggest that it be deleted, or alternatively have the caption state what color the Wessex formation either is or is part of. The article on the Weald Clay indicates that it is part of the Wealden Group (Supergroup), but the Wealden Group article doesn't indicate anything about the Weald clay, but says the only two formations are the Wessex and the Vectis. So where is the Weald Clay? Is the Wessex formation a clay or a sand, or is it interbedded clay and sand? --Bejnar (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat belatedly deleted. The maps used in the Geology of Dorset and Geology of the Isle of Wight are much more detailed, but also don't show a breakdown of the Wealden. Mikenorton (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Weald Clay, it's a partial lateral equivalent of the Wessex Formation found in the Weald area, rather than the Wessex Basin. The Wealden Group article needs expanding to include the Weald Clay and other formations. The lithologies also need adding to this article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small bodied theropod

I saw that a particular small bodied theropod was added to the list of wessex theropods. Do we have any photos of this theropod? If not, is there a website providing some sort of description on a website? DaCaTaraptor (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles on Tetzoo by Darren Naish about that briefly mention the theropod and say that it is an associated partial skeleton, like the end of paragraph 5 on this article and is mentioned on several other articles that I cannot recall, but he doesn't elaborate other than it's an associated skeleton and small bodied (presumably in comparison to taxa like Neovenator and Eotyrannus). As far as I am aware no publicly available photograph of the specimen exists, I don't know if this is because the owner disallows it or Paleontological protocol of not acknowledging privately owned specimens. I asked him personally about the specimen on twitter and he refused to elaborate saying that as a scientist he did not feel comfortable describing in any detail what wasn't in the public domain Which is fair enough to be honest. You might be able to get some additional information by combing through the tetzoo archives, but don't expect much. I've been down to the Wessex formation on the Isle of Wight several times and have met some of the local collectors, but I have no clue who owns this specimen. For a lot of this is stuff is word of mouth only, and you'd really have to go down there yourself and ask around. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's your reasoning for doubting the referral of the basal tetanuran, and saying it's possibly a ceratosaur, do you have a source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find the source, though if I can't I'll revert the changes. It seems as if a variety of wessex theropods (including Thecocoelurus) may have been Noasaurids: the angeac taxa in fact seems to have been a Noasaurid instead, and the "basal tetanuran" resembles the pubes of Masiakasaurus. I think Naish talked about it somewhere, but of course if I can't find the citation / website I'll revert it. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I found the article: he doesn't talk about the basal tetanuran however, but he does mention the status of Abelisauroids and Noasaurids in the Wealden basin here. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the new reconstruction for the Angeac ornithomimosaur? It does look vaguely noasaurid like to me, obviously there were hundreds of bones in the bonebed, from different growth stages, most of which we haven't seen published, so we will have to wait until publication (I don't know how long its going to take, it's already been about 6 years since the bed was discovered) Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it does very much seem to be a Noasaurid, probably even an Elaphrosaurine. What amazes me is apparently Angolin suggested that it was an Abelisauroid instead of a Ornithomimosaur, but was ignored by some. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently it comes out as a Noasaurid when Valdoraptor is included in the phylogeny, but comes out ornithomimosaur when it is excluded. Apparently at least 8 individuals are represented, so we should get a good idea of what it looks like, I wonder if it's a similar sort of scenario to the Hypsilophodon beds in the Wessex formation. Which got a paper on it last year Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Eotyrannus cisiopurple.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Iguanodon new NT.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given the distinct scope of Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight. Klbrain (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a merging of Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight into this article. Discuss here! -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per comments at WT:PALEO. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They don't entirely overlap in scope. Vectaerovenator is known from the Ferruginous Sands, and Mantellisaurus is known from the Vectis Formation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to Hemiauchenia's point, I think that the article has potential value, if it had more coverage of the paleontological history of the Isle of Wight and the cultural and scientific importance of its dinosaurs. However, I'm not outright voting to oppose the merger yet, as I don't know how much could be added along those lines. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge the two! This page is incredibly helpful for those looking up IOW dinosaurs, and I agree with previous comments that there are dinosaurs from other formations. Links to the Wessex Formation are there if people want more information! 78.150.71.134 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dorset map

@Hemiauchenia: the caption for the map in the infobox says "exposures in Dorset nor shown". Would it be helpful if I produced a cropped version of File:Dorset Geology.png, showing just the section of the map that covers the outcrops mentioned in the article? I'll trim the key a bit and shift it to make a better balanced map. Mikenorton (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here it is, not sure where it would best fit into the article - you don't seem to be able to add a second map to the infobox. Unfortunately, due to a hard disk crash five years ago, the original svg file is lost, so I've had to work with the existing png file, which isn't quite as ideal. Mikenorton (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried putting it directly beneath the infobox. BTW I'm colour blind so you'll need to confirm that the Wealden Group is turquoise on that map. Mikenorton (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I didn't get an edit conflict, but we can compare the two - I'm happy with either. Mikenorton (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]