Talk:Allosaurus

Allosaurus? amplus (Marsh, 1879) Galton et al., 2015

Hi again! Like with A. lucasi of Dalman (2014), this article and Taxonomy of Allosaurus are missing any information about "Camptonotus" amplus Marsh, 1879, tentatively referred to Allosaurus by Galton et al. (2015). I'm not sure there's been much discussion on it since 2015, but here is the paper. Something for @Jens Lallensack as well? Richardhesutton (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch – I will add it to the "Taxonomy of Allosaurus" article as soon as time permits. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Now added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Allosaurus, Antrodemus, and the skeleton at Princeton University

Dear Srain, Sadistik, Quadalpha, Pyroclastic, Pufferfish101, Proyster, PoliticsIsExciting, MementoVivere, Mark K. Jensen, LaborHorizontal, Katherine.Holt, HolyCrocsEmperor, Doctor Whom, Djkeddie, Dcandeto, Chwagen and Ajkessel.
In the history of Allosaurus skeletal mounts, there's an important skeleton that is mentioned in two articles at least: Antrodemus and Jurassic National Monument. Important because it was one of the first real-fossil skeletons of Allosaurus to be mounted and the very first to be mounted out of bones extracted at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. The article Jurassic National Monument states "This Allosaurus skeleton, still nowadays on display at Guyot Hall, in the campus of New Jersey"... but this is not true because in 2024 the skeleton was sent to Canada for restoration and when it was sent back to Princeton it was mounted elsewhere, at a facility now attributed to the High Meadows Environmental Institute (thus it is no longer in Guyot Hall). I have one source but it is not a reliable one: https://www.instagram.com/p/DYp1beullzc/. All of you are Princeton alumni and I'd like to know if you can provide at least one reliable source to this information. Thank you in advance! Kintaro (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I found at least one reliable source, this article, published in Princeton Alumni Weekly. Do you have any other sources? (just in case). Kintaro (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, thank you all and bye bye, happy editing to all. Kintaro (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kintaro: Many thanks for that. We have a problem with WP:UNDUE though; this is an overview article and not the place for such detailed information. I will think about where to best move the text; maybe a dedicated article for this specimen is a solution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Jens Lallensack. That skeleton in 1961 was the very first Allosaurus skeleton (Antrodemus at the time of the mounting) to present a bulk of 100% complete bones (though of composite individuals from the same site and with the skull being a cast, but for the purpose of lightening the mount only, because the individuals found really had their skull bones at the site). There were very few real-fossil Allosaurus skeletons at the time in 1961, and these other few (one was at the American Museum of Natural History in New York for example) had been complemented with plaster-sculpted elements in order to meet the needed genuine missing parts. The "Princeton Allosaurus" (or "Princeton Antrodemus", historically talking) really is exceptional. This is why I think that, at least historically, it is important enoug so that it stays in the article. If you prefer to create a new article on this skeleton, rather than about one skeleton only (as much important it may be), we should create an article about all known specimens and skeletons of Allosaurus, like the equivalent article Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Could a brief mention be relevant in the taxonomy of Allosaurus article, as it goes into that kind of history? But yeah, I think detailed discussion of it should be kept at the Antrodemus article itself. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I don't think that this piece of history really meets the taxonomical thing. It's not a specimen but a composite skeleton resulting of 44-50 indistinguishable specimens (more exactly: 44-50 individuals, seeing as each bone alone, normally, has to be considered as a scientific specimen, and/or a scientific collected element). For the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry only presents (sadly) fully disarticulated bones, a real jumble of bones in the bone bed. As a consequence, Jim Madsen's monograph (1976), which is a milestone in the history of the taxonomy of this genus, obviously couldn't be based on composite skeletons. I'm not lecturing you, FunkMonk, you already know these things, but I prefer to point them out so that it is clear why the mention of one composite skeleton doesn't match an article about the taxonomy. In a nutshell: the paragraph in this article may seem too long to you as it is at the moment, but the historical importance of the skeleton (in light of Allosaurus research and Allosaurus exhibit to the public) should be mentioned nevertheless, one way or another. Anyway, the paragraph doesn't give me the impression to be that long. Kintaro (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant more in the sense that it has significance to the usage of the name Antrodemus that at least one museum didn't make the switch for decades. As for detailed information, I think it's best kept at the Antrodemus article due to WP:undue weight issues. There are a lot of significant Allosaurus specimens, they can't all be covered in full in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand why important skeletal mounts (of Allosaurus) shouldn't be mentioned in the affected article (the article about Allosaurus). As a conclusion, after having read the above arguments, a section about Allosaurus skeletal mounts is noteworthy and 100% sense-making. Let's create it then. Kintaro (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue with covering skeletal mounts in detail is that there are rarely detailed reliable sources dedicated to them. Not against covering them when those exist, but not sure how much is written about Allosaurus ones - maybe the AMNH one? There are some public domain archival photos of it in the original dinosaur hall. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I added that paragraph about this specific skeleton to the subsection "Renaming to Antrodemus and early discoveries at Dinosaur National Monument" because of its exceptionally long-lasting (63 years) labelling as Antrodemus, but the paragraph equally fits well (maybe even better) within the subsection "Cleveland-Lloyd discoveries and Big Al". Indeed, the excavation of the bones took place at the Cleveland-Lloyd site. By the way, about this section, "Cleveland-Lloyd discoveries and Big Al", only the first paragraph seems to really deal with the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. It is really surprising indeed that the paleontological site that gave the greater number of Allosaurus bones is in fact sporadically mentioned here and there all along the article, not being extensively developed under the section title supposedly created on that purpose. Long story the Cleveland-Lloyd story, as of 1960 at least 65 skeletal cast mounts of Allosaurus spread all around the world, plus important numbers as well of casts of Camptosaurus, Stegosaurus and Camarasaurus. Well, enough said, let's go back to business: in the history of Allosaurus research this skeleton is far more than worth mention, it's notable 1) because it was the very first skeleton that was mounted out of bones from the Cleveland-Lloyd site, 2) because in the history of Allosaurus skeletal mounts, that one was the first to be constituted by 100% real-fossil bone and 3) the name Antrodemus stuck to its labelling until very recently (2024), which is an example of the complicated history of the genus. Kintaro (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a WP:FA; if we have an entire paragraph on this specimen, we have to have paragraphs on all other significant specimens as well. But then we run into length issues (we always try to stay below 8000 words of prose; this article is currently above that threshold). Maybe we could keep just one sentence on the specimen here? As to the venue for the rest of your text, I see that you already copied it to Antrodemus. Maybe that would work for the time being? For the long run – yes, I personally think a Specimens of Allosaurus article might be needed to comprehensively cover the topic. Btw, is any reliable source stating that it is a composite? That is not mentioned in your text. And is there a specimen number? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, LittleLazyLass. I see no point in standing tall in front of you all if I'm the only one who argues in favour of this paragraph... so I finally removed it from the article (I also removed the image I've brought to illustrate the paragraph). As per there's no goal for the article to focus on specific specimens I removed the mention of "Big Al" from the title of the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry subsection. Furthermore, the Big Al specimens ("Big Al" and "Big Al 2"), are both from the same quarry in Wyoming, not Cleveland-Lloyd in Utah. Logically, I relocated two paragraphs (that have nothing to do with the Cleveland-Lloyd site) from the Cleveland-Lloyd subsection to the appropriate subsection, which is the perfect fit for them. In accordance with that, I renamed the subsection with all the species (whether taxonomically admitted or not) that the subsection mentions: "A. jimmadseni, A. atrox, A. lucasi and A. anax". At first I thought that, if renamed so, the subsection should show the "main" tag with a link to "Taxonomy of Allosaurus", but that "main" tag would have been a duplication because, above the subsections, the section's title, "History of discovery", already shows the tag and link. By the way, Jens Lallensack, yes, all the sources that I provided mention the fact that the Princeton skeleton is a composite of different individuals, but now they are removed, they were thrown out with the whole paragraph. The mention to this skeleton could return to the article if consensus is reached. Maybe in the future, who knows. Kintaro (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. As said, I will see if I can fit a sentence on this specimen in, within the Cleveland-Lloyd paragraph. As for Big Al, this is arguably a much more important specimen that received significant coverage not only on museum websites but in the scholarly literature, and deserves appropriate coverage here. From experience, the content is also better organized in chronological order (it can be confusing when discussing Marsh taxa like atrox in the section concerned with newer discoveries such as jimmadseni). Hope that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, I hope you'll realise that these two edits of mine that you boldly undid (apparently not even reading the resulting state of the article, nor my comment, nor my argumentation above) were the plain and simple result of the arguments that you yourselves, you three, were pretending as valid against my former views! I did remove the paragraph! Now, please Jens Lallensack, provide some effort and read the article as I left it at this point: this is by far much more sense-making. The article cannot be at 100% chronologically organised because specimens that nothing have to do with Cleveland-Lloyd... cannot go the Cleveland-Lloyd subsection (Cleveland-Lloyd excavations started in 1927 and species A. jimmadseni, A. atrox, A. lucasi and A. anax mainly belong to 1990s taxonomy and onwards). And no section nor subsection mentions other specimens than Big Al, so I don't see why we should make an exception for Big Al and not for the Princeton skeleton. Kintaro (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Rest assured that I read and understood everything you wrote, but I think that the restructuring is not an improvement (I explained why). Let's see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It is obvious that all readers coming across this subsection title will think that the "Big Al" specimen comes from the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, and this is why your choice is nothing but a bad editing choice. The two paragraphs I relocated only fit with another set of species mentioned together at the subsection that I retitled... yet at this state (your last editing) the subsection is titled "A. jimmadseni and A. anax" but simultaneously mentions other species, like A. maximus or A. lucasi. The proof is in the pudding my friend... Kintaro (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't been reached and the mention of the Princeton skeleton has been removed from the article. The section can be archived. Kintaro (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oddities and inconsistencies

1) Genus Antrodemus went on to be replaced by genus Allosaurus (as the valid taxon) mainly because of the abundant remains found at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, contrary to the scarce remains of the Antrodemus holotype. Such a switch of names happened as a consequence of Jim Madsen Jr's monograph (and suggestion) of 1976, after Madsen had spent 16 years excavating and studying the quarry. This is why that quarry is so important in view of Allosaurus, and this is why this should be mentioned in the article. In fact, it is mentioned in different parts of the article... such as the Dinosaur National Monument section... but not in the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry section (Jurassic National Monument). How contradictory! How is that?
2) Plus, out of the three paragraphs in which the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry section consists of, only the first paragraph deals with the quarry. The two other paragraphs deal with the Big Al specimens and the jimmadseni species (paragraph 2), and scientists' speculation on potentially valid species for genus Allosaurus (paragraph 3). These two paragraphs, 2 and 3 in the Cleveland-Lloyd section, perfectly meet the purpose of another section that is titled "A. jimmadseni and A. anax". Therefore, the first paragraph should stay and constitute the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry section (why not for further development in the future), and the second and third paragraphs should migrate to the "A. jimmadseni and A. anax" section.
Contrary to what Jens Lallensack says (see above), applying my two suggestions to the article won't unsettle the proper alignment between the chronological order of events and the chronological order of narration in the article (1960s/1970s for the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry section and 1990s for the A. jimmadseni and A. anax section). Kintaro (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have several issues with these suggestions: 1) You write: "Such a switch of names happened as a consequence of Jim Madsen Jr's monograph (and suggestion) of 1976, after Madsen had spent 16 years excavating and studying the quarry. This is why that quarry is so important in view of Allosaurus" – I don't think so; the switch was based on Madsen's analysis of the types of A. fragilis and Antrodemus valens, and not just because of the Cleveland-Lloyed discoveries. 2) We generally try to avoid repeating what was already stated earlier in the article. 3) The Cleveland-Lloyd section already establishes the importance of the quarry very clearly ("The great quantity of well-preserved Allosaurus remains has allowed this genus to be known in great detail, making it among the best-known of all theropods"). 4) We try to avoid headings for short paragraphs. 5) the section "A. jimmadseni, A. anax, A. lucasi and A. anax" would be much too long, 6) Big Al is significant enough to be mentioned in a heading title. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear Jens, 1) You say "the switch was based on Madsen's analysis of the types of A. fragilis and Antrodemus valens, and not just because of the Cleveland-Lloyed discoveries". I already know that none of the two types comes from the Cleveland-Lloyd site, same as I know that Madsen, for obvious reasons, was forced to compare both types if he wanted to make his proposal. Nevertheless, had not the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry provided so many individuals, never Madsen would have revised Antrodemus into Allosaurus. On top of that, the article itself supports my claim: Antrodemus became the accepted name for this familiar genus for over 50 years, until James H. Madsen published on the Cleveland-Lloyd specimens and concluded that Allosaurus should be used because Antrodemus was based on material with poor, if any, diagnostic features and locality information. For example, the geological formation that the single bone of Antrodemus came from is unknown. Thus there's a relation between the great number of specimens at the Cleveland-Lloyd site and the return of Allosaurus in 1976. 2) "We generally try to avoid repeating what was already stated earlier in the article", I'm not suggesting that one more duplication appears in the article, I'm suggesting to rearrange the wording everywhere in the article so that every section well deserves its real importance and relevancy. You wanted a chronological narration of the events: we don't have it. What we do have is that the section on the Dinosaur National Monument mentions too early the other quarry and the 50 next years in the history of this taxonomy. Indeed, the Antrodemus recovery occurred in 1920, then significant excavations at the Cleveland-Lloyd site started by 1960, and then, in 1976, this is 56 years after 1920, we switched back to Allosaurus. It is obvious that the 1920 Antrodemus recovery fits well in the section about the Dinosaur National Monument... but not the mention of the 1976 renaming, not even mentioning that it did happen in 1976. The year, in the history of the research on Allosaurus, nowhere in the article is clarified to the reader. It should be clarified, at the right place. 3) Already treated in the previous point. 4) "We try to avoid headings for short paragraphs": whatever the length will result for this section, there's one paragraph that meets the relevancy of the section title, and two paragrahs that do not. 5) «the section "A. jimmadseni, A. anax, A. lucasi and A. anax" would be much too long» : I titled this discussion section "Oddities and inconsistencies". Please read what follows the section's title only. 6) "Big Al is significant enough to be mentioned in a heading title": absolutely not. Big Al and Big Al 2 are important specimens, but not to the point to force us to name them in a heading title. Big Al and Big Al 2 belong to the jimmadseni species and the section under title "A. jimmadseni and A. anax" is the only one (in the article as the article is right now) that should contain these two paragraphs. These two paragraphs have nothing to do with the Cleveland-Lloyd discoveries. The third paragraph mentions that quarry but only as a comparison element with other sites and specimens in order to distinguish species within the genus... therefore it properly matches the "A. jimmadseni and A. anax" section. Kintaro (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"had not the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry provided so many individuals, never Madsen would have revised Antrodemus into Allosaurus." – do you have a reliable source stating this, without the need for going into WP:Synth? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You're not responding to my main points. This phrase that you just quoted is not in the article, neither written by me nor by others, nor I'm asking for the inclusion of the sentence in the article. It is an argument in a talk page, no more... no less, an argument that is plainly and simply sustained by a reading of Allosaurus fragilis: A Revised Osteology (Madsen, 1976). That text is archived so you can read it here. But as I said, you're not responding to my main points. Please focus on the substance of this talk, which is not the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in itself. So please, no more distractions: we talk about issues in the article and how to settle them. If you ghost my arguments again, as you just did above, I'll feel free to bring to the article the few improvements I mentioned. Kintaro (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My question was directly concerning your point 1 you posted above, which is, I believe, not actionable because you do not provide a source. And I simply think your points are based on a misunderstanding: There is no casual relationship between Cleveland-Lloyd and the renaming. In his work, Madsen reestablished the name Allosaurus (on p. 11–13) before he went on to describe the Cleveland-Lloyd material. Your second point seems to be that one particular heading uses the word "and" to combine two separate topics (Cleveland-Lloyd discoveries and "Big Al"). Note that this is common practice in FAs to avoid single-paragraph sections (as I already explained) and I really do not see the issue. May I also point you to WP:CIVIL; do to the aggressive tone used here I don't think I'm motivated to further engage with you here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You did ghost my arguments in your previous post and, happily, not in that latter. So there's no aggression, I simply pointed out that fact. Plus, I'm not editing the article, so I'm not stepping into an edit war neither. I'm discussing. Just discussing. Leaving the article as you wanted it to be. Aren't you happy with that? Is aggressive somebody who discusses things in the talk page before consensus is reached? On the above topic, I accepted all arguments against the mention of the Princeton University skeleton in the article and, consequently, I removed my own contribution myself. Would you dare to call this an aggressive behaviour? Good, now that we are back on topic, you seem to think that I want to bring new information to the article, which obviously would require some sourcing, but, again, that's not my point. Anywway, others will read this topic, let's wait and see what happens next. Kintaro (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If not aggression, I do feel that "If you ghost my arguments again, as you just did above, I'll feel free to bring to the article the few improvements I mentioned." is a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is a statement neither considerate nor respectful. In fact, the above comment does not strike me as particularly civil either, as "Leaving the article as you wanted it to be. Aren't you happy with that?" feels quite accusatory. Regardless:

You say that bringing new information to the article is not your point. If that's the case I do not understand what your point is. As Jens said, Madsen reestablished Allosaurus before his work describing material from Cleveland-Lloyd. Your initial labeling of that section as the "Cleveland-Lloyd section" as opposed to the section "Cleveland-Lloyd and Big Al" makes it clear why you think the paragraphs on those specimens don't belong there. It's a commonplace thing to combine topics to ensure that paragraphs arent too short, as Jens mentioned above. This is done right above said section in "Renaming to Antrodemus and early discoveries at Dinosaur National Monument", the two of which also inherently don't have anything to do with one another, other than that they advanced our knowledge of the genus within a similar timeframe. This method of inclusion also allows us to place the discovery before the roughly 30-year gap until the specimens were assigned to A. jimmadseni in 2020.

I would like to know what point it is that you're trying to make, exactly. What concrete changes do you wish to be made to the article? The Morrison Man (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Morrison Man. Jens reverted my editing with the comment Feel free to discuss on the talk if you disagree, thanks... and that's what I did. I haven't edited the article since then and I haven't attacked anyone. If you and Jens see me as aggressive, it's best to just give up. Really, no worries, I won't discuss this matter any further. Kintaro (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)