Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a236bf2108ba51a8

Jump to content

Talk:Tsaagan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 7 years ago by David Marjanović in topic Tsaagan vs. Tsagaan

Tsaagan vs. Tsagaan

[edit]

Is the title of this article correct? The mongolian word for "white" is Tsagaan (цагаан), which would suggest that the animal should be named the same. --Latebird 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right, but they named it Tsaagan anyway. T. bataar should also be T. baatar. Mongolian words tend to get mis-spelled by paleontologists I guess. Dinoguy2 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the title is correct, and yes, the name is incorrect. Someone involved in naming it will probably say something about this issue at some point, but for now it's a really odd typo. J. Spencer 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok then, good to know. --Latebird 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

ICZN Article 32.5.1 seems to mean that the name cannot be corrected, because "in the original publication itself" it just says "ETYMOLOGY: Tsaagan, Mongolian for white; mangas, Mongolian for monster." and doesn't contain any further evidence that this is wrong. A dictionary of Mongolian would presumably count as an "external source of information" and therefore be inadmissible. David Marjanović (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

References (to be integrated into the text)

[edit]

Not sure if it contains any helpful info, but just to bulk up the reference count/duplicity of sources. Shrumster 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. Generally, the reference section should contain only the primary scientific sources, but news stories are ok in external links as long as they don't go dead too quickly (and are accurate--I'd say a vast majority of news stories on dinosaurs get a whole lot of very basic facts wrong and misinterpret what the scientists say). This one seems good, though. Dinoguy2 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

New species, or new genus?

[edit]

According to the current text, "The fossil of Tsaagan was discovered in 1996 and first identified as a specimen of Velociraptor. After a CAT-scan in May 1998 it was concluded that it represented a new species.". Velociraptor is a genus, so if this critter was merely a new species, it would be Velociraptor mangas. Souldn't "new species" be change to "new genus"? Wardog (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yup, fixed it. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction

[edit]

What does the following mean: "Tsaagan represents the only dromaeosaurid remains (other than isolated teeth) known from the Ukhaa Tolgod region, though another dromaeosaurid, Velociraptor, is known from the same formation." FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply