text:
Talk:Rapeseed

Missing vital information
I can't believe the awful smell of rapeseed fields isn't mentioned in the entire article. It stinks, I grew up in an area where it was grown. Big smelly yellow fields. Rapes your nostrils.

86.139.5.92 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Now known as canola"?
Not here in the United Kingdom, it isn't — I for one have only ever seen it as "rapeseed oil". I suspect that whoever wrote this section, or the section title at any rate, is suffering the "we are the world syndrome" — the conviction that the world map consists of the USA and "here be dragons". — 188.28.54.179 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never before heard the term "rapeseed". Every store around me has CANOLA oil and I live in Philadelphia, only 1.5 hours away from NYC.74.109.49.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 * hey, don't pin this one on us yanks -- the "can" in canola is for CANADA!!!! 66.105.218.9 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Have a go at editing Wikipedia yourself to transfer references of Canola to the article on Canola. This would help to counter systemic bias--Aspro (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ive never heard of it being called rapeseed oil... I suspect our OP is suffering from the conviction that the world is homogeneous outside the US. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

GMO?
RE Gmo. If anybody asks if the old type rapeseed with quite a some erucid acid was converted by GMO into modern rapeseed / canola, with just minute traces of erucid acid. Nay, this was done by strict, systematic and controlled selection, long before any GMO was thought off... So it was done in Sweden, and I bet so it was done in USA / Canada too.../StefanZ, Sweden90.231.255.39 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)/StefanZ

Is the GMO controversy section really relevant on this page? There is a more level-headed paragraph on the Canola page. «ɧʒχχ (tOk•k«n'trIb) » 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Urdu: spleen

The link to the Urdu version of this article actually links to Spleen. I have no idea how to fix this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.112.206 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Urdu: spleen
The link to the Urdu version of this article actually links to Spleen. I have no idea how to fix this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.112.206 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Canola
There is much overlap with the Canola page. I propose Canola deal with the oil and Rapeseed with the plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.76.24 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions
I have added an example of a pest to oil-seed rape. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rape reference
Not sure why only one of the names listed in the intro needs a reference, but how is the Encyclopedia Brittanica? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491375/rape 122.106.178.25 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You're right the other names need to have citations. Please see the new Common names section I added to the article. Hamamelis (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a one-sided ad
Excuse me, but this entire article seems to be a one-sided ad for the benefits of Canola oil. It may well as be directly from the financial supporters that tend to turn a blind eye to any problems. Notice how many of the references are from such dubious mono-sources in Canada? A balanced article would include the multitudes of problems associated with the direct human consumption of this product.

It would also include the controversy on how it became elevated to "safe food" status so quickly, with big cash payment to the FDA a waiver on human testing being needed to do so. That's the real reason for the difference in the names: Rapeseed oil (not the greens) was known to be toxic for animal or human consumption for many decades before WWII, and so the term Rapeseed use in the USA is discouraged by the Federal Government, AG universities such as Purdue, and also in the Farm trade magazines, where it is called "oilseed turnip".

From my personal experience, ANY trans-fat acid derived from this plant contains long-term health detriments that are not mentioned, or if brought to light, squashed by paid promoters of this product. 2% is not a low enough level to suit me. How about none? That sounds a lot better. I have eliminated CANOLA from my diet for the last year, and with it I eliminated: Chronic diarrhea, frequent low-level nausea, night-time stomach upset/heartburn, and excessive gas. Now I learn that it can inflame circulatory and cardiac tissues, one of the few negative effects listed in this article, I am even more glad I have removed it from my diet. Canola seems to me to be little better than smoking cigarettes: slow poison to a healthy person, somewhat quicker for a sick or older one.

One other controversy: the forced placement of Canola as a suitable substitute for olive oil. It simply is not. The over all chemical profile of olive oil can be described as anti-inflammatory. The overall chemical profile of Canola is pro-inflammatory. Big difference on long-term health effects. DHS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.77.237 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Can you provide reliable sources supporting your views? HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

vegetable or oil use?
The opening sentence is quite long and ends with "consumed in China and Southern Africa as a vegetable." As I read it I say to myself "I guess it is most important as a Chinese vegetable, which is why two Chinese names are given, and no African or any other name. Then the last line of the lede says "B. napus is cultivated mainly for its oil-rich seed, the third-largest source of vegetable oil in the world." Now I say to myself "that's certainly what I'm familiar with."  I think the lede should just give some basic intro material to the article.  The article is certainly about the oilseed perspective.  So I recommend that the mention of Chinese names and its consumption as a vegetable be moved to a separate section of the article on "Rapeseed plant as a vegetable" or something like that.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Name change to canola oil.
The section "cultivation and uses" mentions that the name was changed because of the resemblance to "rape". This is not true. The product and name, "rapeseed oil", is still used, but it's toxic and not suitable for human consumption. Canola oil is edible variant.

http://www.britannica.com/plant/rape-plant

http://www.wdm.ca/skteacherguide/WDMResearch/CanolaResearchPaper.pdf

www.naturalnews.com/034733_canola_oil_rapeseed_food_labels.html

217.121.65.15 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Edible rapeseed is usually known as "cold-pressed rapeseed oil" in the UK. The name Canola is little used. Both articles seem to need attention by an expert. --Mervyn (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Just removed non verified connotations to human rape in both articles. The reference given did not mention this linguistic link.--Aspro (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"seed press-cake"
We seem to be on the same wavelength regarding the article Rapeseed. I see where your coming from with Pomace but that is nearly always considered the residue from fruit. Therefore, I add this: A farmer or farm manager tends to like to keep things simple and may refer to "seed press-cake" as simply cattle cake or meal or what ever phrase suffices in polite conversations down at the Pub. When bought in (to feed livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs etc)) this meal (from what ever source) may have have additives like molasses and vitamins added to it  suit the livestock that it is being feed to. So, I think meal is better than  "seed press-cake" which gets processed before the cattle or pigs get to eat it. What we really need, is a farm manager that has gone to agricultural collage (and has enough degrees in this subject to get a job as a greenhouse thermometer) to comment. --Aspro (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interests of helping the WP consumer, we should link to existing articles which in this case is apparently best-suited to press cake, also supported by WP:SECONDARY references where found, such as here for crushed seeds. Press cake from seeds is not always destined for animal feed, but is also a source of dietary fiber, protein and micronutrients for manufacturing human foods and supplements. --Zefr (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Good point but I think it comes down to the vernacular. Farmers refer to it as rapeseed meal because it is meal that comes from processed rapeseed. Pressed cake is more of an industrial nomenclature and thus the  average reader my confuse  pressed cake from sunflowers, with  pressed cake from rapeseed and competently lose the connection with meal.  Never seen humans eating pressed cake ! Comes in large diameter short lengths like this Oil press cake. Now-days gets turned into meal instead. Rapeseed meal.  'Meal' is what ends up in your snack- bars not lumps of cake but I am more than willing for someone with an agricultural and live-stock  degree to correct me.--Aspro (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rapeseed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208134100/http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2011/March/oilseeds.pdf to http://www.fas.usda.gov/oilseeds/circular/2011/March/oilseeds.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Rapeseed-Mustard cultivation in India- An Overview
"Rapeseed oil takes between 135 and 150 days to mature, with some varieties only taking 110."Cited PDF This sentence caught my eye because it doesn't make sense, but clicking through to the source it seems to be an overview of "rapeseed mustard", not specifically brassica napus. The section this info appears in starts off specifically mentioning brassica juncea so I'm not sure the information is actually relevant. It also refers to the crop, not the oil. I think this source has potential uses, but not this bit and not here like this. I think I've just convinced myself to delete the line, but I'll leave this here in case anyone has the time to read the source and put in something better. Dichohecho (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ETA: I deleted both uses of the source. Brassica_juncea oil-seed mustard is included in canola along with brassica napus but is definitely not the same thing. I suspect this is where some of the confusion has arisen. There are some references to brassica napus in the source but the specific parts used here (before I deleted them) referred to all of the looser group of brassicas used for oil. Dichohecho (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Too jargony?
Is the writing style used in common in Wikipedia? Seems a bit too specialist style to me, but that could be due to lack of experience. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Derek Canola: Dead
Derek Canola has died. Inimical Jim (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Pieris rapae
Pieris rapae should be added to the pests section. Jidanni (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Rapeseed oil -> Canola oil instead?
I only just learnt that 'that North American canola thing' is rapeseed oil - or at least *a* rapeseed oil, still not sure if there's a distinction and if there is that I understand it. But perhaps 'rapeseed oil' should redirect to 'canola oil' rather than to 'rapeseed'? If canola oil is a subset of rapeseed oils, then perhaps that page should be renamed 'rapeseed oil', with a section or whatever on what makes such an oil canola or not. OJFord (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A merge has recently been proposed which resolves this, although in a different way. Interested parties might want to comment at Talk:Colza oil. Klbrain (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Rape Link
What is the reason for the link of the word "rape" in this article to the seperate article on (sexual assault) rape. Each article gives an etymology and the word rape appears to derive from two different Latin words, so there isn't even a "language link". 2A00:23C7:5992:4A00:6917:1DF2:E0FC:1066 (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Brassica napus should not redirect to Rapeseed
Rapeseed and Canola are only a few of the many varieties or cultivars of Brassica napus. Brassica napus deserves its own page about the whole species, similar to the pages on Brassica oleracea and Brassica juncea. I remember that Brassica napus used to have its own page instead of redirecting to Rapeseed. What happened to that page? Bengtang (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 * I strongly second that. This page is like as if Brassica oleracea should redirect to Cabbage, ignoring Kale, Cauliflower and Brussel sprouts.
 * Now for instance the page on Rutabaga is orphaned. We need a page on the plant, and one each on the most important cultivars, just like the other Brassicas, and other cultural plants in Wikipedia for that matter. jax (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rapeseed


text:
Tathong Channel

Tathong Channel, also known as Nam Tong Hoi Hap (, originally ), refers to the eastern sea water area in Hong Kong leading into Victoria Harbour through Lei Yue Mun, bounded by Junk Island (Fat Tong Chau) and Tung Lung Chau in the east, and Hong Kong Island in the west.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tathong Channel


text:
Baryonyx

Baryonyx is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in the Barremian stage of the Early Cretaceous period, about 130–125 million years ago. The first skeleton was discovered in 1983 in the Smokejack Clay Pit, of Surrey, England, in sediments of the Weald Clay Formation, and became the holotype specimen of Baryonyx walkeri, named by palaeontologists Alan J. Charig and Angela C. Milner in 1986. The generic name, Baryonyx, means "heavy claw" and alludes to the animal's very large claw on the first finger; the specific name, walkeri, refers to its discoverer, amateur fossil collector William J. Walker. The holotype specimen is one of the most complete theropod skeletons from the UK (and remains the most complete Spinosaurid), and its discovery attracted media attention. Specimens later discovered in other parts of the United Kingdom and Iberia have also been assigned to the genus, though many have since been moved to new genera.

The holotype specimen, which may not have been fully grown, was estimated to have been between 7.5 and 10 m long and to have weighed between 1.2 and 2 MT. Baryonyx had a long, low, and narrow snout, which has been compared to that of a gharial. The tip of the snout expanded to the sides in the shape of a rosette. Behind this, the upper jaw had a notch which fitted into the lower jaw (which curved upwards in the same area). It had a triangular crest on the top of its nasal bones. Baryonyx had a large number of finely serrated, conical teeth, with the largest teeth in front. The neck formed an S-shape, and the neural spines of its dorsal vertebrae increased in height from front to back. One elongated neural spine indicates it may have had a hump or ridge along the centre of its back. It had robust forelimbs, with the eponymous first-finger claw measuring about 31 cm long.

Now recognised as a member of the family Spinosauridae, Baryonyx affinities were obscure when it was discovered. Some researchers have suggested that Suchosaurus cultridens is a senior synonym (being an older name), and that Suchomimus tenerensis belongs in the same genus; subsequent authors have kept them separate. Baryonyx was the first theropod dinosaur demonstrated to have been piscivorous (fish-eating), as evidenced by fish scales in the stomach region of the holotype specimen. It may also have been an active predator of larger prey and a scavenger, since it also contained bones of a juvenile iguanodontid. The creature would have caught and processed its prey primarily with its forelimbs and large claws. Baryonyx may have had semi-aquatic habits, and coexisted with other theropod, ornithopod, and sauropod dinosaurs, as well as pterosaurs, crocodiles, turtles and fishes, in a fluvial environment.

History of discovery
In January 1983, the plumber and amateur fossil collector William J. Walker explored the Smokejack Clay Pit, a clay pit in the Weald Clay Formation near Ockley in Surrey, England. He found a rock wherein he discovered a large claw, but after piecing it together at home, he realised the tip of the claw was missing. Walker returned to the same spot in the pit some weeks later, and found the missing part after searching for an hour. He also found a and part of a. Walker's son-in-law later brought the claw to the Natural History Museum of London, where it was examined by the palaeontologists Alan J. Charig and Angela C. Milner, who identified it as belonging to a theropod dinosaur. The palaeontologists found more bone fragments at the site in February, but the entire skeleton could not be collected until May and June due to weather conditions at the pit. A team of eight museum staff members and several volunteers excavated 2 MT of rock matrix in 54 blocks over a three-week period. Walker donated the claw to the museum, and the Ockley Brick Company (owners of the pit) donated the rest of the skeleton and provided equipment. The area had been explored for 200 years, but no similar remains had been found before.

Most of the bones collected were encased in siltstone nodules surrounded by fine sand and silt, with the rest lying in clay. The bones were and scattered over a 5 by area, but most were not far from their natural positions. The position of some bones was disturbed by a bulldozer, and some were broken by mechanical equipment before they were collected. Preparing the specimen was difficult, due to the hardness of the siltstone matrix and the presence of siderite; acid preparation was attempted, but most of the matrix was removed mechanically. It took six years of almost constant preparation to get all the bones out of the rock, and by the end, dental tools and air mallets had to be used under a microscope. The specimen represents about 65 per cent of the skeleton, and consists of partial skull bones, including premaxillae (first bones of the upper jaw); the left maxillae (second bone of the upper jaw); both nasal bones; the left lacrimal; the left prefrontal; the left postorbital; the braincase including the occiput; both dentaries (the front bones of the lower jaw); various bones from the back of the lower jaw; teeth; cervical (neck), dorsal (back), and caudal (tail) ; ribs; a ; both (shoulder blades); both ; both  (upper arm bones); the left  and  (lower arm bones); finger bones and  (claw bones); hip bones; the upper end of the left  (thigh bone) and lower end of the right; right  (of the lower leg); and foot bones including an ungual. The original specimen number was BMNH R9951, but it was later re-catalogued as NHMUK PV R9951.

In 1986, Charig and Milner named a new genus and species with the skeleton as holotype specimen: Baryonyx walkeri. The generic name derives from ancient Greek; βαρύς (barys) means "heavy" or "strong", and ὄνυξ (onyx) means "claw" or "talon". The specific name honours Walker, for discovering the specimen. At that time, the authors did not know if the large claw belonged to the hand or the foot (as in dromaeosaurs, which it was then assumed to be ). The dinosaur had been presented earlier the same year during a lecture at a conference about dinosaur systematics in Drumheller, Canada. Due to ongoing work on the bones (70 per cent had been prepared at the time), they called their article preliminary and promised a more detailed description at a later date. Baryonyx was the first large Early Cretaceous theropod found anywhere in the world by that time. Before the discovery of Baryonyx the last significant theropod find in the United Kingdom was Eustreptospondylus in 1871, and in a 1986 interview Charig called Baryonyx "the best find of the century" in Europe. Baryonyx was widely featured in international media, and was nicknamed "Claws" by journalists punning on the title of the film Jaws. Its discovery was the subject of a 1987 BBC documentary, and a cast of the skeleton is mounted at the Natural History Museum in London. In 1997, Charig and Milner published a monograph describing the holotype skeleton in detail. The holotype specimen remains the most completely known spinosaurid skeleton.

Assigned specimens
Fossils from other parts of the UK and Iberia, mostly isolated teeth, have subsequently been attributed to Baryonyx or similar animals. Isolated teeth and bones from the Isle of Wight, including hand bones reported in 1998 and a vertebra reported by the palaeontologists Steve Hutt and Penny Newbery in 2004, have been attributed to this genus. A maxilla fragment from La Rioja, Spain, was attributed to Baryonyx by the palaeontologists Luis I. Viera and José Angel Torres in 1995 (although the palaeontologist Thomas R. Holtz and colleagues raised the possibility that it could have belonged to Suchomimus in 2004). In 1999, a postorbital,, tooth, vertebral remains, (hand bones), and a phalanx from the Salas de los Infantes deposit in Burgos Province, Spain, were attributed to an immature Baryonyx (though some of these elements are unknown in the holotype) by the palaeontologist Carolina Fuentes Vidarte and colleagues. Dinosaur tracks near Burgos have also been suggested to belong to Baryonyx or a similar theropod.

In 2011, a specimen (Catalogued as ML1190 in Museu da Lourinhã) from the Papo Seco Formation in Boca do Chapim, Portugal, with a fragmentary dentary, teeth, vertebrae, ribs, hip bones, a scapula, and a phalanx bone, was attributed to Baryonyx by the palaeontologist Octávio Mateus and colleagues, the most complete Iberian remains of the animal. The skeletal elements of this specimen are also represented in the more complete holotype (which was of similar size), except for the mid-neck vertebrae. In 2018, the palaeontologist Thomas M. S. Arden and colleagues found that the Portuguese skeleton did not belong to Baryonyx, since the front of its dentary bone was not strongly upturned. This specimen was made the basis of the new genus Iberospinus by Mateus and Darío Estraviz-López in 2022. Multiple studies found that additional spinosaurid remains from Iberia may belong to taxa other than Baryonyx, such as Vallibonavenatrix and Protathlitis, or may be indeterminate. A 2024 article by the palaeontologist Erik Isasmendi and colleagues reviewed the spinosaurid fossil record of Iberia and concluded that no specimens from there could be assigned to Baryonyx. They moved a specimen formerly assigned to Baryonyx from La Rioja to the new genus Riojavenatrix.

In 2021, the palaeontologist Chris T. Barker and colleagues described two new spinosaurid genera from the Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight, Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator (the latter named R. milnerae honouring Milner for her contributions to spinosaurid research), and stated that spinosaurid material from there that had previously been attributed to the contemporary Baryonyx could have belonged to other taxa instead. These specimens had previously been assigned to Baryonyx in a 2017 conference abstract. Barker and colleagues stated that the recognition of the Wessex Formation specimens as new genera renders the presence of Baryonyx there ambiguous, and most of the previously assigned isolated material from the Wealden Supergroup is therefore indeterminate. A 2023 study of an isolated tooh by Barker and colleagues found that it and other teeth from the Wealden Supergroup that have previously been assigned to Baryonyx probably do not belong to the genus, based on their morphology and age.

Possible synonyms
In 2003, Milner noted that some teeth at the Natural History Museum previously identified as belonging to the genera Suchosaurus (the first named spinosaurid) and Megalosaurus probably belonged to Baryonyx. The type species of Suchosaurus, S. cultridens, was named by the biologist Richard Owen in 1841, based on teeth discovered by the geologist Gideon A. Mantell in Tilgate Forest, Sussex. Owen originally thought the teeth to have belonged to a crocodile; he was yet to name the group Dinosauria, which happened the following year. A second species, S. girardi, was named by the palaeontologist Henri Émile Sauvage in 1897, based on jaw fragments and a tooth from Boca do Chapim, Portugal. In 2007, the palaeontologist Éric Buffetaut considered the teeth of S. girardi very similar to those of Baryonyx (and S. cultridens) except for the stronger development of the flutes (or "ribs"; lengthwise ridges), suggesting that the remains belonged to the same genus. Buffetaut agreed with Milner that the teeth of S. cultridens were almost identical to those of B. walkeri, but with a ribbier surface. The former taxon might be a senior synonym of the latter (since it was published first), depending on whether the differences were within a taxon or between different ones. According to Buffetaut, since the holotype specimen of S. cultridens is a single tooth and that of B. walkeri is a skeleton, it would be more practical to retain the newer name. In 2011, Mateus and colleagues agreed that Suchosaurus was closely related to Baryonyx, but considered both species in the former genus nomina dubia (dubious names) since their holotype specimens were not considered diagnostic (lacking distinguishing features) and could not be definitely equated with other taxa. Barker and colleagues agreed with this in 2023.

In 1997, Charig and Milner noted that two fragmentary spinosaurid snouts from the Elrhaz Formation of Niger (reported by the palaeontologist Philippe Taquet in 1984) were similar enough to Baryonyx that they considered them to belong to an indeterminate species of the genus (despite their much younger Aptian geological age). In 1998, these fossils became the basis of the genus and species Cristatusaurus lapparenti, named by Taquet and the palaeontologist Dale Russell. The palaeontologist Paul Sereno and colleagues named the new genus and species Suchomimus tenerensis later in 1998, based on more complete fossils from the Elrhaz Formation. In 2002, the German palaeontologist Hans-Dieter Sues and colleagues proposed that Suchomimus tenerensis was similar enough to Baryonyx walkeri to be considered a species within the same genus (as B. tenerensis), and that Suchomimus was identical to Cristatusaurus. Milner concurred that the material from Niger was indistinguishable from Baryonyx in 2003. In a 2004 conference abstract, Hutt and Newberry supported the synonymy based on a large theropod vertebra from the Isle of Wight which they attributed to an animal closely related to Baryonyx and Suchomimus. Later studies have kept Baryonyx and Suchomimus separate, whereas Cristatusaurus has been proposed to be either a nomen dubium or possibly distinct from both. A 2017 review paper by the palaeontologist Carlos Roberto A. Candeiro and colleagues stated that this debate was more in the realm of semantics than science, as it is generally agreed that B. walkeri and S. tenerensis are distinct, related species. Barker and colleagues found Suchomimus to be closer related to the British genera Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops than to Baryonyx in 2021.

Description
Baryonyx is estimated to have been between 7.5 and 10 m long, 2.5 m in hip height, and to have weighed between 1.2 and 2 MT. The fact that elements of the skull and vertebral column of the B. walkeri holotype specimen (NHM R9951) do not appear to have co-ossified (fused) suggests that the individual was not fully grown, and the mature animal may have been much larger (as is the case for some other spinosaurids). On the other hand, the specimen's fused sternum indicates that it may have been mature.

Skull
The skull of Baryonyx is incompletely known, and much of the middle and hind portions are not preserved. The full length of the skull is estimated to have been 91 - 95 cm long, based on comparison with that of the related genus Suchomimus (which was 20% larger). It was elongated, and the front 17 cm of the premaxillae formed a long, narrow, and low snout (rostrum) with a smoothly rounded upper surface. The (bony nostrils) were long, low, and placed far back from the snout tip. The front 13 cm of the snout expanded into a spatulate (spoon-like), "terminal rosette", a shape similar to the rostrum of the modern gharial. The front 7 cm of the lower margin of the premaxillae was downturned (or hooked), whereas that of the front portion of the maxillae was upturned. This morphology resulted in a sigmoid or S-shaped margin of the lower upper tooth row, in which the teeth from the front of the maxilla were projecting forward. The snout was particularly narrow directly behind the rosette; this area received the large teeth of the mandible. The maxilla and premaxilla of Baryonyx fit together in a complex articulation, and the resulting gap between the upper and lower jaw is known as the. A downturned premaxilla and a sigmoid lower margin of the upper tooth row was also present in distantly related theropods such as Dilophosaurus. The snout had extensive (openings), which would have been exits for blood vessels and nerves, and the maxilla appears to have housed sinuses.

Baryonyx had a rudimentary, similar to crocodiles but unlike most theropod dinosaurs. A rugose (roughly wrinkled) surface suggests the presence of a horny pad in the roof of the mouth. The nasal bones were fused, which distinguished Baryonyx from other spinosaurids, and a sagittal crest was present above the eyes, on the upper mid-line of the nasals. This crest was triangular, narrow, and sharp in its front part, and was distinct from those of other spinosaurids in ending hind wards in a cross-shaped process. The lacrimal bone in front of the eye appears to have formed a horn core similar to those seen, for example, in Allosaurus, and was distinct from other spinosaurids in being solid and almost triangular. The occiput was narrow, with the paroccipital processes pointing outwards horizontally, and the were lengthened, descending far below the  (the lowermost bone of the occiput). Sereno and colleagues suggested that some of Baryonyx cranial bones had been misidentified by Charig and Milner, resulting in the occiput being reconstructed as too deep, and that the skull was instead probably as low, long and narrow as that of Suchomimus. The front 14 cm of the dentary in the mandible sloped upwards towards the curve of the snout. The dentary was very long and shallow, with a prominent Meckelian groove on the inner side. The, where the two halves of the lower jaw connected at the front, was particularly short. The rest of the lower jaw was fragile; the hind third was much thinner than the front, with a blade-like appearance. The front part of the dentary curved outwards to accommodate the large front teeth, and this area formed the mandibular part of the rosette. The dentary–like the snout—had many foramina.

Most of the teeth found with the holotype specimen were not in articulation with the skull; a few remained in the upper jaw, and only small replacement teeth were still borne by the lower jaw. The teeth had the shape of recurved cones, where slightly flattened from sideways, and their curvature was almost uniform. The roots were very long, and tapered towards their extremity. The carinae (sharp front and back edges) of the teeth were finely serrated with denticles on the front and back, and extended all along the crown. There were around six to eight denticles per mm (0.039 in), a much larger number than in large-bodied theropods like Torvosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Some of the teeth were fluted, with six to eight ridges along the length of their inner sides and fine-grained (outermost layer of teeth), while others bore no flutes; their presence is probably related to position or ontogeny (development during growth). The inner side of each tooth row had a bony wall. The number of teeth was large compared to most other theropods, with six to seven teeth in each premaxilla and thirty-two in each dentary. Based on the closer packing and smaller size of the dentary teeth compared to those in the corresponding length of the premaxilla, the difference between the number of teeth in the upper and lower jaws appears to have been more pronounced than in other theropods. The terminal rosette in the upper jaw of the holotype had thirteen (tooth sockets), six on the left and seven on the right side, showing tooth count asymmetry. The first four upper teeth were large (with the second and third the largest), while the fourth and fifth progressively decreased in size. The diameter of the largest was twice that of the smallest. The first four alveoli of the dentary (corresponding to the tip of the upper jaw) were the largest, with the rest more regular in size. Small subtriangular were present between the alveoli.

Postcranial skeleton
Initially thought to have lacked the sigmoid curve typical of theropods, the neck of Baryonyx does appear to have formed an S shape, though straighter than in other theropods. The cervical vertebrae of the neck tapered towards the head and became progressively longer front to back. Their (the processes that connected the vertebrae) were flat, and their  (processes to which neck muscles attached) were well developed. The (the second neck vertebra) was small relative to the size of the skull and had a well-developed. The of the cervical vertebrae were not always sutured to the  (the bodies of the vertebrae), and the  there were low and thin. The were short, similar to those of crocodiles, and possibly overlapped each other somewhat. The centra of the dorsal vertebrae of the back were similar in size. Like in other theropods, the skeleton of Baryonyx showed skeletal pneumaticity, reducing its weight through (openings) in the neural arches and  (hollow depressions) in the centra (primarily near the ). From front to back, the neural spines of the dorsal vertebrae changed from short and stout to tall and broad. One isolated dorsal neural spine was moderately elongated and slender, indicating that Baryonyx may have had a hump or ridge along the centre of its back (though incipiently developed compared to those of other spinosaurids). Baryonyx was unique among spinosaurids in having a marked constriction from side to side in a vertebra that either belonged to the or front of the tail.

The coracoid tapered hind-wards when viewed in profile, and, uniquely among spinosaurids, connected with the scapula in a peg-and-notch articulation. The scapulae were robust and the bones of the forelimb were short in relation to the animal's size, but broad and sturdy. The humerus was short and stout, with its ends broadly expanded and flattened—the upper side for the and muscle attachment and the lower for articulation with the radius and ulna. The radius was short, stout and straight, and less than half the length of the humerus, while the ulna was a little longer. The ulna had a powerful and an expanded lower end. The hands had three fingers; the first finger bore a large claw measuring about 31 cm along its curve in the holotype specimen. The claw would have been lengthened by a keratin (horny) sheath in life. Apart from its size, the claw's proportions were fairly typical of a theropod, i.e. it was bilaterally symmetric, slightly compressed, smoothly rounded, and sharply pointed. A groove for the sheath ran along the length of the claw. The other claws of the hand were much smaller. The (main hip bone) of the pelvis had a prominent, an anterior process that was slender and vertically expanded, and a posterior process that was long and straight. The ilium also had a prominent and a deep grove that faced downwards. The (the socket for the femur) was long from front to back. The (lower and rearmost hip bone) had a well developed  at the upper part. The margin of the blade at the lower end was turned outward, and the pubic foot was not expanded. The femur lacked a groove on the fibular condyle, and, uniquely among spinosaurids, the fibula had a very shallow fibular (depression).

Classification
In their original description, Charig and Milner found Baryonyx unique enough to warrant a new family of theropod dinosaurs: Baryonychidae. They found Baryonyx to be unlike any other theropod group, and considered the possibility that it was a thecodont (a grouping of early archosaurs now considered unnatural), due to having apparently primitive features, but noted that the articulation of the maxilla and premaxilla was similar to that in Dilophosaurus. They also noted that the two snouts from Niger (which later became the basis of Cristatusaurus), assigned to the family Spinosauridae by Taquet in 1984, appeared almost identical to that of Baryonyx and they referred them to Baryonychidae instead. In 1988, the palaeontologist Gregory S. Paul agreed with Taquet that Spinosaurus, described in 1915 based on fragmentary remains from Egypt that were destroyed in World War II, and Baryonyx were similar and (due to their kinked snouts) possibly late-surviving dilophosaurs. Buffetaut also supported this relationship in 1989. In 1990, Charig and Milner dismissed the spinosaurid affinities of Baryonyx, since they did not find their remains similar enough. In 1997, they agreed that Baryonychidae and Spinosauridae were related, but disagreed that the former name should become a synonym of the latter, because the completeness of Baryonyx compared to Spinosaurus made it a better type genus for a family, and because they did not find the similarities between the two significant enough. Holtz and colleagues listed Baryonychidae as a synonym of Spinosauridae in 2004.

Discoveries in the 1990s shed more light on the relationships of Baryonyx and its relatives. In 1996, a snout from Morocco was referred to Spinosaurus, and Irritator and Angaturama from Brazil (the two are possible synonyms) were named. Cristatusaurus and Suchomimus were named based on fossils from Niger in 1998. In their description of Suchomimus, Sereno and colleagues placed it and Baryonyx in the new subfamily Baryonychinae within Spinosauridae; Spinosaurus and Irritator were placed in the subfamily Spinosaurinae. Baryonychinae was distinguished by the small size and larger number of teeth in the dentary behind the terminal rosette, the deeply keeled front dorsal vertebrae, and by having serrated teeth. Spinosaurinae was distinguished by their straight tooth crowns without serrations, small first tooth in the premaxilla, increased spacing of teeth in the jaws, and possibly by having their nostrils placed further back and the presence of a deep neural spine sail. They also united the spinosaurids and their closest relatives in the superfamily Spinosauroidea, but in 2010, the palaeontologist Roger Benson considered this a junior synonym of Megalosauroidea (an older name). In a 2007 conference abstract, the palaeontologist Denver W. Fowler suggested that since Suchosaurus is the first named genus in its group, the clade names Spinosauroidea, Spinosauridae, and Baryonychinae should be replaced by Suchosauroidea, Suchosauridae, and Suchosaurinae, regardless of whether or not the name Baryonyx is retained. A 2017 study by the palaeontologists Marcos A. F. Sales and Cesar L. Schultz found that the clade Baryonychinae was not well supported, since serrated teeth may be an ancestral trait among spinosaurids.

Barker and colleagues found support for a Baryonychinae-Spinosaurinae split in 2021, and the following cladogram shows the position of Baryonyx within Spinosauridae according to their study:

Evolution
Spinosaurids appear to have been widespread from the Barremian to the Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 130 to 95 million years ago, while the oldest known spinosaurid remains date to the Middle Jurassic. They shared features such as long, narrow, crocodile-like skulls; sub-circular teeth, with fine to no serrations; the terminal rosette of the snout; and a secondary palate that made them more resistant to torsion. In contrast, the primitive and typical condition for theropods was a tall, narrow snout with blade-like (ziphodont) teeth with serrated carinae. The skull adaptations of spinosaurids converged with those of crocodilians; early members of the latter group had skulls similar to typical theropods, later developing elongated snouts, conical teeth, and secondary palates. These adaptations may have been the result of a dietary change from terrestrial prey to fish. Unlike crocodiles, the post-cranial skeletons of baryonychine spinosaurids do not appear to have aquatic adaptations. Sereno and colleagues proposed in 1998 that the large thumb-claw and robust forelimbs of spinosaurids evolved in the Middle Jurassic, before the elongation of the skull and other adaptations related to fish-eating, since the former features are shared with their megalosaurid relatives. They also suggested that the spinosaurines and baryonychines diverged before the Barremian age of the Early Cretaceous.

Several theories have been proposed about the biogeography of the spinosaurids. Since Suchomimus was more closely related to Baryonyx (from Europe) than to Spinosaurus—although that genus also lived in Africa—the distribution of spinosaurids cannot be explained as vicariance resulting from continental rifting. Sereno and colleagues proposed that spinosaurids were initially distributed across the supercontinent Pangea, but split with the opening of the Tethys Sea. Spinosaurines would then have evolved in the south (Africa and South America: in Gondwana) and baryonychines in the north (Europe: in Laurasia), with Suchomimus the result of a single north-to-south dispersal event. Buffetaut and the Tunisian palaeontologist Mohamed Ouaja also suggested in 2002 that baryonychines could be the ancestors of spinosaurines, which appear to have replaced the former in Africa. Milner suggested in 2003 that spinosaurids originated in Laurasia during the Jurassic, and dispersed via the Iberian land bridge into Gondwana, where they radiated. In 2007, Buffetaut pointed out that palaeogeographical studies had demonstrated that Iberia was near northern Africa during the Early Cretaceous, which he found to confirm Milner's idea that the Iberian region was a stepping stone between Europe and Africa, which is supported by the presence of baryonychines in Iberia. The direction of the dispersal between Europe and Africa is still unknown, and subsequent discoveries of spinosaurid remains in Asia and possibly Australia indicate that it may have been complex.

Candeiro and colleagues suggested in 2017 that spinosaurids of northern Gondwana were replaced by other predators, such as abelisauroids, since no definite spinosaurid fossils are known from after the Cenomanian anywhere in the world. They attributed the disappearance of spinosaurids and other shifts in the fauna of Gondwana to changes in the environment, perhaps caused by transgressions in sea level. Malafaia and colleagues stated in 2020 that Baryonyx remains the oldest unquestionable spinosaurid, while acknowledging that older remains had also been tentatively assigned to the group. Barker and colleagues found support for a European origin for spinosaurids in 2021, with an expansion to Asia and Gondwana during the first half of the Early Cretaceous. In contrast to Sereno, these authors suggested there had been at least two dispersal events from Europe to Africa, leading to Suchomimus and the African part of Spinosaurinae.

Diet and feeding
In 1986, Charig and Milner suggested that its elongated snout with many finely serrated teeth indicated that Baryonyx was piscivorous (fish-eating), speculating that it crouched on a riverbank and used its claw to gaff fish out of the water (similar to the modern grizzly bear). Two years earlier, Taquet pointed out that the spinosaurid snouts from Niger were similar to those of the modern gharial and suggested a behaviour similar to herons or storks. In 1987, the biologist Andrew Kitchener disputed the piscivorous behaviour of Baryonyx and suggested that it would have been a scavenger, using its long neck to feed on the ground, its claws to break into a carcass, and its long snout (with nostrils far back for breathing) for investigating the body cavity. Kitchener argued that Baryonyx jaws and teeth were too weak to kill other dinosaurs and too heavy to catch fish, with too many adaptations for piscivory. According to the palaeontologist Robin E. H. Reid, a scavenged carcass would have been broken up by its predator and large animals capable of doing so—such as grizzly bears—are also capable of catching fish (at least in shallow water).

In 1997, Charig and Milner demonstrated direct dietary evidence in the stomach region of the B. walkeri holotype. It contained the first evidence of piscivory in a theropod dinosaur, acid-etched scales and teeth of the common fish Scheenstia mantelli (then classified in the genus Lepidotes ), and abraded or etched bones of a young iguanodontid. They also presented circumstantial evidence for piscivory, such as crocodile-like adaptations for catching and swallowing prey: long, narrow jaws with their "terminal rosette", similar to those of a gharial, and the downturned tip and notch of the snout. In their view, these adaptations suggested that Baryonyx would have caught small to medium-sized fish in the manner of a crocodilian: gripping them with the notch of the snout (giving the teeth a "stabbing function"), tilting the head backwards, and swallowing them headfirst. Larger fish would be broken up with the claws. That the teeth in the lower jaw were smaller, more crowded and numerous than those in the upper jaw may have helped the animal grip food. Charig and Milner maintained that Baryonyx would primarily have eaten fish (although it would also have been an active predator and opportunistic scavenger), but it was not equipped to be a macro-predator like Allosaurus. They suggested that Baryonyx mainly used its forelimbs and large claws to catch, kill and tear apart larger prey. An apparent gastrolith (gizzard stone) was also found with the specimen. The German palaeontologist Oliver Wings suggested in 2007 that the low number of stones found in theropods like Baryonyx and Allosaurus could have been ingested by accident. In 2004, a pterosaur neck vertebra from Brazil with a spinosaurid tooth embedded in it reported by Buffetaut and colleagues confirmed that the latter were not exclusively piscivorous.

A 2005 beam-theory study by the palaeontologist François Therrien and colleagues was unable to reconstruct force profiles of Baryonyx, but found that the related Suchomimus would have used the front part of its jaws to capture prey, and suggested that the jaws of spinosaurids were adapted for hunting smaller terrestrial prey in addition to fish. They envisaged that spinosaurids could have captured smaller prey with the rosette of teeth at the front of the jaws, and finished it by shaking it. Larger prey would instead have been captured and killed with their forelimbs instead of their bite, since their skulls would not be able to resist the bending stress. They also agreed that the conical teeth of spinosaurids were well-developed for impaling and holding prey, with their shape enabling them to withstand bending loads from all directions. A 2007 finite element analysis of CT scanned snouts by the palaeontologist Emily J. Rayfield and colleagues indicated that the biomechanics of Baryonyx were most similar to those of the gharial and unlike those of the American alligator and more-conventional theropods, supporting a piscivorous diet for spinosaurids. Their secondary palate helped them resist bending and torsion of their tubular snouts. A 2013 beam-theory study by the palaeontologists Andrew R. Cuff and Rayfield compared the biomechanics of CT-scanned spinosaurid snouts with those of extant crocodilians, and found the snouts of Baryonyx and Spinosaurus similar in their resistance to bending and torsion. Baryonyx was found to have relatively high resistance in the snout to dorsoventral bending compared with Spinosaurus and the gharial. The authors concluded (in contrast to the 2007 study) that Baryonyx performed differently than the gharial; spinosaurids were not exclusive piscivores, and their diet was determined by their individual size.

In a 2014 conference abstract, the palaeontologist Danny Anduza and Fowler pointed out that grizzly bears do not gaff fish out of the water as was suggested for Baryonyx, and also ruled out that the dinosaur would not have darted its head like herons, since the necks of spinosaurids were not strongly S-curved, and their eyes were not well-positioned for binocular vision. Instead, they suggested the jaws would have made sideways sweeps to catch fish, like the gharial, with the hand claws probably used to stamp down and impale large fish, whereafter they manipulated them with their jaws, in a manner similar to grizzly bears and fishing cats. They did not find the teeth of spinosaurids suitable for dismembering prey, due to their lack of serrations, and suggested they would have swallowed prey whole (while noting they could also have used their claws for dismemberment).

A 2016 study by the palaeontologist Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues found that adult spinosaurs could displace their mandibular rami (halves of the lower jaw) sideways when the jaw was depressed, which allowed the pharynx (opening that connects the mouth to the oesophagus) to be widened. This jaw-articulation is similar to that seen in pterosaurs and living pelicans, and would likewise have allowed spinosaurids to swallow large prey such as fish and other animals. They also reported that some possible Portuguese Baryonyx fossils were found associated with isolated Iguanodon teeth, and listed it along with other such associations as support for opportunistic feeding behaviour in spinosaurs. Another 2016 study by the palaeontologist Romain Vullo and colleagues found that the jaws of spinosaurids were convergent with those of pike conger eels; these fish also have jaws that are compressed side to side (whereas the jaws of crocodilians are compressed from top to bottom), an elongated snout with a "terminal rosette" that bears enlarged teeth, and a notch behind the rosette with smaller teeth. Such jaws likely evolved for grabbing prey in aquatic environments with low light, and may have helped in prey detection.

A 2023 study by Barker and colleagues based on CT scans of the braincases of Baryonyx and Ceratosuchops found that the brain anatomy of these baryonychines was similar to that of other non-maniraptoriform theropods. Their neurosensory capabilities such as hearing and olfaction (sense of smell) were unexceptional, and their gaze stabilisation less developed than those of spinosaurines, so their behavioural adaptations were probably comparable to those of other large-bodied terrestrial theropods. This suggests that their transition from terrestrial hypercarnivores to semi-aquatic “generalists” during their evolution did not require substantial modification of their brain and sensory systems. This could mean that spinosaurids were either pre-adapted for detection and capture of aquatic prey, or that their transition to semi-aquatic lifestyles only required modifications to the bones associated with the mouth. Their reptile encephalization quotient values imply that the cognitive capacity and behavioural sophistication of baryonychines did not deviate much from that of other basal theropods.

Motion and semi-aquatic habits
In their original description, Charig and Milner did not consider Baryonyx to be aquatic (due to its nostrils being on the sides of its snout—far from the tip—and the form of the post-cranial skeleton), but thought it was capable of swimming, like most land vertebrates. They speculated that the elongated skull, long neck, and strong humerus of Baryonyx indicated that the animal was a facultative quadruped, unique among theropods. In their 1997 article they found no skeletal support for this, but maintained that the forelimbs would have been strong enough for a quadrupedal posture and it would probably have caught aquatic prey while crouching—or on all fours—near (or in) water. A 2014 re-description of Spinosaurus by the palaeontologist Nizar Ibrahim and colleagues based on new remains suggested that it was a quadruped, based on its anterior centre of body mass. The authors found quadrupedality unlikely for Baryonyx, since the better-known legs of the closely related Suchomimus did not support this posture.

In 2017, the palaeontologists David E. Hone and Holtz hypothesized that the head crests of spinosaurids were probably used for sexual or threat display. The authors also pointed out that (like other theropods) there was no reason to believe that the forelimbs of Baryonyx were able to pronate (crossing the radius and ulna bones of the lower arm to turn the hand), and thereby make it able to rest or walk on its palms. Resting on or using the forelimbs for locomotion may have been possible (as indicated by tracks of a resting theropod), but if this was the norm, the forelimbs would probably have showed adaptations for this. Hone and Holtz furthermore suggested that the forelimbs of spinosaurids do not seem optimal for trapping prey, but instead appear similar to the forelimbs of digging animals. They suggested that the ability to dig would have been useful when excavating nests, digging for water, or to reach some kinds of prey. Hone and Holtz also believed that spinosaurids would have waded and dipped in water rather than submerging themselves, due to their sparsity of aquatic adaptations.

A 2010 study by the palaeontologist Romain Amiot and colleagues proposed that spinosaurids were semi-aquatic, based on the oxygen isotope composition of spinosaurid teeth from around the world compared with that of other theropods and extant animals. Spinosaurids probably spent much of the day in water, like crocodiles and hippopotamuses, and had a diet similar to the former; both were opportunistic predators. Since most spinosaurids do not appear to have anatomical adaptations for an aquatic lifestyle, the authors proposed that submersion in water was a means of thermoregulation similar to that of crocodiles and hippopotamuses. Spinosaurids may also have turned to aquatic habitats and piscivory to avoid competition with large, more-terrestrial theropods. In 2016, Sales and colleagues statistically examined the fossil distribution of spinosaurids, abelisaurids, and carcharodontosaurids, and concluded that spinosaurids had the strongest support for association with coastal palaeoenvironments. Spinosaurids also appear to have inhabited inland environments (with their distribution there being comparable to carcharodontosaurids), which indicates they may have been more generalist than usually thought.

Sales and Schultz agreed in 2017 that spinosaurids were semi-aquatic and partially piscivorous, based on skull features such as conical teeth, snouts that were compressed from side to side, and retracted nostrils. They interpreted the fact that histological data indicates some spinosaurids were more terrestrial than others as reflecting ecological niche partitioning among them. As some spinosaurids have smaller nostrils than others, their olfactory abilities were presumably lesser, as in modern piscivorous animals, and they may instead have used other senses (such as vision and mechanoreception) when hunting fish. Olfaction may have been more useful for spinosaurids that also fed on terrestrial prey, such as baryonychines. A 2022 study by the palaeontologist Matteo Fabbri and colleagues revealed that Baryonyx possessed dense bones that would have allowed it to dive underwater. This same adaptation was revealed in the related Spinosaurus, and they are believed to have been subaqueous foragers that dived after aquatic prey, while Suchomimus was better adapted to a non-diving lifestyle by comparison according to the provided analysis. This discovery also showcases the unique and ecologically disparate lifestyles spinosaurids had, with more hollow-boned genera preferring to hunt in shallower water.

Palaeoenvironment
The Weald Clay Formation consists of sediments of Hauterivian (Lower Weald Clay) to Barremian (Upper Weald Clay) age, about 130–125 million years old. The original Baryonyx specimen was found in the latter, in clay representing non-marine still water, which has been interpreted as a fluvial or mudflat environment with shallow water, lagoons, and marshes. During the Early Cretaceous, the Weald area of Surrey, Sussex, and Kent was partly covered by the large, fresh-to-brackish water Wealden Lake. Two large rivers drained the northern area (where London now stands), flowing into the lake through a river delta; the Anglo-Paris Basin was in the south. Its climate was sub-tropical, similar to the present Mediterranean region. Since the Smokejack Clay Pit consists of different stratigraphic levels, fossil taxa found there are not necessarily contemporaneous. Dinosaurs from the locality include the ornithopods Mantellisaurus, Iguanodon, and small sauropods. Other vertebrates from the Weald Clay include crocodiles, pterosaurs, lizards (such as Dorsetisaurus), amphibians, sharks (such as Hybodus), and bony fishes (including Scheenstia). Members of ten orders of insects have been identified, including Valditermes, Archisphex, and Pterinoblattina. Other invertebrates include ostracods, isopods, conchostracans, and bivalves. The plants Weichselia and the aquatic, herbaceous Bevhalstia were common. Other plants found include ferns, horsetails, club mosses, and conifers.

Other dinosaurs from the Wessex Formation of the Isle of Wight where Baryonyx may have occurred include the theropods Riparovenator, Ceratosuchops, Neovenator, Eotyrannus, Aristosuchus, Thecocoelurus, Calamospondylus, and Ornithodesmus; the ornithopods Iguanodon, Hypsilophodon, and Valdosaurus; the sauropods Ornithopsis, Eucamerotus, and Chondrosteosaurus; and the ankylosaur Polacanthus. Barker and colleagues stated in 2021 that the identification of the two additional spinosaurids from the Wealden Supergroup, Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops, has implications for potential ecological separation within Spinosauridae if these and Baryonyx were contemporary and interacted. They cautioned that it is possible the Upper Weald Clay and Wessex Formations and the spinosaurids known from them were separated in time and distance.

It is generally thought that large predators occur with small taxonomic diversity in any area due to ecological demands, yet many Mesozoic assemblages include two or more sympatric theropods that were comparable in size and morphology, and this also appears to have been the case for spinosaurids. Barker and colleagues suggested that high diversity within Spinosauridae in a given area may have been the result of environmental circumstances benefiting their niche. While it has been generally assumed that only identifiable anatomical traits related to resource partitioning allowed for coexistence of large theropods, Barker and colleagues noted that this does not preclude that similar and closely related taxa could coexist and overlap in ecological requirements. Possible niche partitioning could be in time (seasonal or daily), in space (between habitats in the same ecosystems), or depending on conditions, and they could also have been separated by their choice of habitat within their regions (which may have ranged in climate).

Taphonomy
Charig and Milner presented a possible scenario explaining the taphonomy (changes during decay and fossilisation) of the B. walkeri holotype specimen. The fine-grained sediments around the skeleton, and the fact that the bones were found close together (skull and forelimb elements at one end of the excavation area and the pelvis and hind-limb elements at the other), indicates that the environment was quiet at the time of deposition, and water currents did not carry the carcass far—possibly because the water was shallow. The area where the specimen died seems to have been suitable for a piscivorous animal. It may have caught fish and scavenged on the mud plain, becoming mired before it died and was buried. Since the bones are well-preserved and had no gnaw marks, the carcass appears to have been undisturbed by scavengers (suggesting that it was quickly covered by sediment).

The disarticulation of the bones may have been the result of soft-tissue decomposition. Parts of the skeleton seem to have weathered to different degrees, perhaps because water levels changed or the sediments shifted (exposing parts of the skeleton). The girdle and limb bones, the dentary, and a rib were broken before fossilisation, perhaps from trampling by large animals while buried. Most of the tail appears to have been lost before fossilisation, perhaps due to scavenging, or having rotted and floated off. The orientation of the bones indicates that the carcass lay on its back (perhaps tilted slightly to the left, with the right side upwards), which may explain why all the lower teeth had fallen out of their sockets and some upper teeth were still in place.

title: Baryonyx


text:
Staurikosaurus

Staurikosaurus (Pronounced "STORE-ee-koh-SAWR-us", "Southern Cross lizard") is a genus of herrerasaurid dinosaur from the Late Triassic of Brazil, found in the Santa Maria Formation.

Description
Colbert (1970) described Staurikosaurus as a small and agile, bipedal predator. Staurikosaurus lived during the late-Carnian and early-Norian stage, of the Late Triassic, approximately 225 million years ago—which makes it one of the earliest dinosaurs known. Its length is measured at 2.2 - 2.25 m long, but Gregory S. Paul presented a lower length estimate of 2.1 m and a body mass estimate of 12 kg. Staurikosaurus was small in comparison to later theropods like Megalosaurus. The type specimen has long but relatively slender limb bones.

There exists a very incomplete fossil record of Staurikosaurus, consisting of most of the spine, the legs and the large lower jaw. However, dating from such an early period in the dinosaurs' history and being otherwise so primitive, most of Staurikosaurus' other features as being primitive also can be reconstructed. For example, Staurikosaurus is usually depicted with five toes and five fingers —very simple features of an unspecialized dinosaur. However, since the skeletal structure of the legs is known, it can be seen that Staurikosaurus was a quick runner for its size. It also had just two vertebrae joining the pelvis to the spine, a distinctly primitive condition.

The available teeth for Staurikosaurus bear a morphology that strongly suggests a carnivorous diet. The teeth are all serrated, laterally compressed, and caudally curved (i.e. the top of each tooth is curved back toward the throat). This dentition suggests that Staurikosaurus could catch and hold prey, as well as slice and tear flesh to aid in mechanical digestion.

The tail of Staurikosaurus was relatively long (with more than 40 vertebrae) compared to the rest of its body and was held straight and off the ground as it ran. The rear part of Staurikosaurus's tail is stiffened by features of the tail vertebrae. Ostrom (1969a) considered this adaptation to serve as a dynamic stabilizer facilitating the animal's leaping and running. A diagnosis is a statement of the anatomical features of an organism (or group) that collectively distinguish it from all other organisms. Some, but not all, of the features in a diagnosis are also autapomorphies. An autapomorphy is a distinctive anatomical feature that is unique to a given organism or group. According to Sues (1990), Staurikosaurus can be distinguished based on the following 14 features: (i) a mandible almost as long as the femur, suggesting a proportionately large head; (ii) a fairly deep but thin dentary with 13 to 14 teeth and with a well-developed retroarticular process; (iii) a vertebral column with 9 to 10 cervical, 15 dorsal, 2 sacral, and more than 40 caudal vertebrae. Staurikosaurus is considered to be more primitive than any other dinosaur because only two sacral vertebrae are present; (iv) an elongated 3rd, 4th, and 5th cervical vertebrae, which represents a primitive condition; (v) cranial cervical vertebrae that lack epipophyses; (vi) the absence of accessory intervertebral articulations; (vii) a slender scapular blade that is not expanded proximally; (viii) a large and plate-like coracoid; (ix) a humerus featuring a prominent deltopectoral crest (represents a primitive condition) as well having distinctly expanded articular ends; (x) an ilium with an extensively developed medial wall of a semiperforate acetabulum (like Herrerasaurus, but unlike any other dinosaur); (xi) a long pubis, two-thirds the length of the femur; (xii) hollow limb bones that feature fairly thick walls; (xiii) a robust femur with an S-shaped shaft: and (xiv) a tibia and fibula slightly longer than the femur. Novas (1993) added that Staurikosaurus is distinguished from other dinosaurs based on the presence of a distal bevel on anterior margin of its pubis. Langer and Benton (2006) noted that Staurikosaurus can be distinguished based on the anterior trochanter being reduced to a scar. Bittencourt and Kellner (2009) also noted that the proximal fibula has a medial sulcus, which is unique to Staurikosaurus pricei.

Discovery and occurrence
Staurikosaurus means "Southern Cross" (after the star constellation visible from the Southern Hemisphere) and "Lizard" (from the Greek word "saurus" meaning lizard), thus "Southern Cross Lizard". The species name pricei is in the honor of paleontologist Llewellyn Ivor Price.

The first known specimen of Staurikosaurus (MCZ 1669) was recovered from the Paleontological Site Jazigo Cinco of the Santa Maria Formation, Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Staurikosaurus was found in mid-Carnian sediments. The genus name refers to the star constellation "The Southern Cross", pictured in the coat of arms of Brazil and only visible in the Southern Hemisphere—when Staurikosaurus was described in 1970, it was unusual to find dinosaurs in the Southern Hemisphere. The specific name honors the Brazilian paleontologist Llewellyn Ivor Price, who discovered it in 1936. It was described by Edwin Harris Colbert, working at the American Museum of Natural History. The rarity of Staurikosaurus remains may be a result of it being uncommon while alive, or because it lived in an environment like a forest, where fossils rarely form. Nonetheless, Garcia et al. (2019) referred the holotype of Teyuwasu barberenai as a second specimen of Staurikosaurus pricei (see Classification).

Classification
Later research by Sues et al. (2011) supports that Staurikosaurus and the related genus Herrerasaurus are theropods and evolved after the sauropod line had split from the Theropoda. Mortimer points out that Benedetto (1973) and Galton (1985) were the first to recognize that Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus were more closely related to each other than to sauropodomorphs or avepods, placing them both in the Herrerasauridae and Herrerasauria. Staurikosaurus differs from Herrerasaurus because of its considerably smaller size (femur length of 23 cm vs. 47 cm). Sereno et al. (1993) concluded that Staurikosaurus was not a theropod and considered it a basal saurischian outside Theropoda and Sauropodomorpha. Staurikosaurus was originally incorrectly assigned by Colbert to Palaeosauriscidae, a defunct family based largely on Efraasia, a prosauropod dinosaur. All major phylogenetic analyses since 1994 have assigned Staurikosaurus to the clade Herrerasauridae, which is the current scientific consensus on classification of this genus. Bittencourt and Kellner (2009) stated that the phylogenetic position of Staurikosaurus is constrained by its close relationship with Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, which is more complete and well known. Below is a cladogram based on the phylogenetic analysis conducted by Sues et al. in 2011, showing the relationships of Staurikosaurus:

Related genera
Staurikosaurus was placed in the clade Herrerasauridae by Benedetto in 1973. Herrerasauridae also includes Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, both small predatory animals that were either dinosaurs or precursors to dinosaurs. These three dinosaurs lived during the Carnian stage of the Triassic period. Most phylogenetic analyses excluded Eoraptor from the Herrerasauridae. Phylogenetic analysis by Sues, Nesbitt, Berman and Henrici, in 2011, exclude Eoraptor, and include Chindesaurus along with Herrerasaurus as more derived than Staurikosaurus. Sanjuansaurus was assigned to Herrerasauridae by Alcober and Martínez (2010). Sues (1990) assigned Ischisaurus to Herrerasauridae. Other proposed members of the clade have included Sanjuansaurus from the same Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina as Herrerasaurus, and possibly Caseosaurus from the Dockum Formation of Texas, although the relationships of these animals are not fully understood, and not all paleontologists agree. Alcober and Martinez (2010) concluded that Staurikosaurus and Sanjuansaurus are closely related based on similarities in their pubis and tibia.

Synonyms
The controversial dinosauriform "Teyuwasu barberenai" was recently considered a synonym of Staurikosaurus pricei. Both taxa are known from single incomplete and somewhat poorly preserved specimens, therefore the former holotype specimen of "Teyuwasu" would be the second specimen ascribed to Staurikosaurus within almost 50 years of its naming. The synonymy was based on a combination of five osteological features that are only present in both specimens among Triassic early dinosauriforms: (i) femur without a trochanteric shelf; (ii) symmetric fourth trochanter of the femur; (iii) crista tibiofibularis poorly separated from the lateral condyle at the distal end of the femur; (iv) posterolateral flange of the distal end of the tibia does not exceeds the lateral margin of the bone; (v) and rounded distal end of the tibia.

The synonymy is commented in two subsequent papers, which cast doubt in the association of "Teyuwasu" with Staurikosaurus. In the first paper, the authors only mention that the holotype of "Teyuwasu" is not well preserved, and thus cannot be attributed to Staurikosaurus. In the second, the authors argue that several of the five character states cited to unite the taxa are present in immature specimens of other dinosauriforms. However, the combination (that is, the simultaneous presence) of the five characters listed by Garcia et al. is not present in any of the aforementioned dinosauriforms, and therefore remains unique between "Teyuwasu" and Staurikosaurus.

Therefore, further investigations are needed in order to whether confirm or not the synonymy between "Teyuwasu barberenai" and Staurikosaurus pricei.

Feeding
Staurikosaurus was a small but active bipedal predator, that preyed on small and medium-sized terrestrial vertebrates such as cynodonts, rhynchosaurs, and herbivorous synapsids. The mandible of Staurikosaurus suggests that a sliding joint in the jaw allowed it to move backwards and forwards, as well as up and down. However, some authors questioned the presence of an intramandibular joint in Staurikosaurus, due to the poor preservation of the holotype. Smaller prey could be worked backwards towards Staurikosaurus's throat, aided along by its small, backwards-curving teeth. This feature was common in theropods of its time, but would disappear in later theropods.

Paleoecology
During the Late Triassic dinosaurs played only a minor role in terrestrial life; a fact that would change by the Early Jurassic. Staurikosaurus coexisted with large rauisuchian archosaurs like Rauisuchus, which were the top carnivores in their ecosystem Staurikosaurus's paleocommunity included medium- to large-sized herbivorous rhynchosaurs and dicynodonts. Medium-sized omnivorous aetosaurs and cynodonts were also present. Dinosaurs were represented by the Herrerasaurids, which include Staurikosaurus, and the basal sauropodomorph Saturnalia. The contemporaneous occurrence of basal theropods Staurikosaurus, Herrerasaurus, and Eoraptor with the ornithischian Pisanosaurus suggests that the main carnivorous and herbivorous lineages were established during the middle part of the Carnian stage. A U-Pb (uranium decay) dating found that the Santa Maria Formation dated around 233.23 million years ago, putting it 1.5 million years older than the Ischigualasto Formation, and making the two formations approximately equal as the earliest dinosaur localities.

title: Staurikosaurus


text:
Talk:The Brand New Heavies

Untitled
I added the name etymology, which the band members explained on JazzFM (UK) during the John Scragg show (22/10/2004, around 8:45). Does anyone know how to make a proper reference to radio shows? JFW | T@lk  13:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reverts following the addition of new links
Looking at the page history, it seems that, 3 times, there have been rather useful links added to this article, and 3 times, they have been reverted/removed. Why is this?? They seemed perfectly appropriate.

Removed trivia
I removed a few trivia items. One of them is probably worth integrating. It said, ''Jay Kay auditioned for the Brand New Heavies but was turned down. However, Simon Bartholemew and Andrew Levy both contributed to Jamiroquai's album, Emergency on Planet Earth.'' There was no citation, though, and no date, so I couldn't figure out where to integrate it. Leaving the note here so others can try. I don't think talking about Jamiroquai's album is so appropriate, but mentioning Jay Kay's failed audition is fair. Mango juice talk 03:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bramd Heavies 2008
Hello

You can't delete this link, as it the most update news on The Brand New Heavies [ http://www.zani.co.uk/reviews.aspx?id=43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZANI Ezine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Brand New Heavies Interview
This is the most recent interview of the brand new heavies -- which goes deep into the music, and offer more than a PR piece

http://www.zani.co.uk/interviews.aspx?id=66

Missing Album
I have and have had for some years, "Dream Come True (The Best Of The Acid Jazz Years)", a compilation album but it doesn't seem to be listed.

LewisR (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunk Your Funk
It was suggested in the article that Dunk Your Funk was a free download album. I have not been able to find any such "free" download. The album is sold, as are individual tracks, through the usual channels, i.e. Soundcloud and iTunes. So I have removed the word free and updated the link to pedigreecuts. 77.167.212.162 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lascelles Gordon
I went to a concert for the Heavies in 2013. Besides it being great, there was a five piece line-up (strictly speaking it was a seven piece line up). I tink I saw Jan Kincaid, Simon Bartholomew, Andrew Levy and Dawn Joseph. I believe Lascelles Gordon was also part of that line up. Yet this name does not show up on the list of active members or past members in the infobox. Is this an intended omission? 87.211.106.87 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Lascelles Gordon was omitted because she doesn't feature on any of the BNH albums. She does get a mention in the Discogs' overview, maybe someone should add her. --Deke42 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Discogs
I don't know if it's something that Discogs themselves are doing but the current link goes to a Discogs 404 page. I tried putting the correct address in (https://www.discogs.com/artist/1396-The-Brand-New-Heavies) but that too returned a 404 page. Maybe I did something wrong, could someone who knows what they're doing have a look at it please? --Deke42 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brand New Heavies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpi.co.uk%2Fcertified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brand New Heavies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211085519/http://www.soultalk.rhythmflow.net/shows_ndea_davenport.html to http://www.soultalk.rhythmflow.net/shows_ndea_davenport.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210174329/http://www.nuvo.net/hammer/int/bnheavies.html to http://www.nuvo.net/hammer/int/bnheavies.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426205338/http://blog.pedigreecuts.com/?p=1740 to http://blog.pedigreecuts.com/?p=1740
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Brand New Heavies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614094214/http://www.thebrandnewheavies.net/ to http://www.thebrandnewheavies.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Website
As the linked website is no longer functional (it leads to a blank page on an internet archive site), please does anyone know if there still is a site dedicated to the Brand New Heavies ? Darkman101 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Brand New Heavies


text:
User talk:El C/White Pride

I'm sorry, say what? I hadn't noticed us having a conflict at all, just a minor disagreement. I understand the subject matter is potentially distressing, but I hadn't seen you to be rude or anything, and I should hope that is a mutual sentiment. While I never approve of a "I don't see myself changing my mind" demeanor in regards to article content on the wiki, IMO we've hardly discussed things. In any case I appologise if I have said or done anything which has disturbed you, and am very open to advice, criticism, commentary, requesting more editors to join the discussion, or whatever you might like. I've article related comments on the Talk:White_pride. Nice cats, BTW. Sam [Spade] 23:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Thanks, he is clawing at the door to go outside as we speak. No apology necessary, I see no personal friction, and if there is distress, thus far it remains only in potentia. It is indeed -I- (not you) who is rather inflexible about the 14-Words issue — both due to format conventions as well as POV considerations. I am, of course, open to discuss any portion the article. What I attempted to get across (perhaps too forcefuly, so point taken) was that I am very doubtful you could persuade me that it requieres any additional textual prominance in the article. Either way, I am confident civility will triumph. Incidentally, the 14-Words certainly could assume such emphasis in the stub article on David Lane (where it is wholly unmentioned), or an article about Fourteen Word Press, etc. El_C

Hm, it seems like you might well know more on this subject than I do! While I have an intense interest in gangs, clubs, and secret societies (mainly the mystical kind) etc.., I am frankly only mildly interested in these "white power" guys. I actually find the term "white" offensive in its suggestion that there is so little diversity amongst those catagorized by it, and the tendancy of those using the term to ignore their unique geneology and ethnicity. I think pride is ok, but I prefer to be proud of other things, rather than my hue (some "white" guys w a deep tan are darker than some "black" guys of mixed anscestry!). Besides, I'm not white, I'm some sort of light pink / peach ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) --- Honestly, I don't know that I do and I think you give me more credit than is due (if only other editors were as generous as you when it comes to subjects I actually have vast familiarity with!). It just that these articles (Racialism, White Pride, White Power) all seemed to me POV, flawed and incomplete. I do not know, for example, why the 14-Words are considered key for White Pride. I would be interested to learn why this is. Of course, a 'valuation' of human beings according to racial categories is both absurd and insidious — I took it as a given throughout that you also adhere to this position (otherwise, trust me, I would not be having this conversation, or any conversation for that matter, with you). I hope you did not feel I somehow implied the contrary. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Regards,

El_C

---

While I don't agree w a "silent treatment" towards racists / racialists, I can of course understand why you might find them disturbing. The problem w this is that it maintains the source of their opinions: isolation from diversity. Perhaps its the psyche major in me, but I feel that those of distressing politics (like communists and anarchists for example) are best reformed thru logical dialogue. Your position makes me curious if you have any idea how many racialists there really are. IMO they are in the majority, esp. outside of the USA (again, I don't know where you live). They don't all go to meetings or whatever, but their pretty free with informing me of their opinions. Of course people are especially open with me, that is why I have chosen to go into psychology in the first place. In any case, they are not necessarilly evil people, they simply have been either misinformed, or had unfortunate circumstances. Sometimes all it takes is growing up in a homgeneous community, and watching TV. Sometimes grandpa teaches bad lessons, sometimes the whole community. To be honest, life would be easier if all bad people were of one race, all good people of another, etc.. It makes a certain kind of horse sense. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work that way, in my experience skin tone / ethnicity are a poor indicator of morality. But I have had a diverse life, w diverse experiences. I try to educate those of different backgrounds (like by editing the encyclopedia here ;), rather than isolating them. It always seem to fall on deaf ears, but those of distressing POV's are people too, and it's not necessarilly a good thing to persecute them (this often confirms their suspicions). Cheers, Sam [Spade] 19:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, choosing to engage and trying to reason with them is certainly your prerogative. Admittedly, I do not have the patience of a psychologist. I wager that we differ on which political world views we find distressing, but I caution you against juxtaposing the Left with the same distress simply because your disposition is from the Right. The Left (Revolutionary Socialists), the Moderate Left (Social Democrates), the Moderate Right (Reform Liberals), and the Right (Liberals, aka Neoliberals/Conservatives) — and the entire Left (Socialism) and the entire Right (Liberalism) — in general, are overwhelmingly anti-racist. Of course, this varies highly per given x, but the point I am trying to get across is that I view those individuals who follow race-centred doctrines differently. I have zero tolerance for people who condemn others and/or self-aggrandize themseleves based on arbitrary physical traits which the 'victim' (both the racist, and more so, the 'inferior races') has no control over. This is not the case with the non-racist Left-Right whereby any person (belonging to any concievable racial category) can join based only on their political sympathies. I view this as a pivotal distinction. El_C

That would strike me as very egalitarian, if not for the "everybody but bigots" aspect ;). I suppose this is the exception that makes the rule? I myself reject the very concept of equality on its face, seeing it as a false doctrine leading to inefficiency. While you revile the racist for his bigotry, I sympathize with his error. As I said above, it would be handy if all people were clearly marked as good or ill, because their are bad people, and good. I simply find the racists method of determining character inaccurate, and unchristian. God asks us to love our neighbor, not persecute him based on his ancestry. Quite distinct from either a racist or an egalitarian, I am a firm believer in hierarchical meritocracy. Those of obvious skill, merit and honor should be promoted, and those who are incompetent, treacherous, and malignant should be demoted. I prefer a careful, kindly janitor who gets the job done to a malpracticing brain surgeon anyway ;) Little could be worse in my eyes than the slow death by inefficiency which the attempts at equality (an unachievable goal) in communism create. That is why it is so very easy for me to present anarcho-communism as an example of a distressing ideology. Oh, and we mustn’t forget their attempts to enforce atheism, the single greatest crime (in my worldview). Perhaps racism is the greatest crime in your worldview, but I will tell you, the best cure (indeed the only cure I have ever seen to work) for racism, is God. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 12:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) - This then, as I suspected, is where are our worldviews differ. I tend to follow Marx in approaching religion as an opiate, though I would not wish to enforce my views (or lack thereof) with respect to God and religion upon others. Incidentally, Marxist-Leninists believe that incentive is central to efficiency and that only in the final phase of Communism (as opposed to the stage of the Dictatorship of the Prolatriat) can Marx's 'work according to abilities - pay according to need' become tenable (an example close to our own fields: a university professor in the USSR was paid 6,000 rubals p/m whereas an unskilled workers was paid the minimum wage of 200 rubals). But this is all an aside, and perhaps it is futile to elaborate beyond this without entering into predictable polemics. At any rate, I staunchly support a meriotocratic system, I think where we part ways is with which antecedents are most suited to actualize the inherent potential of individuals meritocratically and how this can be best facilitated (what you title equality in a negative, monolithic sense). Having said all that, I think you nailed it quite pointedly when you comment that, when it comes to intellectual disocurse, my egalitarinism ommits bigots (incidentally, not just them: religious fundamentalists, also) — indeed it does, for precisely the reasons stated in my prior response. Lastly, I neither view racism nor religious persecution (both theistic and atheistic), etc., as the worse crime. The worse crime is when innocent people are harmed en mass, most acutely seen in a (any) genocide(s) — regadless who the perpetrators are and what they stand (or claim to stand) for. Regards, El_C

-

A very interesting and wonderful communication! I am most impressed that we spoke so long, and so politely disagreed on such potentially inflamatory matters (religion and politics). I think this speaks volumes as to your intellegence (in having understood me) and your character (being able to disagree while maintaining politeness). I appreciate this very much. I agree however this conversation is near ending, especially since it leads to a very fundamental disagreement on religion, and converting others is not what wikipedia intends us to to be doing here. I thank you again for the pleasent conversation, and hope I do not offend you in saying a prayer that you may find God. Sam [Spade] 21:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- I thank you for the many kind words, Sam. These are very much appreciated.

All the best,

El_C

title: User talk:El C/White Pride