Talk:Agrosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

[edit] Reassessment of Agrosaurus

Agrosaurus macgillivrayi is actually a specimen of Thecodontosaurus antiquus those type locality was mis-labeled Cape York, Australia. The source on which this assertion is based is as follows:

Vickers-Rich, P., T.H.Rich, G.C.McNamara and A.Milner 1999 Agrosaurus: Australia's Oldest Dinosaur? Records of the Western Australian Museum Suppliment No.57: 191-200

Thanks, anonymous stranger! I have made the necessary changes.--Gazzster 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thecodontosaurus and Agrosaurus

I suggest that you merge the Agrosaurus page with the Thecodontosaurus page, because the holotype of Agrosaurus macgillivrayi is a specimen of Thecodontosaurus antiquus.

I take the point, but....

I think the article ought to stay for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the name Agrosaurus enjoys a certain amount of fame, especially in Australian circles, in its own right. Someone looking up Agrosaurus would possibly be confused to be redirected to Thecodontosaurus. There is a precedent: Brontosaurus has its own article, and does not redirect to Apatosaurus. This is because the name Brontosaurus enjoys status in its own right. Secondly, the article refers to a particular fossil, albeit mislabelled. The name Agrosaurus thus refers to a particular find of significance, albeit minor, to palaeontology, particular in Australia. However, I am open to discussion. If you or any others would like to argue the point, please do so.--Gazzster 03:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorientation of the Article

I rewrote the article, because I believed I was giving undue bias to the opinion that Agrosaurus macgillivrayi is synonymous with Thecodontosaurus antiquus. After reading (quite by accident) a discussion of the subject by Long (see references) I decided that the problem was quite complex. So while that opinion is probable, it needed some analysis. I feel the article needed to reflect that. Cheers all!--Gazzster 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)