Talk:Iguanodon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Iguanodon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Iguanodon is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Where first found?

I've always heard that Mantell first found the Iguanodon at Cuckfield not Tilgate?--69.106.240.106 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horned Iguanodon

I added a link to the already existing image of Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins-designed Iguanodon statues at Crystal Palace based on the theories of Sir Richard Owen. To me, no discussion of Iguanodon's is complete without a mention of this early four-legged theory. Side-note: before the dinosaur exhibit opened at Crystal Palace, a fancy diner party was actually heald inside the horizontal iguanodon statue's cramped frame. - Kevingarcia 07:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, i had a pic I took with an old analog camera which I sharpened teh image and substituted. I remember the drawing of the dinner party, that would be cool. Cas Liber 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I have been playing around with images, was wondering whether a gallery or a row of left thumbs was better..Cas Liber 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better if they can be incorporated as thumbnails into the text. If there's no place for them in the article, they probably should be left out. Also, the image labelled as a "current" restoration is really very outdated. Compare with modern restorations like [1] and [2].Dinoguy2 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then maybe taking the WWD image out of the taxobox is better to use. Feel free to play with it (I just got something on DYK but have to fix it :) Cas Liber 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Those links are to some really cool images! Maybe asking Raul Martin? Cas Liber 08:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirrush (mytholgy)

Dinoguy just beat me to this - with an edit clash. I agree citations are needed. There are indeed myths about possible living dinosaurs in the Congo but most seem to related to sauropod-like creatures and are unsubstantiated (also in S. American tropical forests). I can find no reference to Koldeway, saying he thought it was an Iguanodon. Whatever, please supply references. - Ballista 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New name for Iguanodon atherfieldensis

Iguanodon atherfieldensis has been re-assigned to its own genus, Mantellisaurus Paul, 2006. The reason why this animal was generically renamed is because it shows a number of differences from the true Iguanodon. Paul (2006) doesn't mention Vectisaurus, Heterosaurus, or Sphenospondylus, so I can say that these genera are undiagnostic and may or may not be dinosaurian.

Paul, G. S. 2006. Turning the old into the new: a separate genus for the gracile iguanodont from the Wealden of England; pp. 69-77 in K. Carpenter (ed.), Horns and Beaks: Ceratopsian and Ornithopod Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

[edit] Iguanodon species

Add Iguanodon ottingeri Galton & Jensen, 1979 to the Iguanodon species list. Also, each Iguanodon species needs an authorship added:

Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger & van Beneden, 1881 Iguanodon dawsoni Lydekker, 1888 Iguanodon fittoni Lydekker, 1888 Iguanodon lakotaensis Weishampel & Bjork, 1989

There is little data about I. dawsoni or I. fittoni, but those species are the most primitive Iguanodon species, not as derived as I. bernissartensis or I. anglicus.

Iguanodon hoggi Owen, 1874 was shown by Norman & Barrett (2002) to be a species of Camptosaurus. For this reason, remove I. hoggi from Iguanodon and transfer it to Camptosaurus. This species represents the second-latest occurrence of Camptosaurus (after C. depressus Gilmore, 1909).

D. B. Norman and P. M. Barrett. 2002. Ornithischian dinosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian) of England. Palaeontology 68:161-189. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Iguanodon orientalis

Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky, 1952 is actually a junior synonym of Iguanodon bernissartensis (Norman, 1995, 1996, 1998). Since Altirhinus was intended to be a new genus for specimens mis-identified as I. orientalis in 1981, I. orientalis is not a synonym of Altirhinus. The presence of Iguanodon bernissartensis in Mongolia shows that this dinosaur was widespread in the Northern Hemisphere. For this reason, Iguanodon is one of many pan-continental dinosaurs (like Allosaurus, Kentrosaurus, Apatosaurus, Torvosaurus, Ceratosaurus, and Elaphrosaurus).

D. B. Norman. 1995. Ornithopods from Mongolia: new observation. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(3, suppl.):46A.

D. B. Norman. 1996. On Mongolian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). 1. Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky 1952. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 116:303-315.

D. B. Norman. 1998. On Asian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). 3. A new species of iguanodontid dinosaur. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 122:291-348.

[edit] Iguanodon wins with 6 votes

[edit] Iguanodon(6 votes)

(Subpage here).

  • Status: Article status unknown.

Support:

  1. ArthurWeasley 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sphenacodon 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. M&NCenarius 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. RebSkii 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Cas Liber 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to resubmit Iguanodon candidacy. One of the fisrt discovered dinosaur and the most popular European genus! ArthurWeasley 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It does really need work, as Dinoguy pointed out, especially with the new Mantellisaurus erected. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the original Dinosaurs (with a capital D), and one of the best known too. Could do with more work. Sphenacodon 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs more work than Ankylosaurus but there is alot more to talk about. The history, its European origins and potential size at FA candicacy all lead me to vote here. Cas Liber 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I simply like the name and that's it. Haha! LOL. --RebSkii 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Do

The first thing that strikes me is that the article is poorly organized. There are paleobiological sections mixed with descriptive sections, for example. A good chunk of it would make a nice subsection on changing perspectives of this dinosaur over time, but it would need to pulled out of a few paragraphs. Bernissart is probably a subsection, because you get things like the many complete skeletons, the fact that more probably remain, the descriptions with their oddities like a prehensile tongue and curved tail (broken by Dollo), etc. Taxonomy for this genus is a real bear, unlike anything the project has tackled with the exception of Palaeosaurus, and the section here just scratches the surface. The paleobiology is fairly well-known, with descriptions of the brain for example. The thumb spike deserves a subheading (did you know an author in a popular book once suggested it was part of a poison delivery system?). Refs, of course, should increase. I think that there are plenty of images; in fact, the text needs to grow to fit them.

To sum up, I think that organization is the big thing; once that's done, it'll be a lot easier to work on. Perhaps something like this (to steal from Stegosaurus):

  • Introduction/Taxobox
  • Description
  • Classification
Origins
  • History
Early stuff, Mantell and Owen and Dinosauria
Bernissart
Modern studies (1960s-)
  • Taxonomy
Valid species
Nomina dubia (dubious name)
Invalid species
  • Palaeobiology
Posture
Thumb Spike
Feeding
Nervous System
Sexual Dimorphism, different species, or different genera (I. bern versus "I." atherfield)
  • Popular culture
Changing perception (and how it relates to perception of dinosaurs in general)
  • References
  • External links

I know that this is not a very helpful writeup, but this article need a great deal of work. J. Spencer 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What, did I scare everyone? It's not that bad. J. Spencer 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this the first time you left a message here. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the main idea is the article needs a stronger framework, which would make all the other work easier, and this is my suggestion for such a framework. J. Spencer 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a great framework, and, obviously, everything you've mentioned needs coverage. I agree the text needs expanding (in fact, I expanded it considerably several times last year so that user:Ballista's images could all be used in the text) However, the images still overpower the small text sections; a major expansion *and* overhaul is needed. I'm at work, and don't have any references in front of me, but I plan to work on this article later tonight after work. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the fixes. I started on it, but got called away (technically, I was at work). I'm going to try to work the three lists of species (valid, invalid, and dubious) into three (or so) paragraphs of prose... but not until tomorrow. Great research, J! Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species list

Shamelessly copied from Re: Iguanodon, and interpreted, since Dinogeorge gave half a list:

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825

  • Iguanodon albinus Fritsch, 1893 [nomen dubium]
  • Nondinosaurian: Original name of Albisaurus albinus
  • Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 emend. Bronn, 1850
  • Misspelled Iguanodon angelicus Lessem & Glut, 1993; Iguanodon anglicum Holl, 1829
  • Iguanodon atherfieldensis Hooley, 1925=Mantellisaurus
  • Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger vide van Beneden, 1881â (now the holotype)
  • ?Iguanodon dawsoni Lydekker, 1888
  • Iguanodon exogyrarum Fritsch, 1878 emend. Chure & McIntosh, 1989 [nomen dubium]=Ponerosteus
  • Misspelled Iguanodon exogirarum Fritsch, 1878 [nomen dubium]; Iguanodon exogirarus Brinkmann, 1988
  • ?Iguanodon fittoni Lydekker, 1889
  • Iguanodon foxii (Huxley, 1869) Owen, 1873=Hypsilophodon
  • Misspelled Iguanodon foxi Lydekker, 1888
  • Misspelled Iguanodon boggii Glut, 1972; Iguanodon hoggi Olshevsky, 1978
  • Iguanodon gracilis (Lydekker, 1888) Steel, 1969 (originally Sphenospondylus))=?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis
  • Iguanodon hollingtoniensis Lydekker, 1889=I. fittoni
  • Misspelled Iguanodon hollingtonensis Olshevsky, 1978
  • Iguanodon lakotaensis Weishampel & Bjork, 1989
  • Iguanodon major (Owen, 1842) [nomen dubium]=Streptospondylus major
  • Iguanodon mantelli von Meyer, 1832=?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis
  • Misspelled Iguanodon manteli Probst & Windolf, 1993; Iguanodon mantelii Probst & Windolf, 1993; Iguanodon mantelli var. bernissartensis Nopcsa, 1915; Iguanodon mantellii Mansel-Pleydell, 1888
  • Iguanodon mongolensis Whitfield, 1992 [nomen nudum]=I have no clue
  • Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky, 1952
  • ?Iguanodon ottingeri Galton & Jensen, 1979 (not 1978) [nomen dubium]
  • Iguanodon phillipsi Seeley, 1869 [nomen dubium]=Priodontognathus
  • Misspelled Iguanodon phillipsii Seeley, 1875
  • Iguanodon praecursor Sauvage, 1876=dubious sauropod, sometimes assigned to Neosodon
  • Misspelled Iguanodon precursor Sauvage, 1895
  • Iguanodon prestwichii Hulke, 1880=Camptosaurus prestwichii
  • Misspelled Iguanodon prestwichi Lydekker, 1888
  • Iguanodon prestwichii Sauvage, 1897â98 non Hulke, 1880=If it ain't C. prestwichii, I have no clue
  • Iguanodon seelyi Hulke, 1882=I. bernissartensis
  • Misspelled (although I think, if Dinogeorge is right, that Hulke screwed up) Iguanodon seeleyi Moseley, 1883
  • Iguanodon suessii Bunzel, 1871=Mochlodon suessi
  • Iguanodon valdensis (Lydekker, 1889) van den Broeck, 1900 [nomen dubium]=originally Vectisaurus; ?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis

Check here for Tracy Ford's version, somewhat more readable, but not as comprensive. Also, an Internet Archive version of a Dinogeorge document that was at an old version of the Dinosauricon can be of service (or in case you don't want to download the thing immediately). J. Spencer 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Palace models

With Waterhouse Hawkins, he set up nearly two dozen sculptures, including an Iguanodon which, before it was completed, housed a banquet for twenty.[15]

It is my understanding that the banquet was held, not in the sculpture itself, but in the mold of the sculpture. However, I can't think of a really good way to rework this sentence without hopelessly complicating the sentence. Ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh. The text didn't mention anything about a mold, and the picture I saw looked like they were in the darn thing, and that it was very crowded (p. 11, David Norman's The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs). J. Spencer 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have that book, so I don't know what the picture looks like. :( This JSTOR article mentions "The sculptor Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins (no relation to the architect) designed the Iguanodon mold in which the dinner was held" (I don't have full access to the article, though). This site (admittedly a blog) indicates the same thing: the dinner was held in the mold. Robert Silverberg indicates in this article "The most ingenious stroke of promotional activity with which the Crystal Palace Company stoked public interest in the dinosaur project was a formal dinner for twenty-one scientists that took place inside the full-sized mold from which the concrete Iguanodon was to be cast." I know that baking molds generally closely resemble the cakes that they shape, but I don't know anything about construction molds, so I can't say whether or not a mold for the construction of a dinosaur statue/model would resemble the statue/model itself. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I want that woodcut for the article. 1850s, it has to be in the public domain, right? And now it's twenty versus twenty-one. What's one more Victorian naturalist among friends? The latecomers had to sit in the rear of the Iguanodon, I suppose. It may have been the mold, but it sure looks like the sculpture in the image I saw. I'll have another look for more information, but I'm not going to fight about it. By the way, you should really get Norman's book. It is gorgeously illustrated with photographs, skeletal line drawings, diagrams, and color paintings by John Sibbick, and for my money is the best dinosaur book of the 1980s, beating out Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and The Dinosaur Heresies. J. Spencer 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Content from the 1850s is definitely in the public domain; a woodcut or photograph of the event would be a great addition to this article, and might help clear up this mystery. I speculate the "21st" scientist (if there was one) would have been Owen himself (as in, Owen plus 20 others). I will keep Norman's book in mind. As far as the mold goes, I won't argue, either (rather pointless, really), but let's see if we can't get the image. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Googling Iguanodon and "crystal" gets about the same figure as is in the book. From the description of how it was made, the banquet must have been in a mold, unless the sculpture is extremely hollow (I was unclear on the process at first). The thing that threw me is how detailed the exterior is in the woodcut, but in this case the exterior must have conformed pretty closely to the interior, which I guess isn't surprising given the apparent thinness of the structure. J. Spencer 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat inanely, I can't find the image. I've googled and found plenty of Crystal Palace images, but not the correct one. Could you drop me a link? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here it is on a French website. It's the same picture as is in the book. J. Spencer 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The famous pic - amusing as it is a non-english speaking site and mentions pachypoda and Meyer right at the top...Cas Liber 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded the picture, but it seems we have many images in certain small sections. I'm unsure where we should put it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could move the model picture to the description, and put this one about where the model is now. The description will be lengthened at some point. That and the classification are the only two sections that I think are undercited and a bit short (I have a couple of things to add to Paleobio, and I'll probably throw in some additional refs, locations, and known material to the species, but otherwise those sections are close to complete, as are the discovery\history and pop culture). It'll be easier to figure out what additional pictures are needed, and how to distribute them, once the text is close to completion. J. Spencer 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. BTW, the species section is still undernourished. I still plan on expanding/reworking that, as I'm not happy with it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's there now, so see how you like it. I'm knocking off on it for the night. J. Spencer 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks absolutely great on my 600x800 screen resolution, but I'm not sure how it will translate on screens with a higher resolution. I'll test it tomorrow. You've done a heckuva job, J.: I can't believe how much text you've put into this article! It's been a pleasure working with you on this, and I'm just awed by all your work. Cas and Mgig's contributions have also certainly been fruitful. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, but it was my pleasure. I've had a lot of fun with this one. Now finish the species section! :) J. Spencer 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I promise, but it won't be until tonight. I'm technically not supposed to be on; I'm supposed to be studying for an algebra exam, and am just keeping up with talk pages, then it's back to studying. Shhh! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And the plot thickens: Michael Benton, in Greg Paul's The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs (2000, p. 16), states that the models were hollow, being constructed of a brick and steel framework with a layer of concrete over them, and that this is where the banquet took place: in the Iguanodon before the top was fitted. Perhaps what we've been reading as "mold" was not a mold in the sense of "pour something into it", but "build something around it?" J. Spencer 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. And in that light, I certainly don't object if you want to change the wording back to remove the word "mold", as it would seem then that the molds would have been impossible to remove after construction and would have been an integral part of the structure (meaning there may be no distinction between the mold and the model, and no reason to clarify that the party was held in the mold, not the model).
I also had another hack at the species sections. Originally, the species were listed alphabetically, but this created a lot of very short paragraphs, or paragraphs which contained sentences only remotely related to one another. I've attempted to rework these so that there's a better flow (species grouped by author, when possible). Feel free to revert if this has been unsuccessful.
On another note, I checked the page on higher screen resolutions, and the images are fine. I think the nice new images courtesy of Mgig look great. On higher resolutions, however, a few of our paragraphs seem a bit short. Firsfron of Ronchester
I might add a bit on locations and specimens, but I don't think anything should be reverted. I like the idea of tying together some of the species. Which paragraphs are still short? J. Spencer 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Species of Iguanodon and Valid species each have two paragraphs with just three sentences each. Reassigned, Dubious and Feeding and diet each have a paragraph with just three sentences. Someone may pick at these shorter paragraphs during a peer review, as I recall someone on FAC had criticised some short paragraphs on Tyrannosaurus (though I think those were actually two-sentence paragraphs). If even a single sentence could be added to some of these, that would help flesh out these shorter sections. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple others, in Posture/movement and Social Behaviours? sections, look short too. It shouldn't be too hard to make the majority of them a bit longer. J. Spencer 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

Seeing as this is the new Dinosaur collaboration, I thought I'd just bring up a quick note about the pronunciation that is given (ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn), as it differs from my own, and the only way I've heard it pronounced (which is ɪˈgwaːnəˌdɒn). Is this a dialectal thing or is it a palaeontology thing? I just checked the online Oxford English Dictionary here & it gives (ɪˈgwɑːnədɒn, -æ-), which makes me think the first is RP, while the -æ- variant is perhaps American (note that my [a:] is the Australian vowel quality). Thylacoleo 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This site gives the pronunciation as "i-GWAHN-o-don", but I'm not sure how that translates into IPA, or how Aussie pronunciation of dinosaurian generic names differs from that of British or American. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The instructions to that site here state that "The phonetic transcriptions also reflect typical American pronunciations" and that [ah] refers to the vowel in "father" (or "broad a"), which corresponds to OED's first transcription ɪˈgwɑːnədɒn rather than the -æ- one. I'll make a change to the article to reflect this in light of this additional source. Thylacoleo 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worth mentioning?

The discovery in 1857 of a hind limb of a young Iguanodon is not currently covered in the article. Might it be worth a mention in the Discovery and history or Posture section? Mgiganteus1 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is definitely worth mentioning. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
O.K. How's this? J. Spencer 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! Mgiganteus1 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

OMG the article is almost unrecognisable from a few weeks ago! Well done. I bluelinked Samuel Stutchbury but it's really stubby..Cas Liber 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. This article is now the second-longest article on a dinosaur genus, and the fourth-longest Wikipedia dinosaur article. Adding a few more sentences to the stubby paragraphs listed above will make it rival T. rex. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There we go, all redlinks blued now. Cas Liber 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, er, we're going to need one for David B. Norman; we've got the wrong guy right now. J. Spencer 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No sooner said than done :) Cas Liber 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) OK, I don't think I can stuff anything more into this, text-wise. J. Spencer 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Question is, what to do before nominating for FA....Cas Liber 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, copy edits, tweaks, picture location adjustments, probably. Can anyone come up with any missing Iguanodon-related topics J. Spencer 05:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The comments 72 makes below should be addressed. I know J fixed the Albisaurus article, but what of I. recentior and the rest? Aside from small fixes that must be made, why don't we ask some of the more helpful folks from the last FAC to poke their heads over here and comment? There were two or three people who offered really useful advice and specific improvements that could be made. I think those voices could be very valuable, as we've been working the material so long it's become familiar to us, and we may be missing something obvious, or something that is obvious to us that won't be to the casual reader. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I. mantelli is referred to I. anglicus in the article, as it's based on the same material. I'd avoided the minor species of Streptospondylus because they'd never been recombined as Iguanodon species, i.e. no I. grandis (and it's kind of odd to refer anything to a dubious species, anyway). Hulke '79 is the right ref, though (Dinogeorge bobbles!).
Thinking of Circeus and Indon? I was thinking of inviting them over myself. J. Spencer 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I remember what I was going to say - the intro needs a look-over/edit to make sure it reflects the new content of the article. J. Spencer 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of Circeus and Indon. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the redirects, there are several genera not covered in the article that are thought to be synonymous (Heterosaurs, Hikanodon, Proiguanodon, Therosaurus), but darned if I know when the synonymies were made. Some of them probably should go to Mantellisaurus, too (Heterosaurus). J. Spencer 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Still can't find anything beyond a Dinogeorge DML post for S. meyeri and S. grandis. J. Spencer 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The DML post may be not be a reliable source, but I cannot think of a better solution; either the article goes without mention of them (making it less comprehensive), or it mentions them with a reference that Wikipedia may not consider reliable. All we can do, then, is what you've done: try to show this DML post is reliable by including a wikilink to the author's Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind so much the idea of losing that cite for those species, because virtually nobody has ever heard of them, but I'd like to keep it for the true nature of I. mantelli, because that bugged me for many years, and finding out that someone named it from the same stuff as I. anglicus, not the Maidstone specimen which was discovered years later, makes sense. It's also useful as a ref when dealing with detail-oriented taxonomists like 72. It would have been more convenient the other way, though, because then we would have had a decent specimen for a type to call Mantellisaurus mantelli, instead of wondering if there has to be a half-dozen ICZN suppressions to use M. atherfieldensis. J. Spencer 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iguanodon species

Iguanodon foxii (Huxley, 1869) is actually the referral of Hypsilophodon to Iguanodon by Owen (1874). All said, Hypsilophodon foxii was not originally named Iguanodon foxii.

R. Owen. 1874. Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck formations. Supplement no. V. Dinosauria (Iguanodon). [Wealden and Purbeck.]. The Palaeontographical Society, London 1873:1-18.

Albisaurus albinus (Fritsch, 1893) [A. scutifer Fritsch, 1905 is a synonym] is considered a possible marine reptile by George Olshevsky in the Dinosaur Genera List, so update the Albisaurus page.

The corrct authorship for Vectisaurus valdensis is Hulke, 1879, not Lydekker, 1889.

Besides Streptospondylus major, S. recentior, S. grandis, and S. meyeri have been assigned to Iguanodon anglicus before, if you can find citations discussing these synonymies. Place Iguanodon mantelli in the synonymy of I. anglicus. Will David B. Norman be redescribing I. anglicus?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I think he may leave I. anglicus alone, now that I. bernissartensis is the type species, but if he goes through the Wealden species to add his own two cents to the Mantellisaurus issue, he may do something with I. anglicus. J. Spencer 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how simple or complex the english.....

How do folks feel - "bipedality vs quadrupedality" vs. "two-legged or four-leggd posture/gait/stance etc." - any strong feelings one way or the other? I'm sort of leaning towards the latter but if anyone can argue the other way....Cas Liber 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as we keep the appropriate wikilinks, I don't mind either way. If anyone wants to change my grammar, that's fine too; when I get going, I can start writing some real convoluted sentences (Firs once broke up a 95 word sentence of mine in Thescelosaurus). J. Spencer 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I did indeed; that sentence was huge! :) I personally think "quadrupedality" isn't that complex of a word; it should be understandable to most high school students, something several members of the WP:Dinosaurs team have considered when writing articles. We're not on the Simple English Wikipedia, so as long as we include wikilinks on more difficult terminology, I don't think there will be a problem. JMHO, as always. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thass fine - just fine-tuning some prose before the final plunge.......Cas Liber 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries...a style thing

The other thing I thought just scanning the bottom is the gallery as some reviewers may have a problem with it (with 3 images, it also doesn't fill the space). Maybe a better layout would be the WWD still on the left in the section above and the images in a column down the RHS. I am pre-empting a possible issue on the FAC Cas Liber 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the middle image has a very similar image halfway up the page. thoughts? Cas Liber 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The gallery in my mind was like this: lumpy horned pachyderm Iggy to tripodal inert kangaroo Iggy to mobile quad-to-biped Iggy. Since we've got a number of tripod Iggy, we don't really need any more to make that point, so we could go to two. The thing that was bothering me was the last image: even though it's great, I'm pretty sure it's from Heilmann in the 1920s, and Heilmann was very much ahead of his times, so it dilutes the general point a bit to have one of the exceptions. However, we don't have any modern Iggy representations, unless someone would like to draw one, and I'm reasonably comfortable going with what we have. If we only have two images, there's no need for the gallery.
Too bad Neave Parker's classic Iggy is not in the public domain, as that's about the apex of the tripod version. J. Spencer 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Love the montage...great solution...Cas Liber 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

In an article this long, how much redundancy should there be? For example, in a couple of places, the spike on the nose mistake is brought up, and some common wikilinks are repeated. I'd argue that it's useful to reuse wikilinks once a large section or two has passed, and that a partial sentence recap is all right; after all, someone might skip through the sections. Any thoughts? J. Spencer 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

FYI: Circeus, one of the contributors to the Triceratops FAC, has left a comments page: Talk:Iguanodon/Comments. I think that his suggestions are pretty reasonable and simple; most of them have to do with wording and clarification. J. Spencer 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whew! That's a huge list! Well, I guess we get crackin'! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we've gotten most of the easier ones. Any ref formatting changes will take more time. Also, I think it would be fitting to use British spellings :) . J. Spencer 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work, J! Maybe we can have Cas, who uses Commonwealth spelling, go over the spelling. Personally, I would like to use British spelling throughout, but I have trouble identifying British spelling (outside of a few obvious words like "colour" and "flavour"). Firsfron of Ronchester 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read it twice and can't see any american spellings jumping out at me Cas Liber 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great; thank you for checking, Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I got the last couple of places Circeus wanted citations. Think it's time to put the article through a final polish and send it off to FAC? J. Spencer 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the last citation, and if there are no other comments, we should certainly polish and send. Indon never commented, which is a shame, because him comments on Triceratops were useful. However, we got a lot out of Circeus' recommendations. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll put up a notice at the HQ. J. Spencer 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I think the next thing to look at might be image placement. I added ArthurWeasley's quadrupedal Iguanodon to the description section, because I thought it was useful to have a good clean life restoration next to that section. I kinda miss the running Iggies, although I'm not sure where that picture would go, and now when I see it, I think: Iguanodon: went extinct from running with sharp pointed objects near chest. J. Spencer 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! On a more serious note, I think we actually may have enough pictures. Considering that, depending on a reader's screen resolution, the placement of images will vary to some degree, I think we should keep things as simple as possible. We've already got 17 images, which is 17 more than is required for a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking of more, but of how they're laid out, size, placement, that sort of thing. J. Spencer 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with where they are now? The taxobox has Ballista's image of the skull, which Dinoguy preferred over an artist's depiction. AurthurWeasley's nice illustration is in the general description section, where such an image would be appropriate. Your cladogram diagram is in the classification section, the WWD image is in the only section it is allowed to be in, etc, etc. The only thing I can think of for better image placement might be to alternate images on the right and left so that the article looks balanced, though that isn't part of a the Featured Article Criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing's wrong with them. I just wanted to see what people thought about the aesthetics, since that's not my area of expertise. J. Spencer 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think things look prety good...cheers, Cas Liber 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iguanodon anglicus

Norman (2004) included Iguanodon anglicus in Iguanodon because, despite being considered a nomen dubium by some scientists (including Blows, Chapman, and Carpenter), I. anglicus has been widely used in the literature. (He synonymized I. mantelli with I. anglicus because both names are based on the same type material (more information can be found at Olshevsky (DML, 1997). According to Olshevsky (DML, 1997), the species epithet anglicus was originally spelled anglicum, but emended to its current spelling by Friedrich Bronn in 1850. Are Iguanodon major, Streptospondylus recentior, S. grandis, and S. meyeri nomina nuda?

The name Therosaurus was proposed by Fitzinger (1840) for Iguanodon mantelli. The type species of Therosaurus is I. mantelli.

Fitzinger, L. J., 1840. Systema Reptilium: Vienna, 106 pp.

Norman, David B., 2004. Basal Iguanodontia. In Weishampel, D.B., Osmólska, H., and Dodson, P. (eds.): The Dinosauria, 2nd, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 413-437.

Olshevsky, G., 1997 Re: Hello and a question about Iguanodon mantelli (long). 72.194.116.63 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.30 8 March 2007

[edit] Congratulations to all involved

What a super article: fantastic detail and illustrations. I've made a few Commonwealth English edits, as discussed above (I left the -ize endings as they're used in CEng as well as -ise ones). Cheers Jasper33 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jasper, for both your comments and standardi(s/z)ing the English. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/g/u/Talk%7EIguanodon_d48b.html"