Talk:Edmontosaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] Proposal to resurrect Anatosaurus
Anatosaurus may one day be resurrected as a distinct genus to include Edmontosaurus annectens and E. saskatchewanensis. Source [1] supports my suggestion that Anatosaurus deserves to be a distinct genus from Edmontosaurus in its own right, since Anatotian is more related to annectens and saskatchewanensis than to E. regalis. Once this idea is accepted, Anatosaurus will be put n a separate page. This will restrict Edmontosaurus to the type species, E. regalis Lambe, 1917.
Anatosaurus Lull & Wright, 1942
Type Species: A annectens (Marsh, 1892) (originally Claosaurus)
Other Species: A. saskatchewanensis (Sternberg, 1926) (originally Thespesius)
Sources:
[1] http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Oct/msg00235.html
- If this idea is acepted, and if it's supported by future phylogenetic studies. It souds a whole lot like Bakker's argument for ressurrecting Brontosaurus, actually, so we'll see if it ever gains acceptance or is even published on. Dinoguy2 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Anatosaurus could use its own page anyway, since it was a popular dinosaur in its time, and had five species referred to it from a variety of taxa and that went to a couple of different pages (it would be like the Brontosaurus exemption).
- Of course, one does not need a new genus for those species that are closer to Anatotitan if one considers A. copei to just be a large species of Edmontosaurus... J. Spencer 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't happy with the old page on Anatosaurus, so I threw this one together: User:J. Spencer/Anatosaurus. There are no refs yet, but what do you think? Too esoteric? J. Spencer 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I generally dislike retaining seperate articles for junior synonyms... could this new content be merged into Edmontosaurus? Dinoguy2 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose, but I'll need to add refs first. J. Spencer 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I generally dislike retaining seperate articles for junior synonyms... could this new content be merged into Edmontosaurus? Dinoguy2 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't happy with the old page on Anatosaurus, so I threw this one together: User:J. Spencer/Anatosaurus. There are no refs yet, but what do you think? Too esoteric? J. Spencer 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Size and speed
Lately, we've been going over the size and speed of this animal, and I think it would be better to discuss them here instead of reverting each other. So, let's take the discussion here, howzaboutit?
- Size: I have no problems with a 13m edmontosaur, but at this point I'd prefer Bamboozlingbert to make the citation, because I want the editor to learn how to do it.
- Speed, agility, and Tyrannosaurus: This is getting into original research territory, and unless it's cited, it should stay out.
Comments? J. Spencer 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on both points. It should only be included with cites if the speed papers in question address E. specifically. Dinoguy2 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with helping out an editor who doesn't know how to make citations, but we can't continually add the citations for him, or fix it so there isn't a conflict between his new number and the source cited. There are already citations for the size of various carnivorous dinosaurs, and the daily reverting is getting to be a disturbance. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion of Hell Creek find?
I was hoping to see material related to the Tyler Lyson find in Hell Creek, North Dakota, 1999. Are there any plans to expand the article to discuss the work being done by the University of Machester? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.8.49 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes (assuming it's Edmontosaurus, which is a good assumption since Edmontosaurus is almost the only game in town, Hell Creek-wise); it would be nice to have more than press releases, of course. Some coverage has been added to Hadrosaurid, so far. J. Spencer (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The press release and upcoming TV show are all we have to go on, as the specimen is still in prep. I'm guessing it won't be published until at least next year. They don't know what species it is because last I heard, they hadn't found whether or not the head is present in the big chunk of rock being worked on, and the head is pretty important for classifying hadrosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or longer... Anyway, I bet it'll be E. annectens; either that, or the long-awaited find that returns Thespesius to validity (joke). J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The press release and upcoming TV show are all we have to go on, as the specimen is still in prep. I'm guessing it won't be published until at least next year. They don't know what species it is because last I heard, they hadn't found whether or not the head is present in the big chunk of rock being worked on, and the head is pretty important for classifying hadrosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who replied, and to J. Spencer who pointed me to the Hadrosaurid page. I also agree that Thespesius is one fantastic name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.199.21 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
