Talk:Hadrosaurus
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. |
Contents |
[edit] No Skull?
Can someone explain the assertion that there is no skull known? The specimen on display at the Philadelphia Academy has one. The assertion about the skeletons being indistinguishable seems to contradict information in the Hadrosauridae article. Robert A West 21:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's true. According to Dr. William B. Gallagher of the New Jersey State Museum in his book "When Dinosaurs Roamed New Jersey" Rutgers University Press 1997 pg. 34 the skull was not found and may not have even been with the bulk of the remains. Remeber the skelton found is the only one from this species, so a skull from a different species, but same Genus, could be used to replace it but this skull could have differences from the orginal. Editcml 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- H. foulki is the only valid species of the Hadrosaur genus, afaik. Any skull in museum display is probably based on related genera, like Gryptosaurus.Dinoguy2 18:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ==
Could Eolambia be merged (with a redirect) into this article as that article appears to be little more than a stub?
Jackiespeel 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, that should only be done if Eolambia is a synonym for Hadrosaurus (like Apatosaurus=Brontosaurus), which it's not. Leave it as is (there are hundreds of dino stubs like it...), somebody working on Wikiproject Dinosaurs will get to it eventually.Dinoguy2 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rendition of hadrosaur
seriously, jar jar was based on a hadrosaur. check it:
--Ghetteaux 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- If so, you need to come up with a source that says it was meant to look like a hadrosaur, and then create a pop culture section to put it in.Dinoguy2 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
)
[edit] Small Question about Hadrosaurus please
Dear all
Could you please tell me how many "complete" and or "incomplete" fossils of "Hadrosaurus" have collectively been found to date? Regards.
Happy haytham 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you limit this to H. foulkii, I think only the original material can be confidently assigned to it. J. Spencer 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry Sir/Madam
But what is the Number complete /incomplete fossils of "Hadrosaurus" have collectively been found Please?
Thanx. Happy haytham 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- One incomplete skeleton. It is possible that other fossils belong to Hadrosaurus, but the original is too incomplete to compare them with, so it is likely that no more fossils will ever be added to the number known for this species, they will simply get new names. Dinoguy2 05:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Mr/Mrs Dinoguy2
And how many "complete" fossils of "Hadrosaurus" have been found ..if you Please?
Just out of curious
I hope that you would not find me being too annoying
Best Regards. :)
Happy haytham 10:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- None. Hadrosaurus is called a nomen dubium, or dubious name. Because the one and only specimen is so incomplete, no other specimens should ever be considered to come from it. There is only one specimen, and because of the status of the name, there will probably never be any more (unless the name is officially switched to a more complete skeleton of a very close relative). Dinoguy2 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
None ? !..There are no Hadrosaurus foulkii fossils ?.Happy haytham 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- None that are complete. One that is incomplete, and that's it. Dinoguy2 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay Thank you very much for your answers, Not meant to undermine your answers but I will resort to other sources for further information.
Cheers :)
Happy haytham 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
