This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Dinosaurs Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On some websites Dravidosaurus has been listed as "no longer considered to be a Dinosaur". It lists it as a plesiosaur now, because the skeleton was very incomplete so it was just thought to be a Stegosaur. Is it actually a Plesiosaur? User:Jntg4

Unless anyone can actually cite a recent good source, Dravidosaurus should be placed back into the Stegosauridae. As of 2004, it was still included within the Dinosauria (Galton & Upchurch). I note also that the Natural History museum also continues calling it a stegosaur, even while acknowledging the Chatterjee objection: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/nature-online/dino-directory/detail.dsml?Genus=Dravidosaurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.209.117 ( talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd be more inclined to just classify it as a thing (diapsid, actually, as that includes plesiosaurs and stegosaurs), until further notice. J. Spencer ( talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Why should we list it as a stegosaur again? When we found out that Teratosaurus was a rauisuchian, did we demand to put it back in Theropoda? 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I was looking for a reconstruction of Dravidosaurus and I couldn't find anything ('sides the Stegosaur-based interpretations...) At the very least, do we know if it was a Plesiosauroid or a Pliosauroid? David Fuchs 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Got me. I don't know if anyone has done much with it since Chatterjee. J. Spencer 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This recently came up on... DinoForum maybe? Yeah, Chatterjee was the last one to look at it, and he didn't do much other than point out that the stegosaur was a plesiosaur. Dinoguy2 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe that it would be a plesiosauroid, as Dravidosaurus lived in the Coniacian, while the pliosauroids had died out in the preceding Turonian. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 16:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 16:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay, now I'm confused. Is the main article correct? Is it a stegosaur or a plesiosaur? If it is a plesiosaur, is it long-necked or short-necked? 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Never mind, my points are mentioned above. 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 16:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Adam 70.80.215.121 ( talk) 16:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Too bad it's not a stegosaur, a late-surviving remnant of those plate-backed plant-munchers would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Seems it is a stegosaur again, and the article should be edited accordingly. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply