![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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?
Comments? J. Spencer 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
A three-dimensional animation model of Edmontosaurus (Hadrosauridae) for testing chewing hypotheses. Unfortunately, they don't give you the animation to play with on your own. J. Spencer ( talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the aesthetically inclined among us, there is a pdf available from the AMNH of Osborn's 1912 description of the "Trachodon mummy" with numerous excellent figures of skin impressions. This is public-domain age, and I'd like to cherry-pick a few. What are the best? The document can be had here, although you may want to start here, because it is a 76000 kb file. It also includes an article on Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus skulls with some vintage figures, but who cares about them? J. Spencer ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Before I dive into this, what about Anatotitan? Horner et al. in The Dinosauria II synonymized it with Edmontosaurus annectens. Since then, there have been only a few papers that touch on hadrosaurines. The 2007 redescription of Hadrosaurus identifies Anatotitan with Edmontosaurus, although does not identify species. Greg Paul's 2008 iguanodont revision mentions the combination Edmontosaurus (Anatotitan) annectens. The description of Gryposaurus monumentensis does not use the word Anatotitan anywhere. Aside from articles in Horns and Beaks (which was not published in 2007, as I had my copy in Oct. 2006, and which had been held up for a long time), and the description of Wulagasaurus and Sahaliyana, Anatotitan seems to have disappeared. Shall we sink it here, and if so, what species should it be known under? J. Spencer ( talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There comes a point where exactitude becomes pedantry. :-)
I changed "gathered plant material was held in the jaws by a cheek-like organ" to "gathered plant material was held in the jaws by cheeks".
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition gives definitions for "cheek": 1. The fleshy part of either side of the face below the eye and between the nose and ear. 2. Something resembling the cheek in shape or position. http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/C0265600.html
Edmontosaurus had (we think) "cheeks" according to the second definition here. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will jot some notes here - looks pretty good overall, if you have all images and refs sorted, I'd say it was worth a tilt at FAC. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Species section lists E. regalis as present in a number of formations spanning the Campanian and Maastrichtian. However, most recent sources I've seen on this such as Campione's conference presentations suggest that E. regalis is present only in the Horseshoe Canyon formation. Recent chatter on the DML supports this, with both Tom Holtz and Greg Paul stating that E. regalis is not present in the Maastrichtian, and implying that E. regalis and E. annectens are chronspecies. I'm deficiant in recent hadrosaur papers, but can anybody clarify this? I'm thinking many of the reported E. regalis in the Hell Creek etc. are misidentification or based on specimens later reclassified as something else. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no such taxon as Trachodon atavus Cope, 1871. I searched Cope's 1871 work on Google Books ( http://books.google.com/books?id=hP0CAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false) and there is no mention of Trachodon. Therefore, Trachodon atavus is a typographical error made by Weishampel and Horner (1990) and Horner et. al. (2004). Likewise, Agathaumas milo is based on a now-missing sacral centrum and a tibia fragment, both of which cannot be identified beyond Dinosauria and cannot be considered a synonym of Edmontosaurus regalis. 68.4.61.237 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
I'm pretty sure there's an error here, the article text describes Edmontosaurus annectens as the largest known species of Edmontosaurus, The largest ornithopods scale also shows it as being the larger species. But the scale chart used on this article shows E. regalis as being larger than E. annectens. 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What does the following mean? "The scalation of the rest of the leg is not presently known, although impressions on a specimen of the crested hadrosaurid Lambeosaurus suggest that the thighs were under the skin of the body, like modern birds." FunkMonk ( talk) 14:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
With new evidence showing it had a fleshy crest, at least i E. regalis, shouldn't this be added to the text. Also, could A. copei be a separate specie of Edmontosaurus without being it's own genus? It's not something i see mentioned often, usually it's one of the two extremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain where exactly in Cope's 1871 publication Trachodon atavus is mentioned? There is a whole section on Hadrosaurus cavatus (pp. 50-52), but I don't find neither genus name Trachodon nor species name atavus anywhere. Looks like we need to get this record straight. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 01:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As suggested elsewhere, I set up species-level articles for both included Edmontosaurus species as a trial/experiment for doing so with other non-monotypic genera. The suggestion would be to keep this article's info to Edmontosaurus in general (i.e. any biology and classification stuff that would apply broadly to both species), and move more specific information that pertains only to one or the other species to those pages. Given the wealth of info we currently have on these dinosaurs, there should be plenty of good info to go around, and I've already tried to prune anything genus-level from the species articles. However, I don't want to jeopardize FA status by removing species-specific stuff from here without discussion first. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"A 2007 study by Terry Gates and Scott Sampson found broadly similar results, in that Edmontosaurus remained close to Saurolophus and Prosaurolophus and distant from Gryposaurus, Brachylophosaurus, and Maiasaura.[28] However, the most recent review of Hadrosauridae, by Jack Horner and colleagues (2004), came to a noticeably different result: Edmontosaurus was nested between Gryposaurus and the "brachylophosaurs", and distant from Saurolophus." This sounds a bit odd. A 2007 study was contradicted by a more recent 2004 study? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of these specimens? their extraordinary size is mentioned in Horner et al. (2011) and there's a conference abstract Horner and Woodward (2011), giving more concise estimates of their size and mentioning the results of histological analyses of the "classic adult" 8-9m specimens of E. annectens, revealing they are still in the active fast growth phase while the new giants have fully mature bones (EFS is implied). We already have Campione and Evans (2011) basically saying that even "large" E. annectens are subadults, this reinforces that conclusion. Mike.BRZ ( talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_2.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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?
Comments? J. Spencer 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
A three-dimensional animation model of Edmontosaurus (Hadrosauridae) for testing chewing hypotheses. Unfortunately, they don't give you the animation to play with on your own. J. Spencer ( talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the aesthetically inclined among us, there is a pdf available from the AMNH of Osborn's 1912 description of the "Trachodon mummy" with numerous excellent figures of skin impressions. This is public-domain age, and I'd like to cherry-pick a few. What are the best? The document can be had here, although you may want to start here, because it is a 76000 kb file. It also includes an article on Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus skulls with some vintage figures, but who cares about them? J. Spencer ( talk) 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Before I dive into this, what about Anatotitan? Horner et al. in The Dinosauria II synonymized it with Edmontosaurus annectens. Since then, there have been only a few papers that touch on hadrosaurines. The 2007 redescription of Hadrosaurus identifies Anatotitan with Edmontosaurus, although does not identify species. Greg Paul's 2008 iguanodont revision mentions the combination Edmontosaurus (Anatotitan) annectens. The description of Gryposaurus monumentensis does not use the word Anatotitan anywhere. Aside from articles in Horns and Beaks (which was not published in 2007, as I had my copy in Oct. 2006, and which had been held up for a long time), and the description of Wulagasaurus and Sahaliyana, Anatotitan seems to have disappeared. Shall we sink it here, and if so, what species should it be known under? J. Spencer ( talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There comes a point where exactitude becomes pedantry. :-)
I changed "gathered plant material was held in the jaws by a cheek-like organ" to "gathered plant material was held in the jaws by cheeks".
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition gives definitions for "cheek": 1. The fleshy part of either side of the face below the eye and between the nose and ear. 2. Something resembling the cheek in shape or position. http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/C0265600.html
Edmontosaurus had (we think) "cheeks" according to the second definition here. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will jot some notes here - looks pretty good overall, if you have all images and refs sorted, I'd say it was worth a tilt at FAC. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The Species section lists E. regalis as present in a number of formations spanning the Campanian and Maastrichtian. However, most recent sources I've seen on this such as Campione's conference presentations suggest that E. regalis is present only in the Horseshoe Canyon formation. Recent chatter on the DML supports this, with both Tom Holtz and Greg Paul stating that E. regalis is not present in the Maastrichtian, and implying that E. regalis and E. annectens are chronspecies. I'm deficiant in recent hadrosaur papers, but can anybody clarify this? I'm thinking many of the reported E. regalis in the Hell Creek etc. are misidentification or based on specimens later reclassified as something else. MMartyniuk ( talk) 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no such taxon as Trachodon atavus Cope, 1871. I searched Cope's 1871 work on Google Books ( http://books.google.com/books?id=hP0CAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false) and there is no mention of Trachodon. Therefore, Trachodon atavus is a typographical error made by Weishampel and Horner (1990) and Horner et. al. (2004). Likewise, Agathaumas milo is based on a now-missing sacral centrum and a tibia fragment, both of which cannot be identified beyond Dinosauria and cannot be considered a synonym of Edmontosaurus regalis. 68.4.61.237 ( talk) 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
I'm pretty sure there's an error here, the article text describes Edmontosaurus annectens as the largest known species of Edmontosaurus, The largest ornithopods scale also shows it as being the larger species. But the scale chart used on this article shows E. regalis as being larger than E. annectens. 50.195.51.9 ( talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What does the following mean? "The scalation of the rest of the leg is not presently known, although impressions on a specimen of the crested hadrosaurid Lambeosaurus suggest that the thighs were under the skin of the body, like modern birds." FunkMonk ( talk) 14:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
With new evidence showing it had a fleshy crest, at least i E. regalis, shouldn't this be added to the text. Also, could A. copei be a separate specie of Edmontosaurus without being it's own genus? It's not something i see mentioned often, usually it's one of the two extremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain where exactly in Cope's 1871 publication Trachodon atavus is mentioned? There is a whole section on Hadrosaurus cavatus (pp. 50-52), but I don't find neither genus name Trachodon nor species name atavus anywhere. Looks like we need to get this record straight. -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 01:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As suggested elsewhere, I set up species-level articles for both included Edmontosaurus species as a trial/experiment for doing so with other non-monotypic genera. The suggestion would be to keep this article's info to Edmontosaurus in general (i.e. any biology and classification stuff that would apply broadly to both species), and move more specific information that pertains only to one or the other species to those pages. Given the wealth of info we currently have on these dinosaurs, there should be plenty of good info to go around, and I've already tried to prune anything genus-level from the species articles. However, I don't want to jeopardize FA status by removing species-specific stuff from here without discussion first. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 11:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"A 2007 study by Terry Gates and Scott Sampson found broadly similar results, in that Edmontosaurus remained close to Saurolophus and Prosaurolophus and distant from Gryposaurus, Brachylophosaurus, and Maiasaura.[28] However, the most recent review of Hadrosauridae, by Jack Horner and colleagues (2004), came to a noticeably different result: Edmontosaurus was nested between Gryposaurus and the "brachylophosaurs", and distant from Saurolophus." This sounds a bit odd. A 2007 study was contradicted by a more recent 2004 study? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of these specimens? their extraordinary size is mentioned in Horner et al. (2011) and there's a conference abstract Horner and Woodward (2011), giving more concise estimates of their size and mentioning the results of histological analyses of the "classic adult" 8-9m specimens of E. annectens, revealing they are still in the active fast growth phase while the new giants have fully mature bones (EFS is implied). We already have Campione and Evans (2011) basically saying that even "large" E. annectens are subadults, this reinforces that conclusion. Mike.BRZ ( talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edmontosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/science/bulletins/35/sci_bulletin35_2.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)