This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
Yeah. How can it be considered "the first FULL dinosaur skeleton" if there was NO SKULL??? That just doesn't make sense.
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)
seriously, jar jar was based on a hadrosaur. check it:
-- Ghetteaux 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
)
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)
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)
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 ? !..There are no Hadrosaurus foulkii fossils ?.
Happy haytham
12:57, 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)
There is an error in the page regarding William Estaugh Hopkins. He lived from 1772 to 1820 [1], so he couldn't have been the one who first found the bones in 1838. The name should be John Estaugh Hopkins, son of William, who lived from 1811 to 1884. Adhopkins ( talk) 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
True; I just fixed it. Hadrosaurian Dinosaurs of North America (Lull & Wright 1942) concurs with the Hopkins in question. J. Spencer ( talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hadrosaurus is a nomen dubium, says who? I have not seen a single source other than Wikipedia that states that the genus Hadrosaurus is dubious. Besides, we have found some nearly complete skeletons that should verify its existence, so where's the reference? User: Dinolover45--26 April 17:00 2010
Hadrosaurinae shouldn't redirect here. There are other hadrosaurines, like Saurolophus, which even have a link to Hadrosaurinae in their taxoboxes. How confusing is it when that redirects here? Hadrosaurinae should redirect to Hadrosauridae, if anything. 98.65.161.218 ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
We now have interesting photos of both casts of the known fossils in place on a silhouette, as well as a heavily reconstructed skeleton. The latter "looks" better, but is kind of misleading. What should be used in the box? FunkMonk ( talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users are repeatedly attempting to add information about a complete hadrosaur tail to this article, under the mistaken impression that "hadrosaur" refers to the genus Hadrosaurus. This is incorrect. In paleontology, names like "hadrosaur", "tyrannosaur", or "dinosaur" refer to the larger groups bearing those names, in this case hadrosaur = hadrosaurid. This mistake is akin to adding information about dinosaurs to the page Dinosaurus. I have added the material to hadrosaurid where it belongs, though it is not really advised to add material based on preliminary newspaper reports before any scientific scrutiny or examination is applied to a specimen.
And in case anyone is somehow hoping this turns out to e a new specimen of Hadrosaurus itself, keep in mind that it is dated to three million years later than H. foulkii (hadrosaur genera typically lasted less than a million years before going extinct, being replaced, or evolving, see many examples in the Dinosaur Park Formation) and was on a completely different continent. Hadrosaurus liven in New Jersey, which was then part of the continent Appalachia, while Mexico was across a shallow ocean on the continent Laramidia. MMartyniuk ( talk) 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadrosaurus. 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) 20:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hadrosaurus. 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) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
is this okay?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
Yeah. How can it be considered "the first FULL dinosaur skeleton" if there was NO SKULL??? That just doesn't make sense.
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)
seriously, jar jar was based on a hadrosaur. check it:
-- Ghetteaux 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
)
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)
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)
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 ? !..There are no Hadrosaurus foulkii fossils ?.
Happy haytham
12:57, 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)
There is an error in the page regarding William Estaugh Hopkins. He lived from 1772 to 1820 [1], so he couldn't have been the one who first found the bones in 1838. The name should be John Estaugh Hopkins, son of William, who lived from 1811 to 1884. Adhopkins ( talk) 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
True; I just fixed it. Hadrosaurian Dinosaurs of North America (Lull & Wright 1942) concurs with the Hopkins in question. J. Spencer ( talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hadrosaurus is a nomen dubium, says who? I have not seen a single source other than Wikipedia that states that the genus Hadrosaurus is dubious. Besides, we have found some nearly complete skeletons that should verify its existence, so where's the reference? User: Dinolover45--26 April 17:00 2010
Hadrosaurinae shouldn't redirect here. There are other hadrosaurines, like Saurolophus, which even have a link to Hadrosaurinae in their taxoboxes. How confusing is it when that redirects here? Hadrosaurinae should redirect to Hadrosauridae, if anything. 98.65.161.218 ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
We now have interesting photos of both casts of the known fossils in place on a silhouette, as well as a heavily reconstructed skeleton. The latter "looks" better, but is kind of misleading. What should be used in the box? FunkMonk ( talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users are repeatedly attempting to add information about a complete hadrosaur tail to this article, under the mistaken impression that "hadrosaur" refers to the genus Hadrosaurus. This is incorrect. In paleontology, names like "hadrosaur", "tyrannosaur", or "dinosaur" refer to the larger groups bearing those names, in this case hadrosaur = hadrosaurid. This mistake is akin to adding information about dinosaurs to the page Dinosaurus. I have added the material to hadrosaurid where it belongs, though it is not really advised to add material based on preliminary newspaper reports before any scientific scrutiny or examination is applied to a specimen.
And in case anyone is somehow hoping this turns out to e a new specimen of Hadrosaurus itself, keep in mind that it is dated to three million years later than H. foulkii (hadrosaur genera typically lasted less than a million years before going extinct, being replaced, or evolving, see many examples in the Dinosaur Park Formation) and was on a completely different continent. Hadrosaurus liven in New Jersey, which was then part of the continent Appalachia, while Mexico was across a shallow ocean on the continent Laramidia. MMartyniuk ( talk) 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadrosaurus. 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) 20:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hadrosaurus. 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) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
is this okay?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)