Talk:Hadrosauridae: Difference between revisions
no review, assess B Class |
→The picture under "Classification"...: new section |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:It's the article in ''The Dinosauria II''. The unclassified genera were not used in the phylogeny, but accepted as hadrosaurines or whatever; might as well be called ''incertae sedis'', I suppose (although they were not specifically identified as such). ''Kritosaurus'' is particularly confusing, as it is listed as both a ''nomen dubium'' and called diagnostic at the species level. [[User:J. Spencer|J. Spencer]] 03:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
:It's the article in ''The Dinosauria II''. The unclassified genera were not used in the phylogeny, but accepted as hadrosaurines or whatever; might as well be called ''incertae sedis'', I suppose (although they were not specifically identified as such). ''Kritosaurus'' is particularly confusing, as it is listed as both a ''nomen dubium'' and called diagnostic at the species level. [[User:J. Spencer|J. Spencer]] 03:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Ah, I see--problem of converting a phylogeny to a taxonomy. In that case, I'd remove the unclassified thing, simply list all members of each subfamily (with refs for newer taxa or those Horner didn't mention), and then make a cladogram using the genera Horner included in the phylogeny in a seperate section. No point in having incertae sedis if there's no resolution below subfamily--as I said, incertae sedis needs to be in relation to something else, and there are no sublcades or tribes listed anymore. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
:Ah, I see--problem of converting a phylogeny to a taxonomy. In that case, I'd remove the unclassified thing, simply list all members of each subfamily (with refs for newer taxa or those Horner didn't mention), and then make a cladogram using the genera Horner included in the phylogeny in a seperate section. No point in having incertae sedis if there's no resolution below subfamily--as I said, incertae sedis needs to be in relation to something else, and there are no sublcades or tribes listed anymore. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
== The picture under "Classification"... == |
|||
.. needs improving. Hadrosaurinae is now known as Saurolophinae, Lambeosaurini is known as Corythosaurini and ''[[Shantungosurus]]'' may not be an edmontosaurinin.[[User:Oxalaia|Oxalaia]] ([[User talk:Oxalaia|talk]]) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Oxalaia[[User:Oxalaia|Oxalaia]] ([[User talk:Oxalaia|talk]]) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:02, 11 November 2011
 | Dinosaurs B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Hadrosaurini
User:72.194.116.63 recently added a Tribe Hadrosaurini for the clade Hadrosaurus + Telmatosaurus + Gryposaurus. Does anyone have a citation for an analysis that finds this clade? Otherwise it should be removed as original research (or restricted to Hadrosaurus as implied by Cope, 1869).Dinoguy2 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like 'original research' pulled out of someone's ass, if you ask me. And you know I'd know, joxer. AFAIK, Hadrosaurini would be monotypic (refer to Prieto-Marquez's review of Hadrosaurus), last I checked Hadrosaurus and Telmatosaurus weren't part of the closer to Saurolophus than to Parasaurolophus clade.71.61.212.116 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Nick
Unclassified
Does anyone have a copy of Horner 2004 they could send me? I'm baffled as to the use of 'unclassified' in his Linneanan taxonomy. Is he using it for nomina dubia? Or members of subfamilies that can't be placed in a tribe? It seems like placing a genus in hadrosaurinae counts as "classifying" it to me... Dinoguy2 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's the article in The Dinosauria II. The unclassified genera were not used in the phylogeny, but accepted as hadrosaurines or whatever; might as well be called incertae sedis, I suppose (although they were not specifically identified as such). Kritosaurus is particularly confusing, as it is listed as both a nomen dubium and called diagnostic at the species level. J. Spencer 03:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see--problem of converting a phylogeny to a taxonomy. In that case, I'd remove the unclassified thing, simply list all members of each subfamily (with refs for newer taxa or those Horner didn't mention), and then make a cladogram using the genera Horner included in the phylogeny in a seperate section. No point in having incertae sedis if there's no resolution below subfamily--as I said, incertae sedis needs to be in relation to something else, and there are no sublcades or tribes listed anymore. Dinoguy2 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture under "Classification"...
.. needs improving. Hadrosaurinae is now known as Saurolophinae, Lambeosaurini is known as Corythosaurini and Shantungosurus may not be an edmontosaurinin.Oxalaia (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)OxalaiaOxalaia (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)