Talk:Hadrosauridae

Dinosaurs B‑class Mid‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The picture under "Classification"...

.. needs improving. Hadrosaurinae is now known as Saurolophinae, Lambeosaurini is known as Corythosaurini and Shantungosaurus may not be an edmontosaurinin.Oxalaia (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)OxalaiaOxalaia (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given how often these types of phylogenies and names change, it might not be a good idea to have a graphical cladogram at all. Maybe we should stick with the template which is easily updated. It's possible to add the images for each branch as in Maniraptora.MMartyniuk (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anatosaurus"

Why is it still in the species list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The species list follows Holtz's book. Holtz and some other researchers consider this a distinct genus from Edmontosaurus. The inclusion of "Anatotitan" bolsters the case for this as it's quite different from adult E. regalis. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, more "genera"....142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]