Talk:Iguanodont
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] Revise phylogeny?
The tree isn't really capturing the complexity of iguanodontians well, and is missing such recent luminaries as Dakotadon, Dollodon, and Theiophytalia. Yes, I know I cover this stuff. Any objections to an overhaul? J. Spencer (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the Norman cladogram? If there are any recent cladograms incorporating a wider range of genera, I'd be all for it. As for the Taxonomy... I personally think it's a little problematic to include a taxonomy for a group that is only used as a clade nowadays. See Maniraptora for an example of this--only a Phylo section, no Taxo. Maybe we could use the cladogram from Ornithopoda, which I guess is from Mikko's site? It's still a synthesis, but at least it's not or synthesis ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the cladogram is only supposed to be general; however, it's more accurate than the listing alongside it. I don't know if anyone who's active in the field takes Camptosauridae or Iguanodontidae very seriously anymore, except in the same context as Hypsilophodontidae. Maybe an arrangement comparable to that on Hypsilophodont, with a clade framework from the Dinosauria II article and a simple listing of genera (which should be less prone to original research, and would allow the recent work of Carpenter and Paul to be pulled in)? J. Spencer (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that sounds like a good way to go. Iguanodontidae and Hypsilophodontidae seem like analogous situations to me. The other bit of confusion is the articles title--"Iguanodont" is a little vague. Should be an article for Iguanodontia, then maybe a Hypsie-style article for Iguanodont(idae). Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the cladogram is only supposed to be general; however, it's more accurate than the listing alongside it. I don't know if anyone who's active in the field takes Camptosauridae or Iguanodontidae very seriously anymore, except in the same context as Hypsilophodontidae. Maybe an arrangement comparable to that on Hypsilophodont, with a clade framework from the Dinosauria II article and a simple listing of genera (which should be less prone to original research, and would allow the recent work of Carpenter and Paul to be pulled in)? J. Spencer (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
