Talk:Corythosaurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hypacrosaurini or Corythosaurini?

I'm pretty sure Hypacrosaurini has precedence over Corythosaurini. Can someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.203.176 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As the Linnaean rule goes, if my memory serves me well, ranks above genus are dictated by when a genus was first used for *any* suprageneric rank. Thus, Lambeosaurini should have precedence over either. If you're using clades and not ranks, then it doesn't matter unless two clades have the same membership; you could name one clade Corythosaurini and another Hypacrosaurini if they are different, but it would probably be more confusing than anything. J. Spencer (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, has any family-level taxon been named for Hypacrosaurus? I can't find one on Taxon Search.Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If we wanted to be really picky, Stephanosaurinae (1920) predates Lambeosaurinae (1923), and Trachodontinae (1914) predates Stephanodontinae (provided Trachodon is a lambeosaurine). J. Spencer (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And Deinodontidae predates Tyrannosauridae, Podokeosauridae predates Coelophysidae... it's as if nobody cares even a little about priority unless it's at the genus level ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More species?

I have a personal record of other species, C. brevicristutis, C. excavatus, and C. intermedius. Can anyone else verify these?Ninjatacoshell 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

C. brevicristatus and C. excavatus are synonyms of C. casuarius. C. intermedius is indeed a different species. There is also a possible third species C. convincens described by Rozhdestvensky in 1968. ArthurWeasley 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then the article should be edited accordingly. At the moment it implies there is only one recognised species, C. casuarius. Mgiganteus1 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

C. intermedius is accepted as a variant on C, casuarius nowadays as far as I know, although it and bicristatus are the funkiest-looking ones. J. Spencer 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Olorotitan

I was looking at the Lambeosaurinae cladogram on the Hadrosaurid page and it seems to suggest that Olorotitan is more closly related to corythosaurus than say Hypacrosaurus and Lambeosaurus. Is this true as they certainly don't look that similar skull wise? Steveoc 86 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what Evans and Reisz found. It may not be correct, of course, but skulls can be misleading (Horner and co. in The Dinosauria found Prosaurolophus and Saurolophus to not be closely related, after all). J. Spencer 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it should be added in as a reletive or should we leave it out for now? Also thinking of doing a corythosaurus species (and/or) a gender and age diagram. But the artical seems to have more than enough illustrations. Steveoc 86 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd put it in, simply because it's so darn cool. All Hypacrosaurus could do is copy Corythosaurus with less style and more vertebral fin. :) J. Spencer 18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JP Corythosaurs.JPG

Image:JP Corythosaurs.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism in Corythosaurus

In a abstract at the SVP 2006 meeting Evans et. al. (2006) disputed the notion of sexual dimorphism in Corythosaurus, noting that the holotype of Corythosaurus casuarius is found below the holotype of Corythosaurus intermedius (interpreted as the female of C. casuarius by Dodson 1975). Since the two putative sexual dimorphs of Corythosaurus are stratigraphically segregated within the Dinosaur Park Fomation, Evans et. al. interpreted C. intermedius as a valid species of Corythosaurus distinct from the true C. casuarius. The results by Evans et. al. have not been published, but if their interpretation is accepted by the paleontological community, then the number of Corythosaurus species will increase to two.

Evans, D. C., P. J. Currie, D. A. Eberth, and M. J. Ryan. 2006. High Resolution lambeosaurine dinosaur biostratigraphy, Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta: sexual dimorphism reconsidered. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26 (3, suppl):59. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Procheneosaurus a synonym?

If Procheneosaurus is a synonym, shouldn't it be merged here? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well the thing is, it is also a synonym of Hypacrosaurus. Look at its species. A few are synonyms of Hypacrosaurus and a few are a synonym of Corythosaurus. Thinking about it I should add (partim) after it. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops. It is also a synonym of Lambeosaurus not Hypacrosaurus. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

But that is not possible. Either it is a synonym of one other genus, or it is a dubious name. It depends on what the type species has been classified as since. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I'll change that. It's that Procheneosaurus is a chimura with some species belonging to one genus and some belonging to another. It would be a synonym of Lambeosaurus as that's what its type species belongs to. Reid,iain james (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that it is unknown what genus the type specimen is a juvenile of. In that case, a question mark would probably suffice. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur Park Formation fauna

This list seems extremely wrong. I don't have Tanke and Carpenter 2001, but are you sure they;'re listing contemporaries of Corythosaurus and not the entirety of the formation, which spanned millions of years and had at least three distinct faunas? This study (Mallon, J. C., Evans, D. C., Ryan, M. J., & Anderson, J. S. (2012). Megaherbivorous dinosaur turnover in the Dinosaur Park Formation (upper Campanian) of Alberta, Canada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.) gives a high-resolution overview of which species overlapped with which, and it largely contradicts the article as presently written.

And why is this content in Corythosaurus instead of dinosaur Park Formation? Unless there is some kind of actual association to discuss, it almost seems like connective trivia to list every plant and invertebrate that happened to live in the same place. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That might be so, if you want to see the book here is the url. If you want, you can remove some of the fauna if you have a different ref to base it on. Iainstein (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected, this is a list of all species from the formation not segregated by stratigraphic level or age. List should be removed as not relevant to this topic - n overview is already given on Dinosaur Park Formation, which is linked. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Corythosaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this over the next days or so. First, not sure what the external link is for? Also, I'd remove the subsections under crest, they seem redundant and over split the section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the external link and merged the two crest subsections. Good? IJReid (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I would perhaps also move the descriptive paragraphs under crest and skin up to description, since they're, well, about physical characteristics, rather than behaviour. Those paragraphs that deal with function should of course stay under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. IJReid (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if C. intermedius is considered valid by anyone apart from the single study cited here. If not, it may not warrant inclusion in the taxobox.

Well, there is "Prieto-Marquez (2010)", "Campione et al. (2013)", "Evans (2010)", "Prieto-Marquez et al. (2012)", and "Sullivan et al. (2011)", and besides, what studies other than Dodson (1975) have recovered, C. intermedius as synonymous. IJReid (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you should cite them as well after the statement that says some studies find it valid. Also: Parks WA (1923) Corythosaurus intermedius, a new species of trachodont dinosaur. University of Toronto Studies, Geological Series 15: 5–57. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Only going to cite the ones by different authors (eg. not the other Prieto-Marquez papers). IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.

• Etymology could mention the meaning of the species name as well.

Done.

• There is redundancy in the etymology section and the discovery section. Since the etymology section is so short, I'd personally just merge the two.

Done.

• You could consider hiding the long synonym list, as in Lambeosaurus.

Done.

• "Remarkable" is a loaded word. Notable/significant or some such is more neutral.

Done.

• "because much of the creature's fossilized skin had also survived." I'm pretty sure it's not the skin itself, but impressions of it.

Done.

• "The two best specimens of Corythosaurus" Maybe explain what made them "the best", and the circumstances of their sinking. It was during WW1, which is a pretty important detail.

Done.

• For some reason, most of the first description paragraph is about the skull, yet it is outside the section devoted to the skull!

Done.

• The description lacks information about the postcranial skeleton. Should be beefed up, see for example Lambeosaurus.

I think this is done. Not a whole lot of postcranial material of C. has really been described that much.

• "Development and synonyms", I'd rename that section "growth" or some such.

Done.

All of the querries with the exception of the postcranial skeletal addition are done. Are there any refs not yet in the article that you think should be added? IJReid (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks better. Have you searched on the AMNH article site? http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/5/search Or Google scholar? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is also another picture of the mount in the taxobox[1], not sure which is better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the current image is better, although soon (once I find it), I might upload one of my personal photos, which I recall is better than both. IJReid (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Could be nice, and in general, new photos are nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "The arms of Corythosaurus were also small, and even though there size makes it seem like Corythosaurus was bipedal, fossilized hadrosaurid trackways show that it was a quadruped.[5]" Aren't hadrosaurs supposed to be both? And the source doesn't seem very authoritative. Would be better with a scientific paper. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed.

• I'm a bit concerned about the frequent use of Brown 1914 under for example "crest", for instance, a lot of reference is made to genera that are not considered valid/or dubious today, such as Trachodon and Stephanosaurus (all skulls of these he referred to have been reassigned). Furthermore, sine he only had the type specimen, some of the statements don't apply to the genus as a whole. For example, why is it relevant under the skull section that it is unknown how many teeth the holotype had? What matters should be in the genus as a whole, and other skulls are of course known where such features can be seen. Also, a lot of space is devoted to features in the holotype that are clearly due to postmortem damage, not sure how that is relevant under a general description of the crest of this genus. It is also not clearly stated that the skull measurements are for the holotype, not the entire genus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.

I'm afraid Brown's description is completely outdated. E.g. what Brown assumed to be the nares are in fact pseudonares formed by folds of the praemaxillae. The real bony nostrils are in the crest! If recent literature can't be obtained, let yourself be guided by the relevant sections in The Dinosauria (2004).--MWAK (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to correct any obviously inaccurate material as you find it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Tendon bones are present on all the vertebrae, except for in the cervical region. On no vertebrae do the tendon bones extend below the transverse processes. Each tendon is flattened at it origin, and ovoid in the central rod, ending at a rounded point." What does this have to do with skin? And what is a "tendon bone"? Tendons are not bones.

Fossilized tendons. Changed section header to Soft tissue.

• "Apart from Corythosaurus very little other skin has been preserved on the feet of hadrosaurids. Saurolophus angustirsotris is the only other hadrosaurid that has a fair amount of leg skin preserved." The Edmontosaurus mummy probably has more skin on the feet than any other specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, but found ref and corrected.

• "Originally, Brown referred Corythosaurus to the family Trachodontidae,[1] although many paleontologists now classify it in Lambeosaurinae." As far as I know, no one uses Trachodontidae anymore.

Noted.

• "However, recent research has suggested that Olorotitan is Corythosaurus closest known relative" Is 2003 recent? The newer cladogram shows otherwise.

Done.

• "The sense of hearing in hadrosaurids also seems to have been developed." In hadrosaurs in general, or is there anything specific about this genus?

Just generic.

• It seems a bit undue weight that more than half of the crest function section is devoted to the snorkel hypothesis, which is general for hadrosaurs, and so little is devoted to the actual function. The correct function should probably come first.

Done.

• "The age in which individuals developed crests might influence why Parasaurolophus has such a large crest compared with other lambeosaurines." Why is that relevant here?

Removed, and replaced with more relevant info.

• "Corythosaurus casuarius is among the genera" If the entire binomial is used, it refers to the species.

Fixed.

• There does not seem to be any info on whether the two supposed species lived in different formations or times or not.

Done.

I have completed all the querries, does Corythosaurus now complete the GA criteria? IJReid (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking much better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Proportionally, the skeleton is much shorter and smaller than Trachodon" Again, Trachodon. It is possible it refers to a species o Edmontosaurus, which was referred to as Trachodon bakc then, maybe check the source.

Yep, Edmontosaurus, noted that ref states Trachodon.

• The Romer stuff seems to make more sense under classification than description.

Moved.

• I cut out some stuff from the lead that was too specific, but it could nee something about palaeoecelogy, in very summarised form.

Added.

• There could be a description of the differences between the two species. I think the Triceratops article (and other genera with many species) suffers from a lack of this, for example.

Not really any info about it I can find. Probably is in only Dodson (1975), Parks (1923) and Arbour et al. (2009), none of which I have access to. I am not certain it is needed for GA, but since this article has an FA potential, should probably be added anyway. IJReid (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I think this is now good for GA. For further development, I'd try to get as many newer sources as possible, this one relies a bit too much on old stuff. As always, it'll probably be possible to get sources through the resource request. Pass! FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes to editors

In my set of edits, meant to clarify wording not change facts, I've included commented-out (i.e. not appearing in the readers' text) queries to editors, which are site-specific and would be lost on this Talk page. Can an editor clarify the vague wording I've pointed out?--Wetman (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm presently correcting the original description by Brown to make the text conform to modern insights. I'll clarify the phrases you've pointed out.--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, but remember that such corrections need citations as well! FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I know Lusotitan and perhaps IJReid want to improve this article for FAC at some point, so it might be good to direct attention to the main problem with this article, which is that much of it seems to be based on outdated sources. It should be possible to find newer descriptions of this animal than ones over a century old? MWAK has done some corrections, but as noted above, these will have to be sourced as well, otherwise they may be problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I"m aware, Corythosaurus doesn't have any modern description, so it's a little problematic to work on that. I think there's some 21st century stuff on the skull, maybe? Lusotitan 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Supposedly there is "Cranial osteology and ontogeny of Corythosaurus (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) D Evans - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2003"[2], but I cant find it anywhere. There is also "Reuniting the “head hunted” Corythosaurus excavatus (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) holotype skull with its dentary and postcranium"[3] from this year, but I'm not sure how descriptive it is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that could certainly be of use, especially for the history/species section, if we wanted to go further into the invalid species. Not sure about the 2003 one, though, I can't it either. Lusotitan 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The full reference is listed at Evans' blog: "Evans, D. C. 2003. Cranial osteology and ontogeny of Corythosaurus (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23 (Suppl. 3): 48-49"[4] Perhaps he could be contacted directly for it, seems like an essential paper, but maybe it's just an abstract... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I requested it from ResearchGate, although being just some random guy I doubt that'll lead much of anywhere. Lusotitan 18:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, his email is listed here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Evans has indicated research in abstracts in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2008 but never published a full paper... When the 2017 Bramble paper appeared, I too hoped for a skull description but it only covers postcrania and a lower jaw... --MWAK (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's a JVP supplement then odds are it's an SVP abstract. And that is indeed the case: [6] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Darn, at least it will kill any false hopes... Seems there is a bit of into there that could be used, though... At least the 2017 paper may provide some postcranial description, which this article sorely lacks. There is not even a basic description of its body, and I'm not referring to nitty-gritty stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corythosaurus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006113229/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)