Talk:Corythosaurus/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 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)

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 and perhaps  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?  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?  Luso titan  17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Supposedly there is "Cranial osteology and ontogeny of Corythosaurus (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) D Evans - Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2003", but I cant find it anywhere. There is also "Reuniting the “head hunted” Corythosaurus excavatus (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) holotype skull with its dentary and postcranium" 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.  Luso titan  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" 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.  Luso titan  18:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work, his email is listed here: 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: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; 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.

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