Talk:Edmontosaurus regalis

Orphaned references in Edmontosaurus regalis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edmontosaurus regalis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DBWetal04": From Edmontosaurus:  From Edmontosaurus annectens:  From Prosaurolophus: Weishampel, David B.; Barrett, Paul M.; Coria, Rodolfo A.; Le Loeuff, Jean; Xu Xing; Zhao Xijin; Sahni, Ashok; Gomani, Elizabeth, M.P.; and Noto, Christopher R. (2004). "Dinosaur Distribution", in The Dinosauria (2nd), pp. 517–606. From Maastrichtian: Weishampel et al. (2004) 

Reference named "NCDE11": From Edmontosaurus: Campione, N.E. and Evans, D.C. (2011). "Cranial Growth and Variation in Edmontosaurs (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae): Implications for Latest Cretaceous Megaherbivore Diversity in North America." PLoS ONE, 6(9): e25186.  From Edmontosaurus annectens:  

Reference named "JAH75":<ul> <li>From Edmontosaurus: </li> <li>From Dinosaur: </li> </ul>

Reference named "WH90":<ul> <li>From Edmontosaurus: </li> <li>From Edmontosaurus annectens: </li> <li>From Hadrosaurid: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Photographs
Earlier today I removed a photograph from the article because it obviously did not show E. regalis. However, the two photographs of skulls and skeletons which I have left in the article do neither show specimens of E. regalis. They both lack the typical features cited to be diagnostic for E. regalis in the latest review of the genus (Campione & Evans, 2011). Here (p. 7) it clearly says that the specimen(s) displayed in the Oxford University Museum (i.e. the mount shown in the taxobox and the skull in the image already removed by me) is E. annectens. The skull of the adult individual of the two skeletal mounts in the HMNS is extremely similar to the skull in the Oxford Musuem (possibly both are casts taken from the same original skull) so it also very likely represents E. annectens but not E. regalis. Hence, I replaced the image in the taxobox by a photograph of a skull that clearly belongs to E. regalis and removed the image of the skeletal mounts in the HMNS. --Gretarsson (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. This visitor's guide confirms the Oxford mount at least is a cast of annectens and the other one looked to be as well (possibly the same specimen). Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why they were categorised as annectens in the first place. Seems we have very few photos of regalis (I just added a few)... Apparently there are very few mounts of this species? FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New reconstruction in PLoS ONE - where should it go?
The reconstruction in question is Fig. 2 of Xing et al. (2017). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've placed it in the Edmontosaurus article. Perhaps it could be in the classification section here, over the photo of the skulls? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed IndoBoy Official (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Popular media
Edmontosaurus is featured in Jurassic World Evolution and Jurassic World Evolution 2. 2601:803:8080:9B30:703F:61BC:90DA:8603 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)