Talk:Iguanodon/Archive 1

Where first found?
I've always heard that Mantell first found the Iguanodon at Cuckfield not Tilgate?--69.106.240.106 02:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it was found in Belgium because now a lot of speciamens are being discovered there. It is really hard to tell because they tended to migrate large distances.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Horned Iguanodon
I added a link to the already existing image of Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins-designed Iguanodon statues at Crystal Palace based on the theories of Sir Richard Owen. To me, no discussion of Iguanodon's is complete without a mention of this early four-legged theory. Side-note: before the dinosaur exhibit opened at Crystal Palace, a fancy diner party was actually heald inside the horizontal iguanodon statue's cramped frame. - Kevingarcia 07:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, i had a pic I took with an old analog camera which I sharpened teh image and substituted. I remember the drawing of the dinner party, that would be cool. Cas Liber 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
I have been playing around with images, was wondering whether a gallery or a row of left thumbs was better..Cas Liber 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's better if they can be incorporated as thumbnails into the text. If there's no place for them in the article, they probably should be left out. Also, the image labelled as a "current" restoration is really very outdated. Compare with modern restorations like and .Dinoguy2 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then maybe taking the WWD image out of the taxobox is better to use. Feel free to play with it (I just got something on DYK but have to fix it :) Cas Liber 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Those links are to some really cool images! Maybe asking Raul Martin? Cas Liber 08:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sirrush (mytholgy)
Dinoguy just beat me to this - with an edit clash. I agree citations are needed. There are indeed myths about possible living dinosaurs in the Congo but most seem to related to sauropod-like creatures and are unsubstantiated (also in S. American tropical forests). I can find no reference to Koldeway, saying he thought it was an Iguanodon. Whatever, please supply references. - Ballista 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cetiosaurus brachyurus; Streptospondylus major
Cetiosaurus brachyurus is a nomen dubium, with the syntype dorsal and caudal vertebrae belonging to an iguanodont and a sauropod respectively (Upchurch and Martin 2003). Also, the taxon Streptospondylus major is based on cervical vertebrae, which are insufficient to establish a new species. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian

Iguanodon species
Add Iguanodon ottingeri Galton & Jensen, 1979 to the Iguanodon species list. Also, each Iguanodon species needs an authorship added:

Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger & van Beneden, 1881 Iguanodon dawsoni Lydekker, 1888 Iguanodon fittoni Lydekker, 1888 Iguanodon lakotaensis Weishampel & Bjork, 1989

There is little data about I. dawsoni or I. fittoni, but those species are the most primitive Iguanodon species, not as derived as I. bernissartensis or I. anglicus.

Iguanodon hoggi Owen, 1874 was shown by Norman & Barrett (2002) to be a species of Camptosaurus. For this reason, remove I. hoggi from Iguanodon and transfer it to Camptosaurus. This species represents the second-latest occurrence of Camptosaurus (after C. depressus Gilmore, 1909).

D. B. Norman and P. M. Barrett. 2002. Ornithischian dinosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous (Berriasian) of England. Palaeontology 68:161-189. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Streptospondylus grandis
Streptospondylus meyeri is based on an isolated cervical (or anterior dorsal) from Brook Point, Isle of Wight (Owen 1854). However, this species has remained unstudied since Owen (1854) and the taxonomic status of S. meyeri has not yet been determined, but is probably a nomen dubium since one vertebrae is not sufficient grounds for establishing a new species.

Streptospondylus grandis is a nomen nudum because Hulke (1879) does not provide a description.

Owen, Richard (1854). "Descriptive catalogue of the Fossil organic remains of Reptilia and Pisces contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England." London p. 1–184

J. W. Hulke. 1879. Vectisaurus valdensis, a new Wealden dinosaur. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 35:421-424. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian

Iguanodon(6 votes)
(Subpage here).
 * Status: Article status unknown.

Support: Comments:
 * 1) ArthurWeasley 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Firsfron of Ronchester  04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Sphenacodon 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) M&amp;NCenarius 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) RebSkii 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cas Liber 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to resubmit Iguanodon candidacy. One of the fisrt discovered dinosaur and the most popular European genus! ArthurWeasley 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does really need work, as Dinoguy pointed out, especially with the new Mantellisaurus erected. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the original Dinosaurs (with a capital D), and one of the best known too. Could do with more work. Sphenacodon 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Needs more work than Ankylosaurus but there is alot more to talk about. The history, its European origins and potential size at FA candicacy all lead me to vote here. Cas Liber 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply like the name and that's it. Haha! LOL. --RebSkii 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do
The first thing that strikes me is that the article is poorly organized. There are paleobiological sections mixed with descriptive sections, for example. A good chunk of it would make a nice subsection on changing perspectives of this dinosaur over time, but it would need to pulled out of a few paragraphs. Bernissart is probably a subsection, because you get things like the many complete skeletons, the fact that more probably remain, the descriptions with their oddities like a prehensile tongue and curved tail (broken by Dollo), etc. Taxonomy for this genus is a real bear, unlike anything the project has tackled with the exception of Palaeosaurus, and the section here just scratches the surface. The paleobiology is fairly well-known, with descriptions of the brain for example. The thumb spike deserves a subheading (did you know an author in a popular book once suggested it was part of a poison delivery system?). Refs, of course, should increase. I think that there are plenty of images; in fact, the text needs to grow to fit them.

To sum up, I think that organization is the big thing; once that's done, it'll be a lot easier to work on. Perhaps something like this (to steal from Stegosaurus):


 * Introduction/Taxobox
 * Description
 * Classification
 * Origins


 * History
 * Early stuff, Mantell and Owen and Dinosauria
 * Bernissart
 * Modern studies (1960s-)


 * Taxonomy
 * Valid species
 * Nomina dubia (dubious name)
 * Invalid species


 * Palaeobiology
 * Posture
 * Thumb Spike
 * Feeding
 * Nervous System
 * Sexual Dimorphism, different species, or different genera (I. bern versus "I." atherfield)


 * Popular culture
 * Changing perception (and how it relates to perception of dinosaurs in general)


 * References
 * External links

I know that this is not a very helpful writeup, but this article need a great deal of work. J. Spencer 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What, did I scare everyone? It's not that bad. J. Spencer 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this the first time you left a message here. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the main idea is the article needs a stronger framework, which would make all the other work easier, and this is my suggestion for such a framework. J. Spencer 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a great framework, and, obviously, everything you've mentioned needs coverage. I agree the text needs expanding (in fact, I expanded it considerably several times last year so that user:Ballista's images could all be used in the text) However, the images still overpower the small text sections; a major expansion *and* overhaul is needed. I'm at work, and don't have any references in front of me, but I plan to work on this article later tonight after work. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the fixes. I started on it, but got called away (technically, I was at work). I'm going to try to work the three lists of species (valid, invalid, and dubious) into three (or so) paragraphs of prose... but not until tomorrow. Great research, J! Firsfron of Ronchester  05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Species list
Shamelessly copied from Re: Iguanodon, and interpreted, since Dinogeorge gave half a list:

Iguanodon Mantell, 1825
 * Iguanodon albinus Fritsch, 1893 [nomen dubium]
 * Nondinosaurian: Original name of Albisaurus albinus


 * Iguanodon anglicus Holl, 1829 emend. Bronn, 1850
 * Misspelled Iguanodon angelicus Lessem & Glut, 1993; Iguanodon anglicum Holl, 1829


 * Iguanodon atherfieldensis Hooley, 1925=Mantellisaurus
 * Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger vide van Beneden, 1881â (now the holotype)
 * ?Iguanodon dawsoni Lydekker, 1888
 * Iguanodon exogyrarum Fritsch, 1878 emend. Chure & McIntosh, 1989 [nomen dubium]=Ponerosteus
 * Misspelled Iguanodon exogirarum Fritsch, 1878 [nomen dubium]; Iguanodon exogirarus Brinkmann, 1988


 * ?Iguanodon fittoni Lydekker, 1889
 * Iguanodon foxii (Huxley, 1869) Owen, 1873=Hypsilophodon
 * Misspelled Iguanodon foxi Lydekker, 1888


 * Iguanodon hillii Newton, 1892 = hadrosaurid of some sort
 * Iguanodon hoggii Owen, 1874 = Camptosaurus hoggii
 * Misspelled Iguanodon boggii Glut, 1972; Iguanodon hoggi Olshevsky, 1978


 * Iguanodon gracilis (Lydekker, 1888) Steel, 1969 (originally Sphenospondylus))=?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis
 * Iguanodon hollingtoniensis Lydekker, 1889=I. fittoni
 * Misspelled Iguanodon hollingtonensis Olshevsky, 1978


 * Iguanodon lakotaensis Weishampel & Bjork, 1989
 * Iguanodon major (Owen, 1842) [nomen dubium]=Streptospondylus major
 * Iguanodon mantelli von Meyer, 1832=?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis
 * Misspelled Iguanodon manteli Probst & Windolf, 1993; Iguanodon mantelii Probst & Windolf, 1993; Iguanodon mantelli var. bernissartensis Nopcsa, 1915; Iguanodon mantellii Mansel-Pleydell, 1888


 * Iguanodon mongolensis Whitfield, 1992 [nomen nudum]=I have no clue
 * Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky, 1952
 * ?Iguanodon ottingeri Galton & Jensen, 1979 (not 1978) [nomen dubium]
 * Iguanodon phillipsi Seeley, 1869 [nomen dubium]=Priodontognathus
 * Misspelled Iguanodon phillipsii Seeley, 1875


 * Iguanodon praecursor Sauvage, 1876=dubious sauropod, sometimes assigned to Neosodon
 * Misspelled Iguanodon precursor Sauvage, 1895


 * Iguanodon prestwichii Hulke, 1880=Camptosaurus prestwichii
 * Misspelled Iguanodon prestwichi Lydekker, 1888


 * Iguanodon prestwichii Sauvage, 1897â98 non Hulke, 1880=If it ain't C. prestwichii, I have no clue
 * Iguanodon seelyi Hulke, 1882=I. bernissartensis
 * Misspelled (although I think, if Dinogeorge is right, that Hulke screwed up) Iguanodon seeleyi Moseley, 1883


 * Iguanodon suessii Bunzel, 1871=Mochlodon suessi
 * Iguanodon valdensis (Lydekker, 1889) van den Broeck, 1900 [nomen dubium]=originally Vectisaurus; ?Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis

Check here for Tracy Ford's version, somewhat more readable, but not as comprensive. Also, an Internet Archive version of a Dinogeorge document that was at an old version of the Dinosauricon can be of service (or in case you don't want to download the thing immediately). J. Spencer 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Palace models
 With Waterhouse Hawkins, he set up nearly two dozen sculptures, including an Iguanodon which, before it was completed, housed a banquet for twenty.[15]

It is my understanding that the banquet was held, not in the sculpture itself, but in the mold of the sculpture. However, I can't think of a really good way to rework this sentence without hopelessly complicating the sentence. Ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. The text didn't mention anything about a mold, and the picture I saw looked like they were in the darn thing, and that it was very crowded (p. 11, David Norman's The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs). J. Spencer 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have that book, so I don't know what the picture looks like. :( This JSTOR article mentions "The sculptor Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins (no relation to the architect) designed the Iguanodon mold in which the dinner was held" (I don't have full access to the article, though). This site (admittedly a blog) indicates the same thing: the dinner was held in the mold. Robert Silverberg indicates in this article "The most ingenious stroke of promotional activity with which the Crystal Palace Company stoked public interest in the dinosaur project was a formal dinner for twenty-one scientists that took place inside the full-sized mold from which the concrete Iguanodon was to be cast." I know that baking molds generally closely resemble the cakes that they shape, but I don't know anything about construction molds, so I can't say whether or not a mold for the construction of a dinosaur statue/model would resemble the statue/model itself. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I want that woodcut for the article. 1850s, it has to be in the public domain, right? And now it's twenty versus twenty-one. What's one more Victorian naturalist among friends? The latecomers had to sit in the rear of the Iguanodon, I suppose. It may have been the mold, but it sure looks like the sculpture in the image I saw. I'll have another look for more information, but I'm not going to fight about it. By the way, you should really get Norman's book. It is gorgeously illustrated with photographs, skeletal line drawings, diagrams, and color paintings by John Sibbick, and for my money is the best dinosaur book of the 1980s, beating out Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and The Dinosaur Heresies. J. Spencer 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Content from the 1850s is definitely in the public domain; a woodcut or photograph of the event would be a great addition to this article, and might help clear up this mystery. I speculate the "21st" scientist (if there was one) would have been Owen himself (as in, Owen plus 20 others). I will keep Norman's book in mind. As far as the mold goes, I won't argue, either (rather pointless, really), but let's see if we can't get the image. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Googling Iguanodon and "crystal" gets about the same figure as is in the book. From the description of how it was made, the banquet must have been in a mold, unless the sculpture is extremely hollow (I was unclear on the process at first).  The thing that threw me is how detailed the exterior is in the woodcut, but in this case the exterior must have conformed pretty closely to the interior, which I guess isn't surprising given the apparent thinness of the structure. J. Spencer 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat inanely, I can't find the image. I've googled and found plenty of Crystal Palace images, but not the correct one. Could you drop me a link? :) Firsfron of Ronchester  18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is on a French website. It's the same picture as is in the book. J. Spencer 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The famous pic - amusing as it is a non-english speaking site and mentions pachypoda and Meyer right at the top...Cas Liber 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded the picture, but it seems we have many images in certain small sections. I'm unsure where we should put it. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we could move the model picture to the description, and put this one about where the model is now. The description will be lengthened at some point. That and the classification are the only two sections that I think are undercited and a bit short (I have a couple of things to add to Paleobio, and I'll probably throw in some additional refs, locations, and known material to the species, but otherwise those sections are close to complete, as are the discovery\history and pop culture). It'll be easier to figure out what additional pictures are needed, and how to distribute them, once the text is close to completion. J. Spencer 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. BTW, the species section is still undernourished. I still plan on expanding/reworking that, as I'm not happy with it. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's there now, so see how you like it. I'm knocking off on it for the night. J. Spencer 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks absolutely great on my 600x800 screen resolution, but I'm not sure how it will translate on screens with a higher resolution. I'll test it tomorrow. You've done a heckuva job, J.: I can't believe how much text you've put into this article! It's been a pleasure working with you on this, and I'm just awed by all your work. Cas and Mgig's contributions have also certainly been fruitful. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but it was my pleasure. I've had a lot of fun with this one. Now finish the species section! :) J. Spencer 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I promise, but it won't be until tonight. I'm technically not supposed to be on; I'm supposed to be studying for an algebra exam, and am just keeping up with talk pages, then it's back to studying. Shhh! Firsfron of Ronchester  21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And the plot thickens: Michael Benton, in Greg Paul's The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs (2000, p. 16), states that the models were hollow, being constructed of a brick and steel framework with a layer of concrete over them, and that this is where the banquet took place: in the Iguanodon before the top was fitted. Perhaps what we've been reading as "mold" was not a mold in the sense of "pour something into it", but "build something around it?" J. Spencer 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. And in that light, I certainly don't object if you want to change the wording back to remove the word "mold", as it would seem then that the molds would have been impossible to remove after construction and would have been an integral part of the structure (meaning there may be no distinction between the mold and the model, and no reason to clarify that the party was held in the mold, not the model).
 * I also had another hack at the species sections. Originally, the species were listed alphabetically, but this created a lot of very short paragraphs, or paragraphs which contained sentences only remotely related to one another. I've attempted to rework these so that there's a better flow (species grouped by author, when possible). Feel free to revert if this has been unsuccessful.
 * On another note, I checked the page on higher screen resolutions, and the images are fine. I think the nice new images courtesy of Mgig look great. On higher resolutions, however, a few of our paragraphs seem a bit short. Firsfron of Ronchester
 * I might add a bit on locations and specimens, but I don't think anything should be reverted. I like the idea of tying together some of the species. Which paragraphs are still short? J. Spencer 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Species of Iguanodon and Valid species each have two paragraphs with just three sentences each. Reassigned, Dubious and Feeding and diet each have a paragraph with just three sentences. Someone may pick at these shorter paragraphs during a peer review, as I recall someone on FAC had criticised some short paragraphs on Tyrannosaurus (though I think those were actually two-sentence paragraphs). If even a single sentence could be added to some of these, that would help flesh out these shorter sections. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple others, in Posture/movement and Social Behaviours? sections, look short too. It shouldn't be too hard to make the majority of them a bit longer. J. Spencer 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Seeing as this is the new Dinosaur collaboration, I thought I'd just bring up a quick note about the pronunciation that is given, as it differs from my own, and the only way I've heard it pronounced (which is ). Is this a dialectal thing or is it a palaeontology thing? I just checked the online Oxford English Dictionary here & it gives, which makes me think the first is RP, while the -æ- variant is perhaps American (note that my [a:] is the Australian vowel quality). Thylacoleo 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This site gives the pronunciation as "i-GWAHN-o-don", but I'm not sure how that translates into IPA, or how Aussie pronunciation of dinosaurian generic names differs from that of British or American. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The instructions to that site here state that "The phonetic transcriptions also reflect typical American pronunciations" and that [ah] refers to the vowel in "father" (or "broad a"), which corresponds to OED's first transcription rather than the -æ- one. I'll make a change to the article to reflect this in light of this additional source. Thylacoleo 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?
The discovery in 1857 of a hind limb of a young Iguanodon is not currently covered in the article. Might it be worth a mention in the Discovery and history or Posture section? Mgiganteus1 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is definitely worth mentioning. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K. How's this? J. Spencer 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Mgiganteus1 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, too. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress
OMG the article is almost unrecognisable from a few weeks ago! Well done. I bluelinked Samuel Stutchbury but it's really stubby..Cas Liber 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. This article is now the second-longest article on a dinosaur genus, and the fourth-longest Wikipedia dinosaur article. Adding a few more sentences to the stubby paragraphs listed above will make it rival T. rex. Firsfron of Ronchester  16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There we go, all redlinks blued now. Cas Liber 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, er, we're going to need one for David B. Norman; we've got the wrong guy right now. J. Spencer 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No sooner said than done :) Cas Liber 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) OK, I don't think I can stuff anything more into this, text-wise. J. Spencer 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question is, what to do before nominating for FA....Cas Liber 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, copy edits, tweaks, picture location adjustments, probably. Can anyone come up with any missing Iguanodon-related topics J. Spencer 05:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The comments 72 makes below should be addressed. I know J fixed the Albisaurus article, but what of I. recentior and the rest? Aside from small fixes that must be made, why don't we ask some of the more helpful folks from the last FAC to poke their heads over here and comment? There were two or three people who offered really useful advice and specific improvements that could be made. I think those voices could be very valuable, as we've been working the material so long it's become familiar to us, and we may be missing something obvious, or something that is obvious to us that won't be to the casual reader. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester  05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I. mantelli is referred to I. anglicus in the article, as it's based on the same material. I'd avoided the minor species of Streptospondylus because they'd never been recombined as Iguanodon species, i.e. no I. grandis (and it's kind of odd to refer anything to a dubious species, anyway). Hulke '79 is the right ref, though (Dinogeorge bobbles!).
 * Thinking of Circeus and Indon? I was thinking of inviting them over myself. J. Spencer 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I remember what I was going to say - the intro needs a look-over/edit to make sure it reflects the new content of the article. J. Spencer 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking of Circeus and Indon. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the redirects, there are several genera not covered in the article that are thought to be synonymous (Heterosaurs, Hikanodon, Proiguanodon, Therosaurus), but darned if I know when the synonymies were made. Some of them probably should go to Mantellisaurus, too (Heterosaurus). J. Spencer 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still can't find anything beyond a Dinogeorge DML post for S. meyeri and S. grandis. J. Spencer 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The DML post may be not be a reliable source, but I cannot think of a better solution; either the article goes without mention of them (making it less comprehensive), or it mentions them with a reference that Wikipedia may not consider reliable. All we can do, then, is what you've done: try to show this DML post is reliable by including a wikilink to the author's Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind so much the idea of losing that cite for those species, because virtually nobody has ever heard of them, but I'd like to keep it for the true nature of I. mantelli, because that bugged me for many years, and finding out that someone named it from the same stuff as I. anglicus, not the Maidstone specimen which was discovered years later, makes sense. It's also useful as a ref when dealing with detail-oriented taxonomists like 72. It would have been more convenient the other way, though, because then we would have had a decent specimen for a type to call Mantellisaurus mantelli, instead of wondering if there has to be a half-dozen ICZN suppressions to use M. atherfieldensis. J. Spencer 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Iguanodon species
Iguanodon foxii (Huxley, 1869) is actually the referral of Hypsilophodon to Iguanodon by Owen (1874). All said, Hypsilophodon foxii was not originally named Iguanodon foxii.

R. Owen. 1874. Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck formations. Supplement no. V. Dinosauria (Iguanodon). [Wealden and Purbeck.]. The Palaeontographical Society, London 1873:1-18.

Albisaurus albinus (Fritsch, 1893) [A. scutifer Fritsch, 1905 is a synonym] is considered a possible marine reptile by George Olshevsky in the Dinosaur Genera List, so update the Albisaurus page.

The corrct authorship for Vectisaurus valdensis is Hulke, 1879, not Lydekker, 1889.

Besides Streptospondylus major, S. recentior, S. grandis, and S. meyeri have been assigned to Iguanodon anglicus before, if you can find citations discussing these synonymies. Place Iguanodon mantelli in the synonymy of I. anglicus. There has already been a redescription of Iguanodon anglicus (Charig & Chapman, 1998), so a new redescription of this dinosaur is unnecessary.

Charig, A.J. and Chapman, S.D. 1998. Iguanodon Mantell, 1825 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): proposed designation of Iguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 as the type species, and proposed designation of a lectotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 (2): 99-104.

72.194.116.63 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 08.21 12 April 2007

how simple or complex the english.....
How do folks feel - "bipedality vs quadrupedality" vs. "two-legged or four-leggd posture/gait/stance etc." - any strong feelings one way or the other? I'm sort of leaning towards the latter but if anyone can argue the other way....Cas Liber 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we keep the appropriate wikilinks, I don't mind either way. If anyone wants to change my grammar, that's fine too; when I get going, I can start writing some real convoluted sentences (Firs once broke up a 95 word sentence of mine in Thescelosaurus). J. Spencer 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did indeed; that sentence was huge! :) I personally think "quadrupedality" isn't that complex of a word; it should be understandable to most high school students, something several members of the WP:Dinosaurs team have considered when writing articles. We're not on the Simple English Wikipedia, so as long as we include wikilinks on more difficult terminology, I don't think there will be a problem. JMHO, as always. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thass fine - just fine-tuning some prose before the final plunge.......Cas Liber 09:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Galleries...a style thing
The other thing I thought just scanning the bottom is the gallery as some reviewers may have a problem with it (with 3 images, it also doesn't fill the space). Maybe a better layout would be the WWD still on the left in the section above and the images in a column down the RHS. I am pre-empting a possible issue on the FAC Cas Liber 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the middle image has a very similar image halfway up the page. thoughts? Cas Liber 09:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The gallery in my mind was like this: lumpy horned pachyderm Iggy to tripodal inert kangaroo Iggy to mobile quad-to-biped Iggy. Since we've got a number of tripod Iggy, we don't really need any more to make that point, so we could go to two. The thing that was bothering me was the last image: even though it's great, I'm pretty sure it's from Heilmann in the 1920s, and Heilmann was very much ahead of his times, so it dilutes the general point a bit to have one of the exceptions. However, we don't have any modern Iggy representations, unless someone would like to draw one, and I'm reasonably comfortable going with what we have.  If we only have two images, there's no need for the gallery.


 * Too bad Neave Parker's classic Iggy is not in the public domain, as that's about the apex of the tripod version. J. Spencer 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Love the montage...great solution...Cas Liber 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
In an article this long, how much redundancy should there be? For example, in a couple of places, the spike on the nose mistake is brought up, and some common wikilinks are repeated. I'd argue that it's useful to reuse wikilinks once a large section or two has passed, and that a partial sentence recap is all right; after all, someone might skip through the sections. Any thoughts? J. Spencer 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Images
I think the next thing to look at might be image placement. I added ArthurWeasley's quadrupedal Iguanodon to the description section, because I thought it was useful to have a good clean life restoration next to that section. I kinda miss the running Iggies, although I'm not sure where that picture would go, and now when I see it, I think: Iguanodon: went extinct from running with sharp pointed objects near chest. J. Spencer 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe! On a more serious note, I think we actually may have enough pictures. Considering that, depending on a reader's screen resolution, the placement of images will vary to some degree, I think we should keep things as simple as possible. We've already got 17 images, which is 17 more than is required for a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking of more, but of how they're laid out, size, placement, that sort of thing. J. Spencer 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with where they are now? The taxobox has Ballista's image of the skull, which Dinoguy preferred over an artist's depiction. AurthurWeasley's nice illustration is in the general description section, where such an image would be appropriate. Your cladogram diagram is in the classification section, the WWD image is in the only section it is allowed to be in, etc, etc. The only thing I can think of for better image placement might be to alternate images on the right and left so that the article looks balanced, though that isn't part of a the Featured Article Criteria. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with them. I just wanted to see what people thought about the aesthetics, since that's not my area of expertise. J. Spencer 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think things look prety good...cheers, Cas Liber 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
FYI: Circeus, one of the contributors to the Triceratops FAC, has left a comments page: Talk:Iguanodon/Comments. I think that his suggestions are pretty reasonable and simple; most of them have to do with wording and clarification. J. Spencer 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! That's a huge list! Well, I guess we get crackin'! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we've gotten most of the easier ones. Any ref formatting changes will take more time. Also, I think it would be fitting to use British spellings :) . J. Spencer 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, J! Maybe we can have Cas, who uses Commonwealth spelling, go over the spelling. Personally, I would like to use British spelling throughout, but I have trouble identifying British spelling (outside of a few obvious words like "colour" and "flavour"). Firsfron of Ronchester  04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read it twice and can't see any american spellings jumping out at me Cas Liber 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great; thank you for checking, Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I got the last couple of places Circeus wanted citations. Think it's time to put the article through a final polish and send it off to FAC? J. Spencer 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added the last citation, and if there are no other comments, we should certainly polish and send. Indon never commented, which is a shame, because him comments on Triceratops were useful. However, we got a lot out of Circeus' recommendations. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll put up a notice at the HQ. J. Spencer 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Iguanodon anglicus
Norman (2004, p. 415) accepted the validity of Iguanodon anglicus because, despite being considered a nomen dubium by a few scientists, there are hundreds of bones from the type locality of I. anglicus. Therefore, I. anglicus should be removed from the section Nomina dubia and added under the section Species Currently Accepted As Valid. Will there be a review of the genus Iguanodon in the future?

Norman, David B., 2004. Basal Iguanodontia. In Weishampel, D.B., Osmólska, H., and Dodson, P. (eds.): The Dinosauria, 2nd, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 413-437. 72.194.116.63 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.30 8 March 2007

Congratulations to all involved
What a super article: fantastic detail and illustrations. I've made a few Commonwealth English edits, as discussed above (I left the -ize endings as they're used in CEng as well as -ise ones). Cheers Jasper33 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jasper, for both your comments and standardi(s/z)ing the English. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Age?
How much did they live in average? Are there any estimates? Cmapm 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been a study on this yet, unfortunately. J. Spencer 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Iguanodon
Will there be a systematic re-evaluation of Iguanodon? 75.0.184.32 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 15.38 August 24, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Greg Paul's manuscript has just become available as a pre-print, although it only covers Barremian and younger material. Older stuff, like I. fittoni and dawsoni, is not redescribed, but will be addressed in the future. J. Spencer (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Manuscript is published now: Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not looking forward to this at all. J. Spencer (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what's in the paper, besides the stuff in the abstract? The preprint was 89 pages long, so I'm imagining something's not there. J. Spencer (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I havn't got the time to go though it properly but the main differince is in the layout, the preprint was in a single column with a lot of line spacing, the final is 2 columns per page with much less line spacing and smaller font. The abstract in the preprint is close to 2 pages long vs about half a page in the final. The references in the prprint take up sevral pages. etc Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Family name and food preference
the iguanodon came from the family called Iguanodontidae.

Its food preferences is a harbivore-a plant eating animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.156.44 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Genus and species
There is written in the article that "...several other poorly known genera and species are included with Iguanodon without being separate species...". --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Iguanodon is a genus. Is it possible that some genera are included with a genus?
 * What is a species, which is not a separate species?
 * Not sure what you're asking here. These genera and species all (probably) belong to Iguanodon. They're junior synonyms of the already existing Iguanodon genus and various Iguanodon species. They aren't separate taxa. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hand picture
The description reads: Hand of Iguanodon shown in the Natural History Museum.. But which natural museum are we talking about here?--Narayan (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Natural History Museum (to which I've just added a link). J. Spencer (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Iguanodon sections
Iguanodon hollingtoniensis has been demonstrated by Norman (2010) to be a synonym of Hypselospinus fittoni.

Streptospondylus grandis was actually named by Hulke (1879) but without a diagnosis or description and is thus a nomen nudum, if you can access Hulke's description of Vectisaurus on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=DN0GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&dq=streptospondylus+grandis&hl=en&ei=ZFd8TIGGFIP78AaV8qnCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#). Streptospondylus recentior is a nomen nudum for Streptopondylus major (http://books.google.com/books?id=O9k4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&dq=streptospondylus+recentior&hl=en&ei=yVd8TLWSDcP-8AaN4OmOBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=streptospondylus%20recentior&f=false).

Hulke, J. W. (1879) - Vectisaurus valdensis, a new Wealden dinosaur. Geological Society of London, Quarterly Journal, 35 : 421-424.

Norman, David B. (2010) "A taxonomy of iguanodontians (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda) from the lower Wealden Group (Cretaceous: Valanginian) of southern England" Zootaxa 2489: 47–66.68.4.61.237 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

What's wrong with you people?
I've tried to replace drawings made by an amateur artist by reconstructions made by professionals under the supervision of paleontologists and somebody keeps reverting my changes. Drawings are made by a certain Nobutamura that Dinoguy2 claims is a professional. He (or she) is not. He has absolutely no credentials outside apparently a few people on wikipedia and has absolutely no recognition in paleontological circles (I haven't seen any of his drawings published in professional paleo sites such as palaeos.com, Ocean of Kansas, dinodata and so on and none of his drawings appear in any serious paleo books written by professionals). Why would anyone believe that his reconstructions are more accurate than those made by professional artists who are recognized by scientists? His depictions look so much different from those made by professional artists that I wonder how they ended up on wikipedia without check. Compares his Gigantoraptor with Julius Csotonyi's (http://csotonyi.com/Gigantoraptor_erlianensis.html)or his Velociraptor with Todd Marshall's (http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=avian_velociraptor_00.jpg&cat=avianancestors). Csotonyi and Marshall are widely recognized professional artists, NobuTamura is not so why would anyone believe that his production is scientifically accurate? This looks like original research to me. I am picking on this guy as he is infamous by the number of images he put on wiki but he is unfortunately not alone.Dinogal85 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, some of his drawings do appear in Tetrapod Zoology Book One, which is written by a professional paleontologist. His reconstructions are more accurate than those museum mounts you've been trying to add to the page, it's not a matter of belief. For example, the Unenlagia and Velociraptor museum mounts have pronated hands and no primary feathers, the Utahraptor mount lacks feathers altogether, the Triceratops illustration has pronated hands, etc., while Tamura's recontructions do not have such inaccuracies (which we know are inaccuracies because of research published by professionals, so even if Tamura's reconstructions have not actually been used in publications, they are at least based on published research). As to why museum mounts can be less accurate than Tamura's, for most part it's because reconstructions can be outdated easily, and other times the sculptors may not have done enough research, inaccuracies can sometimes be overlooked, etc. Even some of Tamura's art on Wikipedia has been outdated and has had to be removed or updated. The dinosaur images on Wikipedia all go through community review before they are used. Also, paleo art involves a certain amount of (educated) guesswork. For example, we know Velociraptor almost certainly had primary feathers, but we don't know how large or what color its primary feathers were, so of course interpretations of these are going to differ among paleo artists, whether professional or amateur. Even among professionals, no one draws (for example) Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops exactly the same. Albertonykus (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm the above, here's what I wrote to another editor with the same kind of complaints. Artistic credentials are irrelevant to this, all that matters is that an image is as anatomically accurate as possible. The ones you are adding are not, it's as simple as that. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit not to be Tamura's biggest fan, but look, who are you to judge if an image is accurate or not? Are you professional paleontologists? Museum mounts may be outdated but they were made by professionals commissioned by real paleontologists. I would rather trust something which is made for a museum that has been checked by a bunch of specialists than something which was made up by an amateur and checked by another bunch of amateurs. Does anybody thinks the same around here?Dinogal85 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are members here who are professionals including Mark Young, JSpencer, Anky-man, someone else I can't think of, possibly Apatomerus, and maybe more. The rest of us are just smart people, who as noted above, take published research very serious. What we don't take seriously are credential and authority-based arguments. Abyssal (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the most awful, scientifically inaccurate restorations I've ever seen have been made by pros or been in museums. I'm not technically a pro (what exactly defines one? What credentials are necessary?) but I have had my drawings published occasionally. I feel it's very important in scientific illustration to make sure the research that goes into a reconstruction is up to date. Whoever made a Valociraptor model with "slappers" clearly can't even use Google properly (here's a whole blog post, by a professional, explaining why it is wrong.) If "credentials" are meant to ensure scientific rigor, frankly, the model maker and their supervisors should have theirs revoked for such a lazy oversight. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Random addendum; the professional who edits here that I couldn't think of is Heinrich Mallison. Abyssal (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, User:Jbrougham isn't that active anymore but he's a professional artist and model maker for the AMNH. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up. Sounds like you guys know what you are doing. My apologies for the trouble but it looked wrong (at least to me) to give such credit to an obscure and anonymous artist while there are others that are well known and widely recognized around. I think I understand your point now and I also understand copyright problems but did you try to get permissions from say Todd Marshall (my favorite artist) to use his work on wikipedia? Good luck. Dinogal85 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd have even better luck if you pitched in by becoming a regular contributor. :) Abyssal (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What keeps you from asking one of these artists you want pictures of so badly for permission yourself? Being lazy and then accusing other editors of not doing whatever you want doesn't really help anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please not jump on new editors? I know that it's no longer possible for someone to just hop in off the street and start editing like it was 2005 or 2006, but it would be nice to get some more people. J. Spencer (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. I'd argue that starting edit wars on high-profile articles because you don't like accurate pictures (or something? Still not clear what the issue was) isn't the best way to start. If somebody who knows their stuff and is willing to take disagreements to talk pages strolls in and makes useful edits, more power to them. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, even if she had been Jimbo himself, insulting everyone wouldn't had been appropriate either. All I'm saying is this is Wikipedia, if you want to have something done, you can just as well do it yourself, if it's within your ability. No need to accuse others of somehow being deficient. No argument has been put forth as to what's wrong with AW's images, other than she dislikes it. That wouldn't even had cut it in 2005. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't want *us*, the longtime dinosaur editors, to become (or come across as, although I recognize that perception can't be controlled) exclusive. J. Spencer (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't insulting anyone, I was apologizing and merely asking if someone has already contacted Marshall or any other artist. You could just have replied "yes, we did, but he declined to give us permission" or "no, we haven't, that's a good idea, why don't you do that?". Now concerning Tamura aka ArthurWeasley, I repeat I was just picking on him because he was one of the most visible here (and he has apparently left wikipedia so is unlikely to see this...), the reason is simple, his drawings are very crude (lack of details, no interesting pose, etc...), just compare with the amount of details that Marshall, Rey or any of the great artists are putting in their paintings, but this is just my personal opinion, so if you guys like what he is doing, it's fine by me. I won't be bothering you anymore. Dinogal85 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can tell you we did in fact have a few of Todd's images here, someone had asked him permission and gotten it, but there wasn't proper documentation for it apparently, so those images were deleted after some years or less. So if you want some images of his back on, you should go through this process: As for quality, accuracy comes before detail or artistic appeal, a line drawing could in theory be more anatomically accurate than a fully rendered painting, and that's the image we would use. To give you an extreme example, here's a simple black and white silhouette of a Plateosaurus slapped together by a few editors (including me), next to a fully rendered painting by the famous paleoartist Raúl Martín. Which one are we using? The simple one, because it accurately shows the dinosaur as bipedal and with non-pronated hand, unlike in the professional illustration. The user made image also has the benefit of being easily editable, if new info should prove the image inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the lack of interesting pose and background details as a feature rather than a bug; the purposes of the images are illustrative rather than artistic and the larger the number of details the higher the probability that the image will contain errors. Abyssal (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request for the Iguanodon pic
Hi Folks, Looks like the lady above will get what she was asking for after all but not for the same reasons. I've requested deletion of a few of my illustrations from wiki commons including Iguanodon after going through the recent debate launched by Greg Paul on the DML concerning the use of his skeletal reconstructions for derivative works. Although I do not fully agree with him, I respect and understand his views and have decided to remove from wikipedia all of my illustrations that directly resulted from the study of his skeletal drawings. There is only a few of them so no worries. A creative common license unfortunately does not prevent commercial use of a work by a third party, and this I'd like to avoid so removing the images from the web is the best course of action. Cheers. NobuTamura (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was thinking of that when I saw you nominated many of your images for deletion, and legally, there are a few pros and cons. If the drawing is posed exactly after a skeletal, then there would be a problem, because even a silhouette is copyrightable, we've had a few images on Commons deleted because they were just copyrighted images painted over with black. This would probably affect life restorations posed exactly after skeletals too (see this one for example: ), but perhaps not, because a significant amount of original content has been added to it. But for restorations merely based proportionally after a skeletal, but posed completely differently and seen from other angles, there would be no valid copyright claim at all, GSP was too extensive with his complaints there, scientific measurements are in no way copyrightable. So I'm myself in the process of reposing all the drawings I'v made that were too close to the skeletals I based them off in pose, and you could do that too with yours if you want, at least the ones that you find important enough for it, and salvageable of course. For example, here's a drawing where the pose is almost ripped completely off from a Jaime Headden skeletal, but here's a version where everything is changed enough for it to not be considered legally derivative: Compare with the original silhouette:  I could modify the image even more if it turned out to still be too close. I must say, it was only when I began doing the restorations for Wiki that I based them so closely on the poses of the skeletals, as I got more confident in my knowledge of dinosaur body mechanics, I began posing them however I wanted. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, take a look at M Wesley's recent post on the DML, he hits the nail right on the head, I quote his point three:

"3. How would he be able to know that a life restoration, posed and restored in an artists own style and in his or her own interpretation of lost musculature, used his skeletals and not another person's--would it be a process of Mr. Paul taking a tape measure to every piece of dinosaur art he saw? Invariably if such a draconian and absurd president were put in place then many paleoartists would still use his skeletal reconstructions, only they would skew the proportions to an extent that they clearly were not based on his work (this isn't as egregious as it sounds as proportional dimorphism is not uncommon throughout the animal kingdom between the sexes and from animals of the same species from one region to another), yet how skewed would it have to be to be outside of Mr. Paul's propriety--two inches more on the scapula and one inch less on the pubis? The irony here is that Mr. Paul in the end would make the general reconstruction and restorations of non-avian dinosaurs by the general population of artists more inaccurate instead of less." FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like GSP's stuff but he's completely off his rocker. You can't copyright bone measurements and shapes. Skeletal are scientific diagrams, not art. Period. You can't claim plagiarism for them any more than if you published e=mc^2 in a fancy font. Even the poses are not copyrightable, assuming he intended those to be poses actually adopted by the animal in life. Otherwise, every wildlife artist on the planet would be guilty of plagiarism against whoever was the first person to paint a bear fishing for salmon, or whatever. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, that's silly isn't it? Unfortunately for those who painstakingly measured dino bone proportions to get it right, they cannot claim ownership on these. Same for poses or even silhouettes, I think. It's just like saying Michael Jackson has an exclusive copyright of his dance moves and anybody who wants to emulate him will need to get an authorization from his family... The decision to remove those images is just mainly out of respect for the man and for his contribution to paleontology. Hopefully, he is not creating a precedent. Imagine, if every artist doing dinosaur skeletal mounts start to claim ownership of the right proportions of their artwork ... accurate paleoart will be left to the selected few who have direct access to the fossils. ;) NobuTamura (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, even if every skeletal artist did that, it wouldn't have any legal weight. It's up to us individually to determine whether we want to act on their requests or not. If a drawing isn't drawn exactly on top of a skeletal silhouette almost, there's not anything they can do other than complain. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there isn't much legal ground for this but you never knows, stranger things have happened. Anyway, I read Scott Hartman has taking the task of reposing all his illustrations not to have the GSP running dinosaur look and the Great Man seems OK with it. Except for the old Acrocantho pic, my illustrations based on GSP skeletals have already been drawn with a different pose, so they are probably OK but I don't mind redoing them without using GSP skeletals. For Iguanodon, it's easy, there are plenty of museum skeleton pictures on the web to work with. Cheers. NobuTamura (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The skeleton is the skeleton. As long as the pose is different, I don't know how GSP would even be able to tell if you used his or somebody else's or examined the original fossils yourself. Unless he's adding in deliberately inaccurate proportions to nab people who use his stuff... MMartyniuk (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, he won't be able to tell... so the safe policy would be NOT to acknowledge him whenever we use his skeletals and just pose it differently. What an irony...LOL. NobuTamura (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So now that the image has been deleted, what would be good contenders for a replacement? We have the following images on Commons, closest to being correct, but all have problems... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? Which one could be used? We can't have an article with only outdated restorations, the Earth will implode! FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The second and third look ok to me (minus the settings, obviously). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The placement of the nostril in the third one is too far back, or that might not be cast in stone? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

East Sussex/West Sussex
I note the recent back and forth on East/West Sussex in the article. Part of the problem is that Cuckfield was in East Sussex but is now in West Sussex (since 1974). --Erp (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Iguanodon orientalis
Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky, 1952 is actually a junior synonym of Iguanodon bernissartensis (Norman, 1995, 1996, 1998). Since Altirhinus was intended to be a new genus for specimens mis-identified as I. orientalis in 1981, I. orientalis is not a synonym of Altirhinus. The presence of Iguanodon bernissartensis in Mongolia shows that this dinosaur was widespread in the Northern Hemisphere. For this reason, Iguanodon is one of many pan-continental dinosaurs (like Allosaurus, Kentrosaurus, Apatosaurus, Torvosaurus, Ceratosaurus, and Elaphrosaurus).

D. B. Norman. 1995. Ornithopods from Mongolia: new observation. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(3, suppl.):46A.

D. B. Norman. 1996. On Mongolian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). 1. Iguanodon orientalis Rozhdestvensky 1952. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 116:303-315.

D. B. Norman. 1998. On Asian ornithopods (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). 3. A new species of iguanodontid dinosaur. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 122:291-348.

Reinsterted section overwritten by the IP 68.4.61.168 FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

questions:
-- the 'iguanadon' is related to the 'brontosauraus'? -- article states it was the second dinosaur named, i believe the brontosauraus was one of the earliest dinosaurs discovered. also, there is some continuity confusion in this article-- if you look at the pictures in a series, there is the depiction of 'iguanadon' relative to the size of a human, and then later picture which depicts it as a large iguana or over-sized reptile of some kind?? i suppose this should be corrected-- perhaps this should be merged with bronto article/project?? --99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Brontosaurus is a completely different kind of dinosaur, and was actually found many years after Iguanodon. The lizard-like depictions were made during the 1800s and are now thought to be very inaccurate.
 * Following on the Featured Article discussion above, in addition to moving the history section to the end (which I have now done) we may think about restricting all outdated historical restoration to the History section (in fact there may be a WP:Dino guideline to this effect already). Including images of the Crystal Palace sculptures in a section on "Posture" is sure to confuse people, especially with no modern representation in the same section for comparison. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the pose section goes heavily into older ideas, such as tripod pose, I thought juxtaposing new (first) and old images, and stating which is modern and which is outdated in the caption, would be clear. How about this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the posture section be going into the history that much? Maybe there should be a sub-section of history for history of reconstructions. Most of the anatomy sections seem to be present merely as excuses to discuss historical interpretations (spike on the nose, etc.). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article really should have a anatomy section. What about splitting it, making a section on the history of poses (for the historic section) and retain the actual updated anatomy bits? I seem to remember an article on skin pattern that should be relevant, I'll see if I can find it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't anatomy go under description? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, normally basic anatomical description would be in or subsections of the description section. The biology section is reserved for things that require biomechanical study and other kinds of inference, eg. posture, gait, use of claws, diet, etc. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Iguanodon species list
The famous Maidstone iguanodont is considered a distinct unnamed taxon by Carpenter and Ishida (2010) and assigned to cf. Mantellisaurus by McDonald (2012). Iguanodon seelyi still stands a junior synonym of I. bernissartensis, as pointed out by McDonald (2012) and Norman (2012), who note differences between the ilia of I. seeleyi and Dollodon bampingi. Additionally, Sphenospondylus gracilis is considered a nomen dubium by Norman (1986) and McDonald (2012), while Streptospondylus major is almost certainly nomen dubium because the syntype cervicals are not diagnostic for iguanodont species.

Norman, D. B., 1986, On the anatomy of Iguanodon atherfieldensis (Ornithischia: Ornithopoda): Bulletin del l’Instut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, v. 56, p. 281-372.

Norman, D. B., 2012, Iguanodontian taxa (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Lower Cretaceous of England and Belgium: In: Bernissart Dinosaurs and Early Cretaceous Terrestrial Ecosystems, edited by Godefroit, P., Indiana University Press, Part 2, The Bernissart Iguanodons and thier kin, p. 175-212.

McDonald, Andrew T. (2011). "The status of Dollodon and other basal iguanodonts (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the upper Wealden beds (Lower Cretaceous) of Europe". Cretaceous Research advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.03.002.68.4.28.33 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Iguanodontidae
Isn't Mantellisaurus an Iguanodontid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

New name for Maidstone Iguanodon
Paul (2012) erects the new genus and species Mantellodon carpenteri for the Maidstone iguanodont based on differences from the true Mantellisaurus. Would it be appropriate to move the discussion of the Maidstone iguanodont under the section "Gideon Mantell, Richard Owen, and the discovery of dinosaurs" to the Mantellodon article, since Mantellodon is a bit older than true Mantellisaurus and Gideon Mantell himself was unaware that Mantellodon came from much younger rocks than Therosaurus anglicus?

Gregory S. Paul (2012). "Notes on the rising diversity of iguanodont taxa, and iguanodonts named after Darwin, Huxley and evolutionary science". Actas de V Jornadas Internacionales sobre Paleontologia de Dinosaurios y su Entorno, Salas de los Infantes, Burgos. Colectivo Arqeologico-Paleontologico de Salas de los Infantes (Burgos). pp. 121–131. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * Weird, why was that article not created last year? FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For some, reason, the article of Paul is only available since this year... --Rextron (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, first i've heard of this. Thus passes the last English Iguanodon, a species present only in continental Europe. (Not making maidstone the neotype was a tremendous mistake IMO...) EDIT or maybe not, looks like Therosaurus is a synonym of Ophiacodon'? Meaning "I." anglicum needs a new genus name. MMartyniuk (talk)
 * Actually, Therosaurus Fitzinger 1840 was coined for Iguanodon mantelli by Fitzinger based on the belief that Iguanodon was a mammal-sized reptile and not the lizard-sized reptile conceptualized by Mantell. In any case, since I. mantelli is a junior objective synonym of I. anglicus, and I. bernissartensis is now the type species for Iguanodon, Therosaurus Fitzinger, 1840 should be used as the only available name for Iguanodon anglicus (keeping in mind that Therosaurus Huene 1925, as a junior synonym of Ophiacodon, is preoccupied by Fitzinger's name). Therefore, the type species epithet for Therosaurus is T. anglicus and I. anglicus should be moved to the new page Therosaurus Fitzinger 1840. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian


 * But the lectotype of Iguanodon mantellii is, per Hulke (1882), the Maidstone piece discovered in 1834. Therefore it seems impossible that I. mantellii would be a junior objective synonym of I. anglicus as that species was named (be it as a I anglicum) in 1829. Lectotypes would have to be chosen from a implicit syntype series present at that date.--MWAK (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Darn, I just realised that by the same reasoning Hulke was not allowed to designate the Maidstone piece as the lectotype as I. mantellii was named in 1832 :oS. All names thus pertain to BMNH 2390-2394, the teeth.--MWAK (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
"Iguanodon (/ɨˈɡwɑːnədɒn/ i-GWAH-nə-don; meaning "iguana-tooth") is a genus of ornithopod dinosaur that existed roughly halfway between the first of the swift bipedal hypsilophodontids of the mid-Jurassic and the duck-billed dinosaurs of the late Cretaceous."- Being a hadrosauriform wouldn't it be much closer t the hadrosaur end of the spectrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be closer related to hadrosaurids. But I presume the sentence wants to express two things: that Iguanodon has some intermediate position in the evolutionary tree, in a series of successive split-offs, the "Iguanodontidae" being paraphyletic; and that Iguanodon was morphologically in-between. I fear that this fusion simply leads to confusion ;o).--MWAK (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Teeth or not?
The description says "with toothless beaks probably covered with keratin, and teeth like those of iguanas". Please make it clearer as to how something can have a toothless beak and teeth at the same time. Thanks. Fig (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could probably be worded better, but to explain here, the beak only covered the front part of the mouth, where it had no teeth. You can see it on several pictures in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Talking about the teeth, since that the original remains called as "Iguanodon" are currently classified under other genera, the images of their teeth and another remains should be keeped in this article?--Rextron (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Under history, yes, because those teeth are what the name is based on. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Iguanodontidae a family?
There is written in the article, that "In older sources, Iguanodontidae was shown as a distinct family." Does it mean, that in newer sources it is not considered a family? Infobox in this article also reads that Iguanodon belongs to the family Iguanodontidae, and in the article on Ornithopods we can read that Iguanodontidae is a family belonging to that infraorder, too. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In current sources, it's not considered a valid family, with the "Iguanodontids" paraphyletic. Iguanodon is the only taxon within the family. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but the validity of a family doesn't depend on how many genera in it, any more than the validity of a genus depends on it having more than one species. At least under the present code. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a double standard, isn't it? Most prehistoric genera are monospecific, but genera are kind of the coin of the realm, whereas most workers don't use monogeneric families anymore. It may be that among workers, using family names implies multiple genera, but using genera implies only one species (i.e. if you say "Iguanodontidae", there's an unspoken assumption that there's more than one genus attached to it).  That, and it gets redundant: if Iguanodontidae and Iguanodon equal the same set of organisms, it's better to go with the lower-order name. J. Spencer (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Even though there's no rule against monospecific genera, there's something strange about monogeneric (is that a word? Guess it is now.) families. People will always expect a taxonomic family to have more than one genus (simply because there's an automatic association with a biological family, and no one ever calls someone living by him/herself a "family"). And if Mantellisaurus, considered Iguanodon for almost 100 years, isn't in the family, there's not much point in using the family. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester  16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'tis a family of one, monogeneric if we're going to be going to be technical about it. J. Spencer (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that people discuss here their opinions, but for the featured article it is more important, what the sources say. So, if current sources say that nowadays the family is not valid, they should be referred to and the family should disappear from the infobox. If there are not such sources, the part of the paragraph should be re-written, mentioning, whether this old family is used as an unranked class or not used at all. Can anybody help solve this? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue still has not been solved. The infobox says that iguanodontidae is a family, while the article says that it was considered a family in older sources. I think that featured article should not contain such ambiguous information. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Benton 2004 in Vertebrate Paleontology uses Iguanodontidae as a paraphyletic group. Paul's 2008 iguanodont paper discusses Iguanodontidae and suggests it is limited to the genus Iguanodon. These aren't really "older sources", and that's just the first two things that come up on a quick search of my papers folder.
 * Anyway, the purpose of the taxobox is to summarize the animal's taxonomy. I.e. what taxa it has been assigned to. That's why we list synonyms, which by their nature are 'invalid' assignments. Unless we set up a separate section for 'past family assignments' or 'synonymous family-level taxa', we should list families of which the topic species is the type. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A recent paper detailing the anatomy of Hypselospinus by Norman (2015) finds some support for a monophyletic Iguanodontidae composed of Iguanodon, Bolong, Mantellisaurus, Barilium, Proa, and Jinzhousaurus. Would it be appropriate to move Iguanodontidae just in case the cladistic proposal by Norman (2015) holds water?

Norman, D. B. (2015), On the history, osteology, and systematic position of the Wealden (Hastings group) dinosaur Hypselospinus fittoni (Iguanodontia: Styracosterna). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 173: 92–189. doi: 10.1111/zoj.1219372.194.115.252 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

The 1824 publication
Dinoguy2 has just mentioned the new paper about the, until now unrecognised, 1824 publication. It is, of course, not our task to point this out in the text but Simpson is mistaken in his conclusion that the name Iguanadon would be a nomen nudum. He states that a "proper scientific description" is needed. While this is true in a sense, he apparently misleads himself into thinking this means that descriptions of low quality, that are not "good enough", do not meet this criterion. This is incorrect: any minimal real description suffices. The ICZN does not use the qualification "proper". Such a description is present in the newspaper article. Furthermore, the newspaper article can be seen, if the reference to the on the Geology of Sussex is deemed bibliographical enough, as containing an indication of an earlier description of the teeth by Mantell and such an indication alone is sufficient to meet the description criterion and also sufficiently denotes a syntype series. So, Iguanadon seems in principle to be the valid name. It could be formally declared a nomen oblitum — but Simpson did not. On the DML Ben Creisler suggested that the name would be invalid because it was not published in a technical publication but no such condition is part of the ICZN.--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, we don't typically count newspaper articles for naming of taxa, other wise named like Ultrasaurus would be valid and names like Quetzalcoatlus would be older than they are listed. I also wonder if this name would qualify as a lapsus since it is reporting on Mantell's letter, which presumably spelled it correctly with an o as suggested by Conybeare and later published. The author of the newspaper article had probably heard the letter read and did not know the correct spelling. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking into this more carefully, here are the relevant ICZN articles for this case.
 * 12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication. The 1824 article does not contain any real description, but maybe an indication.
 * 12.2.1. a bibliographic reference to a previously published description or definition even if the description or definition is contained in a work published before 1758, or that is not consistently binominal, or that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]) The article does cite "Mantell's Work on the Geology of Sussex". If this is the title of a book it would seem to count as an indication. If it's just the description of a book which is not named, it wouldn't count. (The fact that I'm having trouble, using Google, figuring out which book, if any, this is referring to probably means it doesn't count, but feel free to correct me!)
 * Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of publications by Mantell: Note that there is no such book as "on the Geology of Sussex". The author must be referring to The Fossils of the South Downs, or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, but I'm not sure that qualifies as the kind of "bibliographic reference" required by the ICZN. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * These are pertinent points. Allow me to answer.


 * 1) "We don't typically count newspaper articles for naming of taxa". That is factually true. Newspapers are by many regarded as not meeting the conditions of article 8.1.1. However, this is little more than unjustified prejudice. There is no basis for this in the ICZN, which does not exclude or even mention newspapers. Whether an article appeared in a newspaper or a book or a magazine, technical or otherwise, is thus simply irrelevant. And despite the prejudice many, especially nineteenth century, names that were published in newspapers are generally accepted as valid. Could that mean that Ultrasaurus JENSEN 197? was valid after all? Perhaps, it depends on the actual content of the articles, which frankly I'm unaware of :o). Was the name Quetzalcoatlus first mentioned in a newspaper article?
 * 2) "The 1824 article does not contain any real description". Here you're making the same mistake as Simpson. You assume that after having established that a description is present, you are allowed to judge whether it is sufficient enough. But you're not. A description is a description, no matter how minimal or factually incorrect. In works before 1931 it does not even have to give any distinguishing traits. That is why there is art 12.3.: Exclusions. The mention of any of the following does not in itself constitute a description, definition, or indication: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or specimen. So you have to relate at least one morphological trait. See e.g. page 61 and 62 in this work: https://books.google.nl/books?id=31djiqi0qNoC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=%2212.2.1%22+%22ICZN%22&source=bl&ots=ZINL2syKsO&sig=gu0Z_OokJHZiEWHM-tSrNfkho6Y&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJp4WdyqTJAhUDvnIKHVGlCu4Q6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=description&f=false The article in question relates two: the size of the teeth and the inferred length of the specimen.
 * 3) Indeed I misread the book title :oS. But if we shorten it a bit to Geology of Sussex, it is still unequivocal that this is the book referred to. That is what should count in the system of the ICZN: whether there is a pre-existent description that can be unequivocally identified.
 * 4) As regards it being a possible lapsus calami (or deficientia auris ;o), article 32.5.1. makes this irrelevant: (...) Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors. Also Iguanodon cannot be an "incorrect subsequent spelling in prevailing usage and attributed to the publication of the original spelling", because it was never attributed to the 1824 publication!--MWAK (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect links and text regarding 1822 presentation and 1825 paper
The 2 March 2007 version of this article that passed the featured article review process stated: "Mantell did not describe his findings until 1825, when he presented a paper on the remains to the Royal Society of London". The 9 May 2016 version of this article stated (until I corrected it here) that "Mantell formally published his findings on 10 February 1825, when he presented a paper on the remains to the Royal Geological Society of London.". (Technically, Mantell wrote to Davies Gilbert and Gilbert read the paper out to the Society.) How did this error creep into the article? In an edit on 28 February 2009, an existing link to 'Royal Society' was changed to read "Royal Geological Society" with a piped link to Royal Society. A bit earlier in the same section, a similar link in the '1822' sentence (about the fossils being presented to the Geological Society) is incorrectly piped to the Royal Society. I corrected this here. FWIW, the incorrectly piped link was de-linked here on 25 October 2013 (the edit summary claimed to be removing 'duplicate links' but clearly the actual edit being done wasn't examined closely enough as otherwise the inconsistency might have been picked up then). What appears to have happened is that User:MWAK, in introducing the 1822 bit about the Geological Society of London (which has never been known as 'Royal' though it does have a royal charter), created an incorrectly piped link (the piped text was right, the link was wrong) and used the same piped link for the 1825 sentence (where the link was correct but the piped text was wrong). And no-one noticed that until now, over seven years later. That was a right mess (relatively minor but still annoying - this error has propagated outwards to many other websites).

Pinging MWAK and IJReid in case I am wrong and further edits are needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, late a night here so hard for me to digest all of this, but based on what I can tell you are wondering if the link/text should state "Royal Geological Society/Royal Society/Geological Society". I will look into this, but afaik this is pretty minor. IJReid  discuss 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It should correctly be "Royal Society", not any other. You can see the original here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/107739, it says "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London". IJReid  discuss 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your corrections! I had indeed, and quite erroneously, assumed that in both years the same society had been involved and that its name had changed...Which only goes to show that one should not assume but check.--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Iguanodon. 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/20070930222933/http://www.newstatesman.com/200102260031 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200102260031
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060113142619/http://www.dinohunters.com:80/Iguanodon/bernissart_page.htm to http://www.dinohunters.com/Iguanodon/bernissart_page.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Iguanodon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dinosauricon.com/rigby/asia.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

April 23rd Today's Featured Article
This article will be on the main page on April 23rd. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the order here is mandatory, but the section of previous and dubious species is not likely to be relevant to most readers, and is, quite frankly, rather boring (and in places somewhat inaccessible). Would it be an idea to place it further down in the article, giving the sections on anatomy and ecology a more prominent place? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the entire history section should be moved down? See Tyrannosaurus as an example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Boring" is not a valid argument. Of course it is boring. It is an encyclopedia :o).--MWAK (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Boring was not my point, relevance was. I would think the cassual reader would be interested in the animal itself, not the details of classification history. I support FunkMonk's suggestion of moving the whole history section further down (below anatomy and ecology). Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pinging to see this old discussion. I think it is good to move the history up before classification again, but I'm not sure if the very long section should be first... FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the length would be an issue here, if it makes sense to have that subject first than it should go there.  Luso titan  20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's maybe what could be discussed, since FA articles always have the description section first (not counting the current nominee, of course). So I think there should be some kind of consensus for it when it comes to changing this retroactively. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the reason I changed it here specifically is because it's by far the most historically important of any dinosaur FA.  Luso titan  21:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, people can see it in this article now and say what they think here. But I'd think dinosaur is the historically most important dinosaur taxon FA, hehe... The history is way down at the bottom there, which I don't agree with. But the question is then whether it should go before description. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hikanodon and Iguanosaurus
The taxobox lists Hikanodon and Iguanosaurus as possible synonyms, and then the species section ends with them being referred to as objective junior synonyms. This already contradicts itself, with the presence of question marks followed by the synonymy being called objective. However, I'm more concerned about rather the names are even at all. I can't find any reference of Iguanosaurus being validly published in 1828, only of the nomen nudum case from 1824, and the DOI leads to a page which indicates that the reference is about amphibians. Could be an artefact of it being older than Dinosauria as a name, but it's not helping the case. Hikanodon was definitely actually used as a name in the indicated publication, twice, but I've been told what's there doesn't constitute a proper coining, and I'm inclined to agree. It's treated as valid in the Dinosaur Genera List, but this DML message doesn't give confidence that's done with any more certainty. Could anybody present any evidence either of these are valid names, and if Iguanosaurus Ritgen 1828 even exists?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to continue this now, since I've done a big dig into the literature (summarized in a DML post which we can fortunately reference). Hikanodon is not a valid name, and it is almost certainly either an original name for Iguanodon that was not formally used ever (what Molnar thinks), or a lapsus calami for Iguanodon (what I suspect). But the name is never coined as a new name, and if it is considered valid it is coined by Nöggerath (1826). I may dig into Iguanosaurus as well, but I suspect it is simply a nomen nudum. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We've already had a long discussion about Iguanosaurus on the Therosaurus talk page. "Iguanosaurus" Anonymous, 1824 is a nomen nudum, but Iguanosaurus Ritgen, 1828 is not. Also, citing your own DML post on the 1826 in paleontology page seems like a shady way to get around the "no original research" rule. It would be better just to cite Nöggerath (1826) directly. Carnoferox (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh I emailed the DML just to get further information, I plan to put the information somewhere more official eventually. Also I was just lazy on the 1826 page, but now that Creisler has written out the full article title (I wasn't sure what it was because of no previous references) I will do just that. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)