Talk:Iguanodontia

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

"Derived Iguanodonts"?
This sentence in general seems really off: "Derived iguanodontians (such as Muttaburrasaurus and many ankylopollexians) were generally large animals...". Beyond derived being an arbitrary term in and of itself, why is Muttaburrasarus the example? Large size? That has nothing to do with being derived. By all means, would it not be considered a basal iguanodont? "Many" ankylloplexians? Are only some derived? Is it only styracosternans that are derived there? Why not say that? The examples make little sense, and the entire point doesn't really matter much, in my opinion. Lusotitan (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Where did Elasmaria go?
It just redirects to Iguanodontia, with no further mention, and the species belonging to Elasmaria seem to have been eliminated from the immediate lists. If this is to reflect some new consensus, I doubt this means that all these species have simply vanished from science... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.114.161 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Elasmaria has been excluded from Iguanodontia in more recent studies; the problem is nobody has yet created a page, so it's awkwardly left leading here with its contents off the map.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)