Talk:Nodosaurus

I'm against calling the Linnean categorization by 'scientific classification'. This implies it is the accepted scientific norm. In fact, cladistics is becoming more and more prevalent, and that is what I would expect to see in a category of 'scientific classification'.


 * Hear, hear.--MWAK 10:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New page for Hierosaurus
With respect to Hierosaurus, this genus should be redirected to its own page because it was once considered a synonym of Nodosaurus but is now considered a nomen dubium as per Carpenter et al. (1995). In any case, Hierosaurus was found in deposits younger than the only specimen of Nodosaurus, and is clearly not Nodosaurus. As a matter of fact, the interrelationships of Middle and Late Cretaceous nodosaurids have yet to be addressed in future papers.

Carpenter, K., D. Dilkes, and D. B. Weishampel. 1995. The dinosaurs of the Niobrara Chalk Formation (upper Cretaceous, Kansas), Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15(2): 275-297.Extrapolaris (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

New fossil
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/dinosaur-nodosaur-fossil-discovery or: http://nos.nl/artikel/2173338-alsof-hij-slaapt-uitzonderlijk-goed-bewaarde-dino-gevonden.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the Suncor nodosaur, another, unnamed nodosaurid. Info about it belongs on either that page, or the broader Nodosauridae page, but not here. Nodosaurus is simply the genus which the family is named after, and not particularly relevant to the new specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)