Talk:Ornithopsis

Note
'''*Note: Ornithopsis is currently restricted to the type species, O. hulkei,and a possible second species, O. eucamerotus, being a nomen dubium and safely referrable to Titanosauriformes incertae sedis. This revision is after Upchurch et al. (2004). As a matter of reference, other species misassigned to Ornithopsis have been re-identified as separate genera.'''

The note is really unecessary, as all the information contained therein is already in the main text. So I have deleted the note.--Gazzster 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

O. manseli Duplication?
O. manseli had two entries, I'm not sure if this is a mistake or if they should be combined. Could someone with better info fix this? CFLeon (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference addition
Blows (1995) finds Ornithopsis to be a valid genus of sauropod. He designates one of the syntypes (BMNH 28632) as the lectotype for the type species O. hulkei. Therefore, he suggests restricting the name Ornithopsis to O. hulkei. The other syntype of O. hulkei (BMNH 2239) is clearly not Ornithopsis but was named Bothriospondylus elongatus by Owen (1875). The lectotype of Ornithopsis (BMNH 28632) was named Bothriospondylus magnus by Owen (1875) and thus B. magnus is a junior objective synonym of O. hulkei.

The species section for this article must be altered. Upchurch and Martin (2003) found Cetiosaurus humerocristatus to be a valid species of macronarian (albeit in need of a new generic name), while Ornithopsis eucamerotus is a nomen dubium (Blows, 1995). For instance, the holotype of O. eucamerotus consists of pelvic elements, both of which do not overlap with the type vertebrae of Ornithopsis hulkei and Eucamerotus foxi and thus cannot be synonymized with Eucamerotus foxi(Blows, 1995). Bothriospondylus is a nomen dubium (Mannion, 2010). Pelorosaurus is certainly not Ornithopsis and Ischyrosaurus was found in an older stratum than Ornithopsis.

Blows, W.T. (1995). The Early Cretaceous brachiosaurid dinosaurs Ornithopsis and Eucamerotus from the Isle of Wight, England. Palaeontology 38(1):187-197.

Mannion, P.D., 2010 "A revision of the sauropod dinosaur genus 'Bothriospondylus' with a redescription of the type material of the middle Jurassic form 'B. madagascariensis'", Palaeontology, 53(2): 277–296

Upchurch P & Martin J (2003). "The Anatomy and Taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England". Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology 23 (1): 208–231.68.4.61.237 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Ornithopsis leedsii holotype; Duriatitan and Ischyrosaurus
NHM UK R.1984 is not part of the holotype of Ornithopsis leedsii, nor was included by Hulke in the holotype (Leeds, 1956; see also Noe et. al. 2010). Therefore, the holotype of Ornithopsis leedsii becomes NHM UK R.1985-1988.

Cetiosaurus humerocristatus is now Duriatitan, while Ischyrosaurus is an indeterminate neosauropod (Barrett et. al., 2010).

Leeds, E. T. 1956. The Leeds Collection of fossil reptiles from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough. Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.

Noe et. al. 2010. 'Old Bones, Dry Subject': the dinosaurs and pterosaur collected by Alfred Nicholson Leeds of Peterborough, England. Special Publication 343: 49-77, Geological Society, London.

Paul M. Barrett, Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 131: 113–126.93.158.40.206 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

O. leedsi catalog confusion
Text refers to both R.1984 and R.1894, I'm guessing one of them is a typo, but I don't know which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.112.29 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)