Talk:Stygimoloch

Watch the weasel words and speculation, please
Let's remember to watch the weasel words and speculation in this and other articles. Imputing behavior, or functions for anatomy, on the basis of "it seems obvious" is questionable science. :-) -- Writtenonsand 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Article
Could someone P*L*E*A*S*E take the time to read the comments and referred articles on the Dracorex-Stigymoloch-Pachycephalosaurus situation featured here: http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2010/01/farewell-to-2009-yeares-best-and-worst.html

The article's tone seems to take Horner's proposal of Stygimoloch being a juvenile of another pachy species for granted way too much; the matter is still very much open to debate, and that is not reflected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.91.121 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fact hat this article doesn't redirect to Pachy is open enough... also blogs don't count as sources and nobody has published a rebuttal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Name
"Stygimoloch" doesn't mean "thorny devil from the River Styx" it means "devil from the River Styx" (not that Moloch is necessarily a devil; depends on the tradition). You need the "spinifer" to get "thorny." 72.240.64.25 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lumping.
Since nobody has countered these arguments on the Pachycephalosaurus talk page, I am bringing them up here, copied and pasted in their entirety. 85.211.136.200 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a bit by lumping ‘’Stygimoloch’’ under ‘’Pachycephalosaurus’’? I mean, they don’t even belong to the same strata. ‘’Stygimoloch’’ is more recent than ‘’Pachycephalosaurus’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.110.242 (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with this for a different reason. Until it is definitively found that Dracorex and Stygimoloch are indeed just Pachycephalosaurus, then they should remain unlumped pages, simple as that. If they do get lumped, go ahead and lump them, if they don't then they'll just remain their seperate pages, but until then they are dubious and should remain as seperate pages imo. Theferretman21 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)theferretman21
 * Well, since no scientific papers have contested this synonymy, the issue does not seem to be contentious. Anyhow, here is the discussion that lead to the merger: FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How definite is definite for you? As the previous discussion concluded, the weight of the current scientific consensus on this matter - an uncontroversial one - is that they are ontogenetic synonyms. We are not beholden to some hypothetical future paper that might argue for their separation. If and when such a paper is published, then we can reevaluate whether we should keep them merged. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)