Talk:Thyreophora

Ankylosauromorpha
On I found Ankylosauromorpha which says it was name in 2001 by Carpenter. Can someone please verify this? Reid,iain james (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Should it be added to the article or not? Reid,iain james (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to, it seems to be a synonym of Ankylosauria under most common definitions. EDIT Actually, after further inspection, Ankylosauromorpha = Scelidonsaurus + random ankylosaurians > Stegosaurus. In Wiki's current consensus arrangement, Scelidosaurus is more basal than the ankylosaur/stegosaur split, which would make the clade Ankylosauromorpha empty (i.e. it is designed to "self destruct" or invalidate itself if Scelidosaurus is not a close relative of traditional ankylosaurs). So as it stands now, Ankylosauromorpha is not a valid clade. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, a recent study (David Norman et. al. 2020) found a new topology of the Thyreophora revalidating the clade Ankylosauromorpha, so it may be reconsidered. Hiroizmeh (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Scelidosauridae
There is no reason to have Scelidosauridae separate from Thyreophora. The family does not have a clear phylogenetic definition, and in modern literature Scelidosaurus is considered a basal thyreophoran, with no reference to Scelidosauridae. Scelidosaurus, Emausaurus and Scutellosaurus are widely agreed to form a basal grade, not a monophyletic family. The other taxon considered to a Scelidosaurid, Bienosaurus is currently considered a nomen dubium. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless Scelidosauridae is a historically significant paraphyletic group (which, to my knowledge, it is not), I would favour a merge. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * When this was merged with Thyreophora, the name "Scelidosauridae" was not even mentioned in that article. That does not help anybody. We need to keep the information, not just delete it. The name "Scelidosauridae" is, however, discussed in detail in Scelidosaurus, and I therefore would consider merging with that article instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was most appropriate here because Scelidosauridae was used primarily as a paraphyletic grouping to refer to basal thyreophorans, but I appreciate your logic. I am open to having it redirect there instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to the classification section of Scelidosaurus seems reasonable to me as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , With all three of us in agreement, can I go ahead and redirect Scelidosauridae to the classification section of Scelidosaurus? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so, but we should wait a bit longer: According to Merging, we should wait at least one week after the discussion was opened. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good time now. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I already made the change 2 and a half weeks ago Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)