Talk:Scelidosaurus

message: I have other Scelidosaurus images, in my 'gallery', in case anyone would find them useful. - Ballista 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This article a step above other dinosaur articles. It is clean, well written, has pictures & covers a wide variety of topics. Although it isn't FA quality yet, it is well on its way. I'd suggest to refine the article as much as possible & expand in the "usual" areas. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Promotion Rationale: 

message: I've listed this for Good Article review. While I think this article meets all the requirements personally, it's important to get community feedback and I'd like to avoid even the appearance of Conflict of Interest. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: Just stumbled upon this article http://dml.cmnh.org/2001Nov/msg00563.html, which mentions the 2001 discovery of the first ever Dinosaur fossils on the island of Ireland. It is stated to be perhaps related to Scelidosaurus and i was wondering seeing as it is a landmark as Ireland's first ever Dinosaur discovery, should this be mentioned in the article?? Mabuska (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Highly doubt it: Norman (2020) does not even mention North American material. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That DML mention of a dinosaur "perhaps allied to Scelidosaurus" certainly doesn't seem to justify having the rock solid "Scelidosaurus is currently the only classified dinosaur found in Ireland" in the intro either? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Wonder if there is any follow-up on this material? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: First ever Irish Dinosaur

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scelidosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302163816/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/400.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/400.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scelidosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712170532/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/400.html to http://palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/320Ornithischia/400.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: On the Scelidosaurus Wikipedia page it currently says, "There were in total four rows of large scutes on the tail: one at the top midline, one at the midline of the underside, and one at each tail side." It appears to me that this is outdated, and this arrangement is inconsistent with the David Sole specimen and the life restoration which are shown on the Wikipedia page for this animal. A row of osteoderms on the midline on the underside of the tail is a bizarre arrangement that as far as I'm aware isn't known in any thyreophoran. Scott Hartman said this was how the tail of Scelidosaurus was reconstructed in the past here  and how the tail armour being at the sides rather than the top and bottom better matches a specimen with the armour intact here . Scott Hartman included a diagram with Scelidosaurus's armour coloured that helps show this here: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/europelta 94.14.155.21 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps  has something to add here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not deny the a priori plausibility of the osteoderms being absent on the underside, but in Wikipedia "outdated" can only mean "contradicted by a later source". We may have to wait for Norman publishing his study. Also, we must understand that the usual photographs of the specimen you refer to, do not show the fossil as it was found in situ, but how it appears after preparation and reattachment of the osteoderms. Only a rigorous scientific investigation can shed light on the question whether this exemplar corroborates or refutes any hypothesis regarding the armour configuration. A further problem is that it has been suggested by Naish and Martill that this is not Scelidosaurus but some other taxon, precisely because of the deviant osteoderms.--MWAK (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd got the impression one of the notable things about that David Sole specimen is that it shows the osteoderms in situ? That's what I understand Dave Hone saying here:  It's also what I understood Scott Hartman to mean when he referred to it as "the complete specimen that has the armor intact" in the second link I provided previously. When you say it has been suggested to represent a different taxon due to deviant osteoderms, is that specifically referring to the tail osteoderms? If so, that would be another thing that suggests the position of the tail osteoderms on the David Sole specimen has credibility rather than being artificial. This is the specimen the name Scelidosaurus is attached to, right?:  To me it looks like it shows tail osteoderms in the same arrangement as on the David Sole specimen, rather than the supposed arrangement with single rows of midline osteoderms. 2A02:C7D:B943:5F00:E6CE:8FFF:FE0A:2EA4 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed that is how the specimen is usually presented. It remains to be seen whether this claim survives a scientific study :o). Hone simply took things at face value. No doubt it provides much information about the armour, but it is also basically a reconstruction. The variation in the osteoderms was observed in the head armour. The other picture is indeed of the neotype. It's better not to jump to any conclusions, when comparing both specimens. We should ask ourselves: If there is a row of osteoderms visible on the left side of the chevrons, what about the right side? What is the keel and what is the base of these plates? Is it possible a midline row has shifted, by whatever taphonomic or human cause, upwards? Such questions can be answered by scientific investigation. Obviously, a configuration with a double underside or lower lateral side row is intuitively pleasing but could still be dead wrong. This very month, Jinyunpelta was described which has an underside midline row of osteoderms on the tail club handle.--MWAK (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tail armour arrangement 

message: See: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/scelidosaurus
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those are four, massive new papers, will take a while to incorporate here if anyone dares! FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting update for this article