Talk:Lambeosaurus

message: I have a personal record of another species, L. clavinitialis. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a juvenile of the type, last I checked. J. Spencer 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another species? 

message: Looks really good. I felt there was no COI as I had only done a typo and hadn't seen the article otherwise (what a nice surprise!). Nice and concise and yet fairly comprehensive. Prose good. Only thing I can think of is the ?L really bugs me but I can't see another way of writing it without some wordy explanation, though there is one further in the article, which then leaves  minor problem of having one in the lead without an explanation. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

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: Man this one is looking pretty good for an imminent FA nom as well...what to do then...copyediting?cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This bipedal/quadrupedal, herbivorous dinosaur is known.. - What a tricky concept to term succinctly. This looks sort of ok and I guess we mean it could either be bipedal or quadrupedal. I'm not sure how others like the use of slashes like this.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: named, from Alberta (Canada), Montana (USA), and Baja California (Mexico), but only..
"From across western North America" (?) - better or leave as is. I'm not fussed just throwing up some ideas (well, not gastroenterlologically..)cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit lean in some sections, now that I look at it: lead, classification, paleobiology...; could use another image or two (a skeleton would be nice). J. Spencer 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OMG!

message: OK, I've put some stuff into lead. Would be good to have another para eitehr underneath or connecting onto bottom of that one detailing what other dinosaurs come from that time. I am not sure what comes from where withni the separate layers of the formation.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: "... a sophisticated skull that permitted a grinding motion analogous to chewing." -- In what sense is it logical to say that L's dental processing of food was "analogous to chewing"? "Chewing" redirects to "Mastication", which says "Mastication or chewing is the process by which food is mashed and crushed by teeth." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition online gives "chew 1. To bite and grind with the teeth; masticate." . What L was doing was not "analogous to chewing", it was chewing. Or is there something I'm missing? -- 201.19.77.39 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've probably simplified it too much, but the action is different between mammals and hadrosaurids; mammals only have the jaw joint, and grinding comes from various motions at that joint alone, whereas hadrosaurids had other locations capable of motion, with the most accepted version being that the upper jaw bones bowed out when the upper and lower tooth rows contacted, grinding trapped material (the other option being the lower jaws rotated inward slightly).  It's just a case of being very careful when applying mammalian terminology to dinosaurs, perhaps too careful. J. Spencer 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Better to say "analogous to mammalian chewing," just to make this clear. Dinoguy2 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. -- 201.19.77.39 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Analogous to chewing"??

message: This image by a Russian illustrator, who has released it into the public domain, was unfit for the article due to an erroneous tail, I've tried to correct it, both versions are available on the right. Is it correct now, or should it be further tweaked? Funkynusayri 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks to be about within the range of possibility. J. Spencer 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I already did. J. Spencer 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed tail on image 

message: Im a little concerned with the the size graph in the article, it makes lambeosaurus look like godzilla. For example: compare the two images. 69.76.55.224 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: L. laticaudus was enormous, around 15 m/50 ft, and it should look odd and striking because few hadrosaurs got that big.  Part of the difference is the pose of the lambeosaurs compared to the theropods, part of it is that hadrosaurs as big herbivores were chunkier by nature and bony anatomy than comparable theropods, and there's probably some variance to do with how the length was measured (along the curves vs. straight lines). Admittedly, the lambes are doing a bit of a high-step, but that's the artistic interpretation, and a traditional straight-on flat profile may be a worthwhile revision. J. Spencer 00:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, in case you wanted a more conservative pose for the size comparison, I whipped up a second option based on AW's Corythosaurus drawing (modified crests of course). Dinoguy2 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be cool, I'll see if I can get one together by tonight. Maybe using Argentinosaurus rather than Amphicoelias, so the other ones are visible ;) Dinoguy2 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: size graph

message: Why is Duckbill bracketted in the lead? I haven't seen this in any other dinosaur article, so why now? I'm gonna remove it, but I just thought I'd post here first... (As it is, there's waay too many brackets in the lead anyway, and this just makes it seem like simple Wikipedia...) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duckbill bracketed? 

message: "L. laticaudus is estimated at between 15 m (50 ft) and 16.5 m (54.1 ft) long, with a weight of up to 23 metric tons (25 tons)". Well, maybe. The paper naming it (Morris 1981) does indeed say 16.5 m, 23 metric tons; but the 23 tonne estimate is cited to a 1972 paper by Morris, where that estimate is given for a specimen not actually referred to L. laticaudus in the 1981 paper.
(It's almost certainly a huge overestimate anyway...) Vultur (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: L. laticaudus size issues

message: The only thing that Osborn (1902) says about Didanodon is: "A third new species or even genus P. (Didanodon) altidens Lambe is distinguished by exceptionally high narrow teeth." (p. 7). Since Osborn doesn't indicate Didanodon as a new genus, it could probably be a typographical mistake. The fact that Osborn probably didn't mean to establish Didanodon as a new genus would explain why Didanodon is not mentioned in Lull and Wright's hadrosaur monograph.  68.4.61.168 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didanodon; Procheneosaurus nomenclature 

message: A re-assessment of Lambeosaurus laticaudus is forthcoming (Prieto-Marquez et. al., submitted).
Prieto-Márquez, A., Chiappe, L., and Joshi, S. H., submitted. The lambeosaurine dinosaur Titanolambia laticaudus from the Late Cretaceous of northern México. PLoS ONE. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, seems like the name was ditched. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lambeosaurus laticaudus 

message: Tetragonosaurus is listed a s a synonym of both Lambeosaurus and Corythosaurus, but this obviously cannot be true? Same goes for Procheneosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tetragonosaurus is a synonym of Procheneosaurus. They both have a collage of species being junior synonyms of Corythosaurus or Lambeosaurus. Iainstein (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A genus can only be the synonym of one other genus. Species synonymy is another issues. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The type specimen of Procheneosaurus, P. praeceps, is usually regarded as a synonym of Lambeosaurus rather than Corythosaurus. The confusion comes from the fact that other species/specimens belong to Corythosaurus, but this does not make them synonym, just incorrectly referred. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetragonosaurus 

message: Link label  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Is there any more information about this? How the noise would have been made? Its purpose? With no further info, all I can imagine is a kazoo. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noise-making crest 

message: Substituted at 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lambeosaurus. 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/20141006113229/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/fae/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf
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) 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think this has been covered before. Why is our taxobox image so cropped? It just shows the skull and the neck, nothing else. Wouldn't a image of the Royal Tyrrell mount be better? I think it's good to show as much of the animal as possible in the taxobox image.BleachedRice (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the current one is a lot easier to makeout as a thumb at a glance than the proposed new one. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that mount is that the tail is unnaturally curved downwards. It seems it wouldn't have been allowed by the ossified tendons in life. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image