Talk:Pisanosaurus

message: The type species of Pisanosaurus is Pisanosaurus mertii Casamiquela, 1967. The reclassification of Revueltosaurus as a pseudosuchian by Parker et. al. (2005) has cast into the doubt the ornithischian status of Azendohsaurus, Crosbysaurus, Galtonia, Lucianosaurus, Pekinosaurus, Protecovasaurus, Technosaurus, and Tecovasaurus. The erasing of the record of ornithischian dinosaurs from the Triassic of North America and Europe restricts the distribution of Triassic ornithischians to Africa and South America. Irmis et, al. (2006) show that the report of an unnamed ornithischian from the Late Triassic of South Africa can be considered the only probable record of a Triassic ornithischian from Africa. Only Pisanosaurus and an unnamed Argentinan heterodontosaurid from South America are the only confirmed Triassic ornithischians from South America. The data show that Ornithischia was not as diverse as Saurischia in the Triassic as scientists previously thought.
Parker, W. G., R. B. Irmis, S.N. Nesbitt, J. W. Martz, and L. S. Browne. 2005. The Pseudosuchian Revueltosaurus callenderi and its implications for the diversity of early ornithischian dinosaurs. In Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 272(1566):963–969.
Irmis, R.B., Parker, W.G., Nesbitt, S.J., and Liu, J. (2006). Early ornithischian dinosaurs: the Triassic record. Historical Biology, iFirst article, 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/08912960600719988. (will alter after print publication) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematics of Pisanosaurus and its implications for the rarity of Triassic ornithischians 

message: clicking on the image leads to the older version of said image.--50.138.213.207 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Refresh the page. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  woops, 

message: The classification section says that Paul deemed the species chimerical in his 1991 paper. I took a look at it, and this doesn't seem entirely true, at least not the sense that seems implied in the article (that it consists of remains of different species). First of all, it's not a case of the postcrania and crania being considered different animals - he says the partial impression of the pelvis and the distal right hind limb "may well" belong to the same individual as the crania. Other parts of the postcrania are said to certainly be from another individual, for they are to small to be from the same animal as the other remains. He, never, however, says he thinks these represent different species - it's rather unclear, but he could just as easily have thought the smaller parts were from a younger Pisanosaurus, which seems like the more logical default assumption. Lusotitan (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul (1991) 

message: According to the taxobox on the main page the clade Dinosauriformes was named by Casamiquela, 1967. It was actually named by Novas, 1992. I can't seem to find a way to fix this. Can anyone help?
Atlantis536 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also strange that the authority for a taxon that is not the subject of this article should be shown here... Not sure who's the most automatic taxobox-savvy person around, so pinging . FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think that would be because the taxobox used to display Pisanosauridae Casamiquela 1967, so someone removed the family from the hierarchy but didn't edit it here. IJReid  15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox error 

message: The article is really confusing because the beginning of the article calls it a dinosauriform and is categorized as such in the taxanomics box. Then the article goes on to say that it is the oldest ornithischian, then says some regard it as a non-dinosaurian silesaurid and then the category tags put it in dinosaur category pages. -User:1morey August 9, 2020 5:36 PM (EST)
:We should definitely be less certain with the statements, but remember, dinosaurs are also dinosauriforms, so it is true either way. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its back in ornithiscia--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesaurid or Ornithischian?