Talk:Pachycephalosaurus

message: The article currently has the following statement near the end:
Diet
Scientists do not yet know what these dinosaurs ate. Having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. It is assumed that pachycephalosaurs lived on a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects. The sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants.
I hate to find contradictions on Wikipedia as it tends to hurt the credibility, however I'm no dinosaur or dental expert. So.....can we get a ruling on if they're teeth were "not as effective" or "very effective"? Thanks.
75.59.178.61 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to look it up, but it's not a *complete* contradiction. The teeth would not have been great for fibrous stuff, but would have cut and sliced well (think green iguanas). J. Spencer 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As written, it is contradictory. "Having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs" ... "The sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants." You can't shred plant matter effectively with small ridged teeth that don't effectively chew tough, fibrous plants. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shredding is not the same as chewing, which grinds food.  You can't grind food very well with little triangular thingies, but you can cut it. J. Spencer 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Is it? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.jpinstitute.com/dinopedia/images/dc_card_pachy3_big.jpg
** In Pachycephalosaurus on Mon Jul 17 14:50:07 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
** In Pachycephalosaurus on Thu Jul 27 00:38:26 2006, Socket Error: (110, 'Connection timed out')
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Sullivan (2006) demonstrated that Tylosteus ornatus Leidy, 1872 is not referrable to Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis and is very similar to Dracorex hogwartsia. Therefore, the ICZN will be asked to resurrect Tylosteus from the list of nomina oblita and nomina rejecta.
Sullivan, R.M., 2006. A taxonomic review of the Pachycephalosauridae (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 35: 347-365. 72.194.116.63 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Tylosteus 

message: This may be largely semantic, but the use of specific synonyms in the taxobox for a genus-level article doesn't jibe with the way we've been doing it everywhere else. I think the logic here is that on the Pachycephalosaurus, only synonyms at the genus level should be listed. If the article were titled Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis (with the appropriate species-level taxobox that uses binomial fields instead of species subdivisions), the specific synonyms would be included. In other articles where a type or other species have synonyms, this is only discussed in the classification section. Dinoguy2 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. I just figured since the genus was monotypic, the article was just as much about P. wyomingensis as it was about Pachycephalosaurus, so the synonyms belonged in the taxobox. Of course, you're right: we haven't been doing that for any of the others, and obviously there's a problem with stating that a species is synonymous with a genus. I'll revert self. BTW, since you're here, other ideas for improvement on this article are welcome... Firsfron of Ronchester 09:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms in taxobox 

message: Nominated 16th May, 2007;
Support:
#  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pachycephalosaurus]] new collaboration for dec 07 with 5 votes

message: The description of this image says "Sketch of a pachycephalosaur of uncertain systematical position and still (2003) not formally described. Its remains were found in the "Sandy Quarry" of the Hell Creek Formation, near Buffalo, South Dakota (USA). Initially reconstructed as Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis by Michael Triebold later many attendees of an international symposium referred the remains to Stygimoloch spinifer because of the prominent spikes on the back of the skull.
". Has it been clarified what it is in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is "Sandy", it is Stygimoloch (which may or may not turn out to be a juvenile Pachycephalosaurus). Perhaps a section dedicated to the "Sandy" skeleton is in order? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could perhaps be mentioned if it is notable? That drawing is the basis of this scale diagram, by the way, so maybe Dinoguy knows:  And this skeleton for example, seems very similar to the drawing, with the spikes and stuff:  FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Sandy" skeleton is certainly notable, as a partially complete skeleton of a pachycephalosaur. I'm not sure if it belongs in this article or in Stygimoloch. Perhaps mention could be made in both. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The drawing is Sandy. I didn't know it had been published and referred to a genus though. The scale is based on the drawing but scaled to larger pachy specimens, so it can stay here if the drawing moves. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Pachycephalosaurus? 

message: Recently Horner found Stygimoloch and Dracorex being junior synonyms of Pachycephalosaurus
Please, read this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002314.htm
This is the scientific paper
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007626
This thing finally came out, i REALLY suggest of merging Stygymoloch and Dracorex articles in Pachycephalosaurus article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.240.155 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pachycephalosaurus = Stygimoloch = Dracorex 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pachycephalosaurus. 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/20080829120536/http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/documents/JVP_25_3_602-613.pdf to http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/documents/JVP_25_3_602-613.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928154305/http://www.childrensmuseum.org/dinosphere/draco_rex/dracorex_hogwartsia.pdf to http://www.childrensmuseum.org/dinosphere/draco_rex/dracorex_hogwartsia.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) 21:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For some reason it seems to be kind of grey here, but Stygimoloch and Dracorex are recognized as junior synonyms of P. wyomingensis in the literature now. Every recent study since 2009 (at least 5 that I know of) concerning their status has supported their placement in P. wyomingensis, and no rebuttals of papers to the contrary have been published (to my knowledge, at least non ethat I can find or are found here). The Paleobiology Database does not recognize them as valid species, and that, coupled with the fact that studies have supported their synonymy for almost a decade without rebuttal seems reason enough to sink Dracorex and Stygimoloch on Wikipedia.
There's also the fact that keeping the Wikipedia articles for Stygimoloch and Dracorex up is spreading misinformation, and is probably the reason that Stygimoloch got a part in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom this year. If paleontology recognizes them as invalid, but they are presented as potentially valid here, then these pages are supporting misinformation. For people having seen JW: Fallen Kingdom to search for Stygimoloch and find it has a page and a description is only going to worsen the problem.
For reference: Studies showing synonymy between Dracorex, Stygimoloch, and Pachycephalosaurus
Extreme cranial ontogeny in the Upper Cretaceous dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007626
Early Ontogeny of Pachycephalosaurine Squamosals as Revealed by Juvenile Specimens
from the Hell Creek Formation, Eastern Montana
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20491090.pdf?casa_token=YjatvQe2YagAAAAA:59h470ShUetdvAXGKETffEZdD6v-98Y4RHx9d9oq0Oghjv4XQtI6C8YziigNHz9UIGghvHQacP-4vrStW2qAVa6ORiybnYWchuSrDqGL9Pbozqxbbw
Texacephale langstoni, a new genus of pachycephalosaurid (Dinosauria:
Ornithischia) from the upper Campanian Aguja Formation, southern Texas, USA
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30223488/longrich-sankey-texacephale-10.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1529022336&Signature=YQuqNcQENks8TVaOmRwUPMTASeU%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3Di_Texacephale_langstoni_i_a_new_genus_o.pdf
Squamosal Ontogeny and Variation in the Pachycephalosaurian Dinosaur Stegoceras validum Lambe, 1902, from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23251281?casa_token=Vzmf2etZIRwAAAAA:CnigYjWZeyoUkgs3UHL2p1PhgUfgXfRYQ88NVA_K6EulrZt7DqfuPmX3XvJOfSDElOAWlg5xyNX76Qhs4S_03OVguu4bkRPQ67bYDcfT5SRaIsXzGQ
The early expression of squamosal horns and parietal ornamentation confirmed by new end-stage juvenile Pachycephalosaurus fossils from the Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation, Montana
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2016.1078343
*I think that might be premature. One 2015 paper, for example, only says "A third species, Stygimoloch spinifer Galton and Sues 1983, may (Horner and Goodwin, 2009) or may not be an ontogimorph of P. wyomingensis (eg, Longrich et al., 2010)." So it still depends on who you ask, there is no overall consensus. As for Jurassic World, I think a more important factor is that Stygimoloch is featured in a lot of popular dinosaur books from the 90s, and the JP franchise seems to be stuck in that era, caring little for scientific developments since. I was surprised they featured as recently named an animal as Sinoceratops, but that was probably just to pander to the Chinese market, and even that dinosaur was horribly disfigured, with open holes in the neck frill... But one strange caveat to this is that Jack Horner, who is the main proponent of the synonymy, is also the main scientific advisor to the JP series, so something doesn't add up... FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we would need some more opinions before merging, it could be brought up at the dinosaur project talk page. But my hunch is we need to give it more time to settle. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Stygimoloch'' and ''Dracorex'': Junior synonymy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 | contribs) 23:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't feel consistent. People think Torosaurus is an adult Triceratops but we have them as separate. Nobody thinks that Troodon and Titanosaurus exist anymore yet they still have articles. Care to explain? 92.30.80.61 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be consistent here, all that matters is what most of the scientific papers say. No one argues against Stygimoloch being a junior synonym, but there are still two camps in regard to Torosaurus/Triceratops. Troodon is an entirely different kind of issue. Troodon "exists", the type specimen just doesn't have any distinguishing features, so we can't assign other specimens to the genus. Same for Titanosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but just remember, everyone said that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were the same animal and look what happened there. I'm no saying the papers were wrong, I'm just recommending the err of caution. 92.30.80.61 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a very different case, everyone agreed they were different species, just not whether they were different genera (which is subjective anyway). In this case, it's about whether these things belong to the same species or not. And no one has really argued for them being distinct in the literature recently. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature lumping 

message: It seems there are many. But the article only discusses about the skulls. Dinosaur(talk)🌴🦕🦖-- 18:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at least one, the "Sandy" specimen, and most/all of those are replicas of that. But it hasn't been described yet, so we can't write much about it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is the product page from the sellers of the cast: http://trieboldpaleontology.com/pachycephalosaurus.html FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The original fossil: http://dinosaursanctuary.com/pachycephalosaurus.html FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there ''Pachycephalosaurus'' skeletons yet?

message: How can P. wyomingensis be the only valid species of Pachycephalosaurus if remains of the genus have been found in south dakota, montana and canada? P. wyomingensis was only from wyoming, hence its name  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.210.108 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The name doesn't matter here, most studies synonymize Stygimoloch spinifer with Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, the combination Pachycephalosaurus spinifer has never been used in the literature, if you can provide a reference citing this combination, it'll be very welcomed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is P. wyomingensis the only valid species? 

message: If the only species of Pachycephalosaurus is P. wyomingensis, that means that Pachycephalosaurus only lived in the state of wyoming and nowhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.210.108 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my answer in the previous comment section, the name doesn't matter. Also, the Hell Creek Formation, one of the formations were Pachy was found, isn't only in Wyoming, but also in other states. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: P. wyomingensis name literally says that it was found only in Wyoming, not in other states like Montana or South Dakota.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.210.108 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as mentioned before, Stygimoloch, as well as Dracorex, have been synonymized with Pachycephalosaurus, and they weren't only discovered in Wyoming. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Generally speaking, specific names referring to a place usually refers to EITHER where the holotype specimen was found, OR where the species is generally located.  Sometimes both.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a place-name in the binomial doesn't mean it has to be exclusively found there, just that it was first found there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pachycephalosaurus only lived in Wyoming? 

message: A few days, I saw a thread on the Dinosaurs subreddit about a person who was disappointed that the Dracorex page was redirected. ( should know what I'm talking about) This made me realize that while this page comprehensively lists most of the information on P. wyomingensis itself, it lacks information about its famous junior synonyms Stygimoloch and Dracorex. If anyone has time, someone should probably add the discovery history of Stygimoloch and Dracorex from their original pages, and maybe add how they became intertwined with Pachycephalosaurus over the years. (Think of how we added information from Othnielia and Othnielosaurus to the Nanosaurus page when all were synonymized) Thanks in advance. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the information from the individual pages should have been transferred during the merge. Anyone can do it by looking at the old versions of the respective pages and copying the text here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Add information from Stygimoloch and Dracorex pages. 

message: The taxobox states that the oldest Pachycephalosaurus is about 70 mya. Is it true as far as I know it was restricted to digsites dating 68-66mya. 61.69.150.4 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for Pachycephalosaurus being 70 million years old?