Talk:Hadrosaurus

message: Can someone explain the assertion that there is no skull known?  The specimen on display at the Philadelphia Academy has one.  The assertion about the skeletons being indistinguishable seems to contradict information in the Hadrosauridae article. Robert A West 21:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: H. foulki is the only valid species of the Hadrosaur genus, afaik. Any skull in museum display is probably based on related genera, like Gryptosaurus.Dinoguy2 18:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Previously, dinosaurs in North America were known only from teeth. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No Skull?

message: Could Eolambia be merged (with a redirect) into this article as that article appears to be little more than a stub?
Jackiespeel 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that should only be done if Eolambia is a synonym for Hadrosaurus (like Apatosaurus=Brontosaurus), which it's not. Leave it as is (there are hundreds of dino stubs like it...), somebody working on Wikiproject Dinosaurs will get to it eventually.Dinoguy2 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Eolambia''

message: seriously, jar jar was based on a hadrosaur. check it:
:image:Jjportrait.jpg
--Ghetteaux 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, you need to come up with a source that says it was meant to look like a hadrosaur, and then create a pop culture section to put it in.Dinoguy2 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rendition of hadrosaur

message: Dear all
Could you  please tell me how many "complete" and or "incomplete"  fossils of "Hadrosaurus"  have collectively been found to date? Regards.
Happy haytham 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you limit this to H. foulkii, I think only the original material can be confidently assigned to it.  J. Spencer 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One incomplete skeleton. It is possible that other fossils belong to Hadrosaurus, but the original is too incomplete to compare them with, so it is likely that no more fossils will ever be added to the number known for this species, they will simply get new names. Dinoguy2 05:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None. Hadrosaurus is called a nomen dubium, or dubious name. Because the one and only specimen is so incomplete, no other specimens should ever be considered to come from it. There is only one specimen, and because of the status of the name, there will probably never be any more (unless the name is officially switched to a more complete skeleton of a very close relative). Dinoguy2 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: None that are complete. One that is incomplete, and that's it. Dinoguy2 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Question about Hadrosaurus please 

message: There is an error in the page regarding William Estaugh Hopkins. He lived from 1772 to 1820 Samuel Mickle's Diary in Notes on Old Gloucester County by Frank H. Stewart, so he couldn't have been the one who first found the bones in 1838. The name should be John Estaugh Hopkins, son of William, who lived from 1811 to 1884. Adhopkins (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: William Estaugh Hopkins

message: Hadrosaurus is a nomen dubium, says who? I have not seen a single source other than Wikipedia that states that the genus Hadrosaurus is dubious. Besides, we have found some nearly complete skeletons that should verify its existence, so where's the reference? User: Dinolover45--26 April 17:00 2010
:A skull-less hadrosaur isn't worth much, their bodies are too similar. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest this article? (free pdf). The third sentence of the abstract states: "The holotype of H. foulkii lacks distinguishing characters; therefore, this taxon is a nomen dubium". J. Spencer (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Besides, we have found some nearly complete skeletons that should verify its existence" Nomen dubium doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means there's no features preserved for it to be distinguished from its relatives. As Funk said, hadrosaurs are distinguished almost entirely by the skull, with all the postcrania being nearly identical. If we found a skulled specimen with a body identical to Hadrosaurus, we still couldn't know for certain if it was hadrosaurus or not. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen Dubium?

message: Hadrosaurinae shouldn't redirect here. There are other hadrosaurines, like Saurolophus, which even have a link to Hadrosaurinae in their taxoboxes. How confusing is it when that redirects here? Hadrosaurinae should redirect to Hadrosauridae, if anything. 98.65.161.218 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the most recent studies Hadrosaurinae has been restricted only to the genus Hadrosaurus, since the genus is dubious and it may not be more closely relarted to say Edmontosaurus than to Lambeosaurus, and because under the ICZN a family named Hadrosaurinae must contain Hadrosaurus itself. Traditional hadrosaurines have been reclassified as Saurolophinae. Because Hadrosaurinae is monotypic, it should re-direct to Hadrosaurus just as H. foulkii does. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad redirect! 

message: We now have interesting photos of both casts of the known fossils in place on a silhouette, as well as a heavily reconstructed skeleton. The latter "looks" better, but is kind of misleading. What should be used in the box? FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, tough call. I'd probably stick with the current one since it shows exactly what we know of the animal, and illustrates how much of the restorations (both the new one and the Hawkins) are educated guesswork. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox image 

message: Some users are repeatedly attempting to add information about a complete hadrosaur tail to this article, under the mistaken impression that "hadrosaur" refers to the genus Hadrosaurus. This is incorrect. In paleontology, names like "hadrosaur", "tyrannosaur", or "dinosaur" refer to the larger groups bearing those names, in this case hadrosaur = hadrosaurid. This mistake is akin to adding information about dinosaurs to the page Dinosaurus. I have added the material to hadrosaurid where it belongs, though it is not really advised to add material based on preliminary newspaper reports before any scientific scrutiny or examination is applied to a specimen. 
And in case anyone is somehow hoping this turns out to e a new specimen of Hadrosaurus itself, keep in mind that it is dated to three million years later than H. foulkii (hadrosaur genera typically lasted less than a million years before going extinct, being replaced, or evolving, see many examples in the Dinosaur Park Formation) and was on a completely different continent. Hadrosaurus liven in New Jersey, which was then part of the continent Appalachia, while Mexico was across a shallow ocean on the continent Laramidia. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On this note, I hav a reply to this edit summary: "as written, the article is about Hadrosaurus, a genus -- not Hadrosaurus foulkii, its type species - an article on the species is needed". Since the genus Hadrosaurus contains only a single valid species, there is no information about either genus or species that isn't exactly the same (apart from maybe a bit of info on what other species that have historically been placed in the genus, but this does not really warrant a separate article). Therefore the articles should not be split. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also note that the edit also contains minor changes recently objected to reverting, like talking about "the first known specimen", but there is only one known specimen of the genus/species. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico tail specimen 2013 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadrosaurus. 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/20081208023327/http://www.ansp.org/hadrosaurus/index.php to http://www.ansp.org/hadrosaurus/index.php
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) 20:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hadrosaurus. 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/20080321160455/http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/03/dinosaur.mummy.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/03/dinosaur.mummy.ap/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923042540/http://www.ansp.org/museum/leidy/paleo/hadrosaurus.php to http://www.ansp.org/museum/leidy/paleo/hadrosaurus.php
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) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: is this okay?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put it here, but at WP:DINOART (always put images for review at the central page, not on specific talk pages). At first glance, it has a bunch of errors. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this okay?