Talk:Ankylosauridae

message: A new cladistic analysis by Hill et. al. (2003) shows Polacanthidae to be paraphyletic, with Gargoyleosaurus, Gastonia, Hoplitosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, Mymmorapelta, and Polacanthus placed in different steps between one another. It also places Minmi within Ankylosauridae, resolving the position of Minmi itself. The phylogeny of Ankylosauridae after Hill et. al. (2003) is shown here:
Ankylosauridae
 |--Gargoyleosaurus
 `--+--Gastonia
    `--+--Gobisaurus
       `--+--Minmi
          `--+--o Pinacosaurus
              `--+--Talarurus
                 `--+--o Shamosaurinae
                    |  |--Shamosaurus
                    |  `--Tsagantegia 
                    `--o Ankylosaurinae
                       |--+--Tarchia 
                       |  `--Saichania
                       |--Tianzhenosaurus
                       |--Nodocephalosaurus
                       |--Shanxia
                       |--Ankylosaurus
                       `--Euoplocephalus
The ankylosaurid taxa not included in the cladistic analysis are Acanthopholis, Aletopelta, Amtosaurus, Bissektipelta, Cedarpelta, Crichtonsaurus, Glyptodontopelta, Hoplitosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, Maleevus, Mymoorapelta, Polacanthus, and Sauroplites.
This paper not only recognizes the validity of Shanxia and Tianzhenosaurus, but it also proves that Polacanthidae is an artificial, paraphyletic assemblage and should be abandoned.
Hill, R. V., Witmer, L. M. & Norell, M. A., 2003: A New Specimen of Pinacosaurus grangeri (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia: Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Ankylosaurs. American Museum Novitates: 3395, pp. 1-29.
Therefore, add Minmi to the Ankylosauridae and revise the relations of ankylosaurid genera by deleting Polacanthidae. The paper mentioned above once again corroborates the monophyly of an nodosaurid-ankylosaurid dichotomy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is it supposed to prove there is no Polacanthidae or Polacanthinae if it doesn't include Hylaeosaurus, Mymoorapelta, Hoplitosaurus, or, perhaps most importantly, Polacanthus? J. Spencer 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by definition Polocanthidae/inae must include Polacanthus. Interpreting a study that doesn't include that genus in this way is original research (original speculation, actually), unless the author of that paper actually discusses Polacanthus or polacanthidae. Dinoguy2 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New phylogeny of Ankylosauridae 

message: There is an apparent discrepancy that I’m unqualified to resolve. Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosauria says that Ankylosauria first appeared in the early Jurassic (“Ankylosauria is a group of herbivorous dinosaurs of the order Ornithischia. It includes the great majority of dinosaurs with armor in the form of bony scutes, although many of them had other types of armor as well. Ankylosaurs were bulky quadrupeds, with short, powerful limbs. They are first known to have appeared in the early Jurassic Period of China”), but page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mymoorapelta says that one of the earliest known anklyosaurs appeared during the late Jurassic (“Mymoorapelta ("Shield of Mygatt-Moore") is an ankylosaur from the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)…Along with Gargoyleosaurus pankinorum, Mymoorapelta is one of the earliest known ankylosaurs,”). When did they first appear, early Jurassic or late Jurassic?
Mike Sarles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.45.49 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be worded better, but the earliest known ankylosaurians are indeed from the Early Jurassic of China.  However, Mymoorapelta and Gargoyleosaurus are in one sense among the earliest known ankylosaurians even though they are from the Late Jurassic of North America, because there aren't many ankylosaurians known from the Jurassic, and they were earlier than the great majority of ankylosaurians. This should be revised, though, as it can mislead. J. Spencer 18:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Apparent Discrepancy 

message: Ziapelta links to this page, but it's not on here yet. Should it be added to the phylogeny?
Should the phylogeny from the Ziapelta paper be used instead?
Also, I believe Zaraapelta should also be on here; the page itself lacks a taxobox.
Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New taxa? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Ankylosauridae's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "systematics ankylosaurid":
From Ankylosaurus: 
From Minmi (dinosaur): 
Reference named "carpenter2004":
From Ankylosaurus: 
From Sauropelta: 
Reference named "Coombs1978":
From Ankylosaurus: 
From Hylaeosaurus: W.P. Coombs, 1978, "The families of the ornithischian dinosaur order Ankylosauria", Palaeontology 21(1): 143-170
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Ankylosauridae]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jdcapy (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising