Talk:Anatotitan

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Dinosaurs This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles

Anatotitan longiceps (Marsh, 1897) is an older name for Anatotitan copei (Lull & Wright, 1942) (olshevsky, 1991). In this case, Anatotitan longiceps should be added to the species list.

Mesozoic meanderings no. 2. (1st printing). Olshevsky, G. Published by the author, P.O.Box 16924, San Diego, CA,92176-6924 , i-iv, 1-196. (1991).

Do you have a cite for this? The nomenclature of Anatosaurus, Anatotitan, Edmontosaurus, Trachodon, etc etc etc is so convoluted it'll take me a week to figue out this priority, but I suspect since Anatotitan copei is so prevelent in the literature, that for some reason having to do with the original genera both these were assigned to, and the fact that copei is the designated type of Anatotian, that A. copei would retain priority no matter what.Dinoguy2 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Vahe, it doesn't work that way unless A. longiceps is the same species as A. copei. J. Spencer 15:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what he means? "Anatotitan longiceps is an older name for Anatotitan copei" implied to me that A. copei was a junior synonym or something. If it is a different species within the same genus as copei, it would take an actual paper referring Anatosaurus longiceps (or whatever genus longiceps was in before Anatosaurus exploded) to the new genus Anatotitan. Dinoguy2 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. longiceps was referred to the genus Anatotitan, but not as the type species (A. copei and A. longiceps are based on different material). The attitude seems to be as long as they aren't the same species, you can have an older name referred to a genus. That's how it's worked for Bugenasaurus infernalis and B. garbanii; if garbanii=infernalis, the name becomes B. garbanii altogether, but they can be separate species, unless Galton and others are pulling a fast one. Note that Agauthamus milo has been referred to Edmontosaurus for years despite predating the genus by several Presidential administrations, and no one has seriously campaigned for Edmontosaurus milo to become the type species (that I know of). Apparently, if it's scrap material, everyone agrees to ignore priority.

(This is also why I'm not touching Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus; there are at least four names older than Iguanodon atherfieldensis that are usually referred to it, and all it takes is a stickler for rules to get in there to create havoc.) J. Spencer 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. As long as the referral is valid with a cite, than it's all good. Dinoguy2 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett-Surman (1989) refuted the hypothesis that the differences distinguishing Anatotitan from Edmontosaurus were related to crushing in skulls on the grounds that "an analysis of the type shows this is certainly not the case" (p. 77). This conclusion supports the assertion that the skulls of Anatotitan weren't crushed, meaning that Anatotitan deserves to be in its own genus.

Brett-Surman, M.K., 1989. A revision of the Hadrosauridae (Reptilia: Ornithischia) and their evolution during the Campanian and Maastrichtian. Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.. pp.1-272. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Trachodon is not a junior synonym of Anatotitan, but instead a nomen dubium based on poor material. Sternberg (1936) assigned Trachodon to Lambeosaurinae. For this reason, Trachodon should be removed from the Taxobox and placed in a separate page. Creisler (2006) provides a nomenclatoral history of Trachodon, based on the hadrosaurid research he has compiled.

Creisler, B. J. 2006. Deciphering duckbills: a history in nomenclature; pp. 185-210 in K. Carpenter (ed.), Horns and Beaks: Ceratopsian and Ornithopod Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

C. M. Sternberg. 1936. The systematic position of Trachodon. Journal of Paleontology 10(7):652-655. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know that the article presently fits snugly in the GA article size range for dinosaurs, but I'd rather not have it go on, since I'm pretty sure someone is going to come out with a detailed publication sinking A. copei into Edmontosaurus as either a synonym of E. annectens or a species in its own right (E. copei). I was more interested in having it be quality so there won't be as much work to do when it has to be stuck into Edmontosaurus.

Also, it's become apparent from a close look at the lit that the 12 m Anatotitan is based on Cope/Wortman's early estimates for the Cope specimen, not the actual measurements of the AMNH mounts per Osborn and Lull/Wright, so this is probably just an old error that got recycled over the years (and repeated in too many "reliable sources" to junk). Not that I wouldn't be surprised if there were 12 m Anatotitan, I just don't know if we have them in hand.

Finally, ten points for picking out the obvious error in the WWD image ;) .J. Spencer (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If A. copei is sunk into Edmontosaurus, what's left of this article? Nothing? Or just dubious A. longiceps? If this article is going to be a redirect at some point in the near future, there's no point in a GA nomination. Also, aside from hoof problems, what's wrong with the WWD pic? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There'd probably be nothing, since A. copei is the type species. I don't have inside information, but it's probably just a matter of someone publishing on Edmontosaurus. Lambeosaurines, Iguanodon, and basal ornithopods have received treatment in the last few years (though still waiting on Corythosaurus) with other stuff in the works, so it's not impossible for ornithopods to get attention.

I'd count the number of fingers. I wonder if they just used their Iguanodon model with a new head. J. Spencer (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be good to have it get a good quality stamp anyway, so we know it's good enough to be merged seamlessly into a future featured Edmontosaurus? Otherwise we won't know if this article would actually degrade the other one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be the best use of resources: upon further review, the critical sections for possible inclusion in Edmontosaurus are just chunks of the description and "Discovery and history" before the subsection. J. Spencer (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading that Anatotitan has officially been sunk into Edmontosaurus recently. Should we redirect? Oxalaia (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)OxalaiaOxalaia (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect keeps getting reverted, we should maybe have the title protected? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, not many people watch reidrects. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems the "war" stopped right after I made this section... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]