Talk:Lametasaurus

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classification of Lametasaurus edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Lametasaurus is considered a ceratosaur (as per Wilson et. al. 2003, Carrano and Sampson 2008, and Novas et. al. 2010) or an ankylosaur (as per Maidment, 2010). However, Carrano and Sampson (2008) do not rule out the possibility that the dermal scutes of Lametasaurus, while similar to the osteoderms of titanosaurs, may also represent ceratosaur dermal ossifications, but whether these scutes are titanosaurian or ceratosaurian requires a histological examination (if the holotype is ever relocated). In summary, the majority of authors cited above are leaning towards the consensus that Lametasaurus is an abelisaurid.

Why isn't this information in the article? Also, everywhere I have seen has said that Lametasaurus is a ceratosaur.Zurbs58 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wilson, J.A., Sereno, P.C., Srivastava, S., Bhatt, D.K., Khosla, A. and Sahni, A. (2003). "A new abelisaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Lameta Formation (Cretaceous, Maastrichtian) of India." (PDF) Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology [University of Michigan], 31(1): 1-42.

Carrano & Sampson, 2008. The phylogeny of Ceratosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 6, 183-236.

Maidment, S. C. R. (2010) Stegosauria: a historical review of the body fossil record and phylogenetic relationships Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103: 199-210

Novas, Fernando E., Chatterjee, Sankar, Rudra, Dhiraj K., Datta, P.M. (2010). "Rahiolisaurus gujaratensis, n. gen. n. sp., A New Abelisaurid Theropod from the Late Cretaceous of India" in: Saswati Bandyopadhyay (ed.): New Aspects of Mesozoic Biodiversity. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. pp. 45–62.68.4.61.237 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Vahe DemirjianReply

Yes, but aren't you forgetting Walker designated the scutes as the lectotype? Only if it could be proven that the scutes belong to the hindlimb material — and this seems impossible to prove — opinions about the postcranial skeleton become relevant to the taxonomic status of Lametasaurus.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic