Talk:Oohkotokia

	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.

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.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

Pronunciation edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do hope the pronunciation is correct, I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to IPA. “O-OH-ko-toke-ee-uh” is the intended pronunciation as suggested by the author. Dysalatornis (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Already sunk? edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A new paper[1] states "Oohkotokia horneri is morphologically indistinguishable from Scolosaurus cutleri." FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and that paper was written even before Oohkotokia was named — and it was named in full knowledge of the arguments supporting an identity! Therefore, should anyone feel the urge to merge the articles, or even simply make a redirect of this one, it should be kept in mind that by these very facts there is no consensus on the synonymy. Penkalski & Blows obviously disagree :o), but even Arbour indicates possible contrary evidence.--MWAK (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree it should be kept, but of course with a discussion of the issue... FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic