Talk:Ornithoscelida

Implications

...sooo, this is big news, isn't it? Funny how if this is true, duck-billed dinosaurs would actually be closer to ducks than they were before. Mainblagg (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Has some big implications for our taxobox hierarchies too, but we should probably refrain from doing anything drastic before the dust has settled... Oh, and this was already an article here from 2010 to 2011. Until I redirected it to Dinosaur... FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiting?

Shouldn't we... wait a little before we go and change a bunch of pages? I noticed that the pages Dinosaur and Saurischia are already "kinda" changed. That is, the text in the info box at the top of the page is changed, but the actual article text doesn't match. This may confuse some people, especially ones that haven't heard of this news.

But really, shouldn't we wait for either a consensus of paleontologists and/or other studies to find the same phylogeny before all the pages get changed? Perhaps the study itself should be mentioned in the various dinosaur pages it relates to (Dinosaur, Saurischia, Ornithoscelida and Ornithischia etc.) but only as an alternative to the widely accepted phylogeny- until that is no longer widely accepted (if that happens)

Basically, we don't need another "TRICERATOPS WASN'T A DINOSAUR!!!1!!1" mess. Megraptor (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see this discussion:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Huxley 1867?

In what publication of the year 1867 did Huxley use the name Ornithoscelida? I thought he first applied the term in a lecture on 24 November 1869.--MWAK (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing 1870 as the print date. Not sure where 1867 came from. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a nasty suspicion it was confused with On the classification of birds and on the modification of certain of the cranial bones observable in that class :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)