Talk:Stegosauria

Untitled

If anyone recalls the combatants at teh Field Museum that would be great to confirm...Cas Liber 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a Monolophosaurus to me. It looks like the info label thing might confirm this, though it's just about impossible to read...Dinoguy2 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Monolophosaurus. I don't think there are any other carnivores with that kind of head crest. Plus, it says so in the description when you go into the picture file. Benosaurus 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to incorporate Susannah Maidment's research--this article is out of date otherwise. 75.30.150.158 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Got a ref or link?cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent article

The following article is relevant. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maidment, S.C.R. 2010. Stegosauria: a historical review of the body fossil record and phylogenetic relationships - Swiss Journal of Geosciences, 103:199–210 Springer DOI 10.1007/s00015-010-0023-3

new discovery

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/august/the-oldest-stegosaur-ever-has-been-discovered-in-morocco.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.150 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

As part of the string of clade level merges, I think Stegosauria would be best served covered at a single article, with Stegosauridae and Huayangosauridae included within. The majority of stegosaur taxa belong to Stegosauridae, and the proportion of literature and information dedicated to stegosaurs based upon stegosaurids as opposed to the small collection of basal taxa is even large. There is very little of significance to say specifically about stegosaurids that differs from the topic of stegosaurs as a whole, and it's entirely possible (and, I argue, preferrable) to cover them at a single article. Huayangosauridae for its part is a minor node with minuscule if any taxon inclusion and is obvious fodder for a merge. A draft of a version of the article with merged content from both potential redirects can be found at User:LittleLazyLass/sandbox2. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support The composition of Huayangosauridae is relatively unstable, if its even a real taxon. The only universally-accepted member is Huayangosaurus itself. We've already merged Neovenatoridae based on the same criterion, so I don't think there's any reason to keep Huayangosauridae. That would leave the only non-stegosaurid stegosaurs as Huayangosaurus, possibly Chungkingosaurus, Gigantspinosaurus, and/or Tuojiangosaurus, but the uncertainty there is not enough to justify a separate page. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support both merges per the above. The proposed draft looks nice. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)