Talk:Ischyrosaurus

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Ischyrotherium
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Ischyrotherium

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

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

Palaeontology Low‑importance

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

Ischyrosaurus Cope, 1876[edit]

The correct date of the publication of Ischyrosaurus Cope is 1876, not 1869 [1], making Ischyrosaurus Hulke, 1874 in Lydekker, 1888 unpre-occupied. Cope [2] tried to create Ischyrosaurus for Ischyrotherium on the grounds that Ischyrotherium was a reptile and not a mammal as originally classified by Leidy [3]. However, the name Ischyrosaurus Cope, 1876 is a nomen nudum, on the condition of Cope's attempt, and a junior synonym of Ischyrotherium Leidy, 1856.

[1] http://www.paleofile.com/Demo/Mainpage/Taxalist/Archosauromorphs.htm

[2] Cope, E. D., 1876, On some extinct reptiles and Batrachia from the Judith River and Fox Hills beds of Montana: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1876, p. 340-359.

[3] Leidy, J., 1856, Notices of remains of extinct vertebrated animals of New Jersey, collected by Prof. Cook, of the State Geological Survey, under the Direction of Dr. W. Kitchell: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, v. 8, p. 220-221. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The link (once I found it; for some reason, I had to go through Google to get to it) claims it was Cope 1870 (which would be "Synopsis of the extinct Batrachia, Reptilia and Aves of North America". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 14:1-252.), which is not 1869, but still predates it. A JSTOR link I found on Google to an 1871 Cope paper implied he'd coined it before 1871:

JSTOR: On the Families of Fishes of the Cretaceous Formation of Kansas

The case appears to me to be different with the name Ischyrosaurus, which I proposed to replace with Ischyrotherium (Leidy). The latter was given to a genus ...

So, it was in use before 1871. That it was a nomen nudum, or a superfluous name, does not matter. However, since it may have been abandoned by 1871 (if I'm reading that sentence fragment correctly), Cope's version could be declared a nomen oblitum if for some reason Ischyrosaurus Hulke became important to paleontology.

Why some have it as Cope (1869) and some have it as Cope (1870) (it looks like it was a typo in this message to the DML, which looks like it was referring to the 1870 work) I don't know, but it was definitely coined before 1871. J. Spencer 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Cope had several 1869 or 1870 works dealing with Batrachia (see for example the ref list here for a few, one of which is repeated in 1870 because of the famous Elasmosaurus-head-on-tail thing), so I can't firmly say which one without having read them. The important thing is still the pre-1874 date. J. Spencer 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the different dates is explained by Spamer et al. (1995- pg. 333). The portion up to page 105 was issued in August, 1869, up to page 235 in April, 1870 and the rest was published in December, 1870. This is on page ii of the index in the volume itself. Since Cope named Ischyrosaurus on pages 38 and 39, the proper year is 1869. -Mickey Mortimer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.109.183 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing blogs, Paleobiology database and DML are references[edit]

Hi guys,

Have to say I was a little taken aback to see blogs, the DML and the Paleobiology database being used as references here. Not that I have anything against any of the people who undoubtably known their stuff, but these really aren't suitable references. I've already removed the references made to Darren's blog, and I'm going to move to to the others the now. Just to let you know. Mark t young (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen nudum status of Ischyrosaurus[edit]

I went on Google Books to examine Hulke's (1874) paper and there is no mention of the name I. manseli in his work. Therefore, I. manseli was clearly intended for BMNH R41626 without ever being published. The name Ischyrosaurus was never given a diagnosis, and thus Ischyrosaurus and its type species I. manseli are nomina nuda.

Hulke, J.W. (1874). Note on a very large saurian limb-bone adapted for progression upon land, from the Kimmeridge Clay of Weymouth, Dorset. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 30:16-17.

Lydekker, R. (1888). Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum (Natural History):London, 1-309. 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Hulke (1874) uses the name Ischyrosaurus three times and refers to his 1869 description of the element before it had been named, which distinguishes it from other taxa. Thus it's not a nomen nudum. -Mickey Mortimer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.109.183 (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update text[edit]

Barrett et al. (2010) assign Ischyrosaurus to Neosauropoda incertae sedis because the holotype has characters present in both rebbachisaurids and basal titanosauriforms but lacks characters that would permit referral to either group.

Paul M. Barrett, Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 131: 113–126. 72.194.120.176 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]