Talk:Saurolophinae

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.

Validity of Brachylophosaurini

Recently I discovered that Maiasaurini was named in 1992 by Jack Horner. I checked to find when Brachylophosaurini was named I found that it was named in 2011 by Gates et al.. I would like to know if I should replace Brachylophosaurini with Maiasaurini. Reid,iain james (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As J. Spencer is our ornithopod man I would appreciate his comments about this. Reid,iain james (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Horner name Maiasaurini in 1992? All I'm finding are unsourced internet references, no references to published papers or books. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference on the German wikipedia. Sternberg CM (1953) a new Hadrosaur from the Oldman Formation of Alberta:..Discussion of nomenclature Canadian Department of Resource Development Bulletin. 128 1-12 Reid,iain james (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Are you suggesting the tribe Maiasaurini can be supported by a referenced published 26 years before Maiasaura was named? Based on my own poking around, it looks like the name "Maiasaurini" as made up by somebody on the Dinosaur Mailing List in 1994. A Google Scholar search returns 0 results. It's a nomen nudum, at best. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree. I can find everywhere except in a reference so lets just keep it as it is. I think I'm giong to start cleaning up other wikis. One has a page for Maiasaurini. On other wikis I'm going to replace Maiasaurini with Brachylophosaurini. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

If Prieto-Marquez's conclusions regarding Hadrosaurus were rejected in 2014 by Hai Xing's phylogenetic study showing it was a part of the monophyletic group, then why is this article named Saurolophinae and not Hadrosaurinae as it should be? --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saurolophinae → Hadrosaurinae – The article cites recent research showing that genus Hadrosaurus belongs to the same monophyletic group as all other non-lambeosaurinae hadrosaurids, and thus the historic name Hadrosaurinae should be restored. Deinocheirus (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some find it to be within the group, but the dominant model is still that of Saurolophinae. There is no justification to change it back. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Saurolophinae are indeed "the dominant model" we would expect to find much more recent scientific publications using this term than "Hadrosaurinae". In fact, though, if we look at the list of publications exclusively using terms "Saurolophinae" and "Hadrosaurinae" since 2015, there is almost 40 % more of the latter (33 vs. 22). And even if there would be equal numbers, it would mean that there are two competing theories, in which case we should use the historical name and discard the newer one as a synonym. --Deinocheirus (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Few of said publications actually actively argue for the use of Hadrosaurinae; this is a very obvious case of the literature taking time to catch up to new ideas and just using the traditional term without discussion. If people were more actively disagreeing with the Saurolophinae concept (which is more well supported), it'd be a different story, but as is I think moving it back would be a very bad idea and pander to an outdated concept. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.