Talk:Ankylosauridae

Dinosaurs Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as Top-importance).

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bctronrud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New phylogeny of Ankylosauridae

A new cladistic analysis by Hill et. al. (2003) shows Polacanthidae to be paraphyletic, with Gargoyleosaurus, Gastonia, Hoplitosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, Mymmorapelta, and Polacanthus placed in different steps between one another. It also places Minmi within Ankylosauridae, resolving the position of Minmi itself. The phylogeny of Ankylosauridae after Hill et. al. (2003) is shown here:

Ankylosauridae

|--Gargoyleosaurus
`--+--Gastonia
   `--+--Gobisaurus
      `--+--Minmi
         `--+--o Pinacosaurus
             `--+--Talarurus
                `--+--o Shamosaurinae
                   |  |--Shamosaurus
                   |  `--Tsagantegia 
                   `--o Ankylosaurinae
                      |--+--Tarchia 
                      |  `--Saichania
                      |--Tianzhenosaurus
                      |--Nodocephalosaurus
                      |--Shanxia
                      |--Ankylosaurus
                      `--Euoplocephalus

The ankylosaurid taxa not included in the cladistic analysis are Acanthopholis, Aletopelta, Amtosaurus, Bissektipelta, Cedarpelta, Crichtonsaurus, Glyptodontopelta, Hoplitosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, Maleevus, Mymoorapelta, Polacanthus, and Sauroplites.

This paper not only recognizes the validity of Shanxia and Tianzhenosaurus, but it also proves that Polacanthidae is an artificial, paraphyletic assemblage and should be abandoned.

Hill, R. V., Witmer, L. M. & Norell, M. A., 2003: A New Specimen of Pinacosaurus grangeri (Dinosauria: Ornithischia) from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia: Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Ankylosaurs. American Museum Novitates: 3395, pp. 1-29.

Therefore, add Minmi to the Ankylosauridae and revise the relations of ankylosaurid genera by deleting Polacanthidae. The paper mentioned above once again corroborates the monophyly of an nodosaurid-ankylosaurid dichotomy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

How exactly is it supposed to prove there is no Polacanthidae or Polacanthinae if it doesn't include Hylaeosaurus, Mymoorapelta, Hoplitosaurus, or, perhaps most importantly, Polacanthus? J. Spencer 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by definition Polocanthidae/inae must include Polacanthus. Interpreting a study that doesn't include that genus in this way is original research (original speculation, actually), unless the author of that paper actually discusses Polacanthus or polacanthidae. Dinoguy2 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw to Hill et al, as well as Vickaryous et al (in the Dinosauria) is that the analyses are based ONLY on the skulls. I guess ankylosaurs had no bodies, but crawled along the ground using their tongues. As Carpenter noted in his phylogentic analysis, many of the key features in the polacanthids occurs in the postcrania. Anky-man 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An Apparent Discrepancy

There is an apparent discrepancy that I’m unqualified to resolve. Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosauria says that Ankylosauria first appeared in the early Jurassic (“Ankylosauria is a group of herbivorous dinosaurs of the order Ornithischia. It includes the great majority of dinosaurs with armor in the form of bony scutes, although many of them had other types of armor as well. Ankylosaurs were bulky quadrupeds, with short, powerful limbs. They are first known to have appeared in the early Jurassic Period of China”), but page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mymoorapelta says that one of the earliest known anklyosaurs appeared during the late Jurassic (“Mymoorapelta ("Shield of Mygatt-Moore") is an ankylosaur from the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian)…Along with Gargoyleosaurus pankinorum, Mymoorapelta is one of the earliest known ankylosaurs,”). When did they first appear, early Jurassic or late Jurassic?

Mike Sarles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.45.49 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be worded better, but the earliest known ankylosaurians are indeed from the Early Jurassic of China. However, Mymoorapelta and Gargoyleosaurus are in one sense among the earliest known ankylosaurians even though they are from the Late Jurassic of North America, because there aren't many ankylosaurians known from the Jurassic, and they were earlier than the great majority of ankylosaurians. This should be revised, though, as it can mislead. J. Spencer 18:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New taxa?

Ziapelta links to this page, but it's not on here yet. Should it be added to the phylogeny? Should the phylogeny from the Ziapelta paper be used instead? Also, I believe Zaraapelta should also be on here; the page itself lacks a taxobox. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the last paper also proposes some synonymies. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ankylosauridae

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ankylosauridae's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "systematics ankylosaurid":

From Ankylosaurus: Arbour, V. M.; Currie, P. J. (2015). "Systematics, phylogeny and palaeobiogeography of the ankylosaurid dinosaurs". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology: 1. doi:10.1080/14772019.2015.1059985.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Minmi (dinosaur): Arbour, Victoria M.; Currie, Philip J. (2015). "Systematics, phylogeny and palaeobiogeography of the ankylosaurid dinosaurs". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology: 1. doi:10.1080/14772019.2015.1059985.

Reference named "carpenter2004":

From Ankylosaurus: Carpenter, K. (2004). "Redescription of Ankylosaurus magniventris Brown 1908 (Ankylosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 41 (8): 961–86. doi:10.1139/e04-043.
From Sauropelta: Carpenter, Kenneth. (2001). "Phylogenetic analysis of the Ankylosauria". In Carpenter, Kenneth (ed.). (ed.). The Armored Dinosaurs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 455–483.

Reference named "Coombs1978":

From Ankylosaurus: Coombs, W. (1978). "The families of the ornithischian dinosaur order Ankylosauria" (PDF). Journal of Paleontology. 21 (1): 143–170.
From Hylaeosaurus: W.P. Coombs, 1978, "The families of the ornithischian dinosaur order Ankylosauria", Palaeontology 21(1): 143-170

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdcapy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jdcapy (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]