Talk:Camptosaurus

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.

Camptosaurus sections

I propose dividing this article into not only the Introduction, but also the Lifestyle, Species, Behavior, History, Popular Culture, and References. 72.194.116.63 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 15.54 20 February 2007[reply]

Naming Authority

As mentioned in the article the genus war first described in 1879 by Marsh as Camptonotus what came into conflict with the name of a genus of crickets. So that should have been consequences for the taxobox: the correct spelling of the naming authority shuld be (Marsh, 1879), see Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox. --83.129.11.114 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated skull image

We could use a new skull image, as the current one is based on the old reconstruction that unwittingly combined real campto bones with scientific license and Theiophytalia. A pdf with new reconstructions can be found here, courtesy of Ken Carpenter. J. Spencer (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done! Anky-man 02:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky-man (talk • contribs)

Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumnoria

Should it be separated from here? The 2010 study seems to indicat~e so. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like Camptosaurus is triply paraphyletic (big surprise). Note that Naish and Martill 2008, as noted in the text, also supported it as distinct. There are no references indicating its status in the intervening 100 years... MMartyniuk (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's here: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/z02783p068f.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camtosaurids/roids

Why not have a separate page for these? They have multiple genuses(Is that the correct plural of genus?) and they are hard to find(same goes for Campilognathids/thoids.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are currently known to contain only the type genus (plural: genera) Rnnsh (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What of Draconyx?142.176.114.76 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]