Talk:Arenysaurus

1st edit added a liltle bit more info on the time period which Arenysaurus lived. 2nd edit added the whole section on Aren (the town near the excavation site). I think we can add a section on theories surrounding Arenysaurus and its connection to other dinsaurs of the era. Also if anybody can find a free to use picture, that would be very helpfull for the viewer. There are a coulpe of pictures floating around on the internet but they seem to be licensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.54.70 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Tribe

It has been suggested that it and Blasisaurus are actually in Parasaurolophini and should therefore have Lambeosaurinae as most specific parent clade in the taxobox on both articles.142.176.114.76 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Suggested" means little. Was the data matrix that found this result better (more taxa? More or more specific characters? Corrected data of previous matrices?) than the data sets that recovered it in Lambeosaurini? The nice thing about cladistics is that it's just math, and some analyses are objectively better than others. Or, they can test the probability of certain different possible relationships, maybe finding that the best option is to list it basally. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I could've used a better word; here is the ref: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2013.772061#tabModule . It has more material backing it up (Well, for Arenysaurus anyway.), and in my mind makes more sense in terms of faunal distribution.142.176.114.76 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens... Xing et al. (2014) but it back in the Lambeosaurini, at basalmost position. Mind you, this is from the same paper that considers Charonosaurus to be within Parasaurolophus, Edmontosaurus saskatchewanensis to be valid, and Ouranosaurus to Hadrosauriformes, and not within it...Capra walie (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)