Talk:Hypsirophus

Spelling

The PDFs I have of Cope (1878) "A new genus of Dinosauria from Colorado" and Cope (1878) "Descriptions of new extinct Vertebrata from the upper Tertiary and Dakota Formations" both consistently spell the name "Hypsirophus", not "Hypsirhophus". Is there a source supporting the article's contention that "Hypsirophus" is a common misspelling and "Hypsirhophus" is the correct one? Otherwise, this article should probably be moved to Hypsirophus. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe a move is correct. The misspelling seems to have originated with Carpenter 1998 and only been followed by papers authored by him or Galton, Maidment (2010) continues to use the original spelling. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

While the move discussion is ongoing, I have returned the spelling within the article to "hypsirhophus", and simply described "hypsirophus" as an alternative spelling. Unless or until the article move is approved, it's best not to make the body of an article to contradict the article's title.

More generally, I cannot find any reliable sources which describe "hypsirophus" (one less 'R') as a misspelling. However, "hypsirhophus" (one more 'R') seems to have been common in the late-19th century, was used by both Cope himself and his peers, and is more common among recent (2020 and later) Google Scholar-indexed publications. I have linked sources for these claims in the move discussion, below. As such, I think it makes the most sense to maintain the spelling "hypsirhophus" (one more 'R'), and describe "hypsirophus" (one less 'R') as an alternative spelling. NeuroJasper (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2026

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) msk 21:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Hypsirhophus → Hypsirophus – See above discussion #Spelling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Support, as per my original comment on the above discussion. Both spellings have seen some use in recent literature (to the extent that this obscure possible synonym is discussed at all), but Hypsirophus is the original spelling of the name and is therefore prima facie the correct spelling. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – "Hypsirhophus", with an additional 'R', did not originate with Carpenter in 1998; it was already used widely in late-19th century literature. In Amer. Nat. (13)6, 1879, Cope himself spells it as "Hypsirhophus" on page 404 (see PDF here). This spelling was also taken up by contemporaries. This review of Hutchinson's 1893 work, Extinct monsters: a popular account of some of the larger forms of ancient animal life, by the editorial staff of American Naturalist (Amer. Nat. (28)327, 1894), spells it the same on page 262.

Additionally, a Google scholar search for articles from 2020 and more recent that use the status quo spelling (with an additional 'R') yields four results, while a search with the same parameters using the proposed alternative spelling (less one 'R') yields one result. I think it would be most appropriate to say neither spelling is a misspelling, but keep the original title. NeuroJasper (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Support - contrary to NeuroJasper, there is no principle of "popular use" when it comes to zoological nomenclature, there is simply a right and a wrong name. Whether there are numerous instances of misspellings or not, Hypsirophus is the correct spelling, and is used in that way by commonly-referenced sources even if there is no explicit discussion of the misspelling (Maidment 2010 is the most-cited piece of stegosaur literature and uses the correct spelling). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you please clarify your argument for me and for other readers? If we are going by the most-cited articles, as I think you are suggesting, then Susannah Maidment's 2010 publication has 61 citations indexed in Google Scholar, while Maidment et al., J. Syst. Palaeontol. (2008) has 203 citations indexed in Google Scholar. So we should prefer Maidment et al. (2008) as the more authoritative source.

Maidment et al. (2008) uses the spelling "Hypsirhophus" (with an additional 'R') exclusively throughout, while your preferred spelling, "Hypsirophus" (with one fewer 'R') never appears in that work. So that would seem to argue that the current article title is the "right name", and your preferred spelling is the "wrong name". Though as I said above, I advocate for the article title remaining unchanged with the body of the article providing both spellings as acceptable alternates.

EDIT: I see now that I made a small counting error. Maidment et al. (2008) uses "Hypsirhophus" (with an additional 'R') eight times, and "Hypsirophus" (with one fewer 'R') one time. The overall logic of my argument is unchanged, and if anything, the appearance of both spellings within the most-cited stegosaurus publication suggests they are both acceptable and interchangeable.

NeuroJasper (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is quite explicit that the original spelling of a name is the correct one (article 32.3 states "The correct original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered..."), so Hypsirophus is the correct spelling of the name from the standpoint of zoological nomenclature, unless someone can find a source explicitly stating that the name has been formally emended to Hypsirhophus for some reason (such a source would probably be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and does not, to my knowledge, exist). From a Wikipedia standpoint, there are two spellings that are in use in the literature, and we have to choose one of them. We might as well choose the one that is objectively correct. Also, the spelling Hypsirophus has more Google Scholar results overall (37 vs. 33), and when you look at articles published before 2015 (when Wikipedia began making the erroneous claim that Hypsirophus was the misspelling) it's even more in favor of Hypsirophus (33 vs. 25). We should correct our error before it spreads even further. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The only ICZN case/bulletin I could find which discusses "hypsirophus"/"hypsirhophus" is case #3536, here. The text of the case includes both spellings. The two comments on the case also include both spellings. It would be a pretty clear case of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for us Wikipedians to overrule the mixed spelling conventions used within the ICZN's own publications, to claim one is correct and the other is incorrect... NeuroJasper (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Within WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, see specifically:

The definition of original research includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources...

I cannot find any ICZN document which concludes that "hypsirhophus" is incorrect and "hypsirophus" is correct. No one at the ICZN has made this claim. The only case I could find which clearly addresses this terminology (case #3536), uses both spellings interchangeably.

I am sympathetic to your position, but it is synthesis of published material for us to try and dig up the first-used spelling, and then synthesise it with ICZN Article 32 to claim the ICZN itself is wrong when it publishes materials which use both spellings. NeuroJasper (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Following the comparison of overall results on Google Scholar, the page should probably be changed to Hypsirophus regardless because it has more hits (WP:COMMONNAME). The Morrison Man (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Luckily we have a citation available to directly state that Hypsirhophus is a misspelling of Hypsirophus, which is Olshevsky (1978). He directly lists "=Hypsirophus Cope 1878 [nomen dubium] = Hypsirhophus Cope 1879 [sic]" under synonyms of Stegosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per above discussion by Ornithopsis and IJReid. Of course the correct spelling of the name should be used. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support - we should always use the proper version of scientific names. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nomenclatural priority. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.