567:
become euornithopods. But some of the different techniques you can use produced heteros as basal marginocephalians and the authors conclude that more study is needed. There has been a lot of work recently on the hyspie-grade ornithopods, but very little on the heteros. I think a lot of people are content to just put them in an unresolved trichotomy with marginocephalians and ornithopods until we know more. In college I wrote a paper on the subject, so it is near and dear to my heart. :) Anyway I think they are fine where they are now.
547:
leading up to the major families, in which all members are very similar at least superficially (early coelurosaurs, hypsilophodonts, maybe prosauropods) I do think it's more convinient to lump them into a paraphyletic family just for the sake of accessibility. A layman reading up on
Proceratosaurus might find a ready link to Ornitholestes and Tanycolagreus useful, and probably won't know or care about paraphyly, while somebody in the know will see the note on paraphyly and know what's up.
193:
620:, and I don't think it's needed here. The article should provide a comprehensive overview of the major schema (Benton and Weishampel are a great start), discuss the areas of uncertainty, and cover all the major points of contention. If that doesn't explain the taxoboxes, either the article needs to be expanded to include the missing information, or the taxoboxes need to be changed because they're not using widely accepted, easily justified standard. -Pat |
74:
183:
162:
53:
22:
84:
888:. The main difference is someone has worked on the mammal articles, while in this case, I've done most of the work on the corresponding sections in the main article but have been doing other things as well. Evolution of dinosaurs would look a lot better simply by plopping those sections over the current version (making sure to take the necessary refs as well).
837:. It's difficult combining evolution and classification articles, I think. There's a long and interesting history of different classifications that needs to be taken into account. Classification is a reference tool we use to categorize animals, often (especially historically) somewhat separate from their actual genealogy.
734:
All that work and I find out it was spelled wrong on here. Mamenchisauridae=Euhelopodidae. The subfamily is called
Mamenchisaurinae, an "n" instead of a "d". This I found out after research on creating that page and finding out it was worthless. I'm a little mad....i'll go ahead and change it. Oh and
591:
This is kind of a good point... maybe it should be in the WP namespace as the compromise classification used on
Knowledge (XXG). Then the actual dinosaur classification article should maybe talk more about different schemes proposed in the literature, which aside from individual genera, seem to be a
330:
I have a list of proposed changes which I would like to make to our classification scheme. I am not sure if I should just change it myself, but I'd thought I'd run it by some people first. If nobody responds, I'll just do the ones with high priority, cause in many ways, Benton's taxonomy is... well,
469:
Ditch
Chuniaoia... nobody uses it at all. The original publishers of the name don't even use it, they actually just left it in the supplementary information of their paper by mistake, after deleting it from the body of the text. All it includes is Protarchaeopteryx anyway... might as well just list
931:
That is, just don't do it. This isn't a place for us to synthesize a number of different taxonomies into one, it's a scheme put forward by one author who we have cited. It doesn't have to match what's in the articles, as classifications may change from one paper to the next--we can cite that as we
715:
Many classifications under the
Weishampel/Dodson/Osmolska sauropodomorph section are not in The Dinosauria II, such as Vulcanodontidae, Euhelopodidae, Mamenchisauridae, Flagellicaudata, Blikanasauridae, Andesauridae, Massospondylidae, Yunnanosauridae, and Thecodontosauridae (and Cetiosauridae is a
566:
As far as heterodontosaurs being marginocephalians or not, you can see Norman et al. in The
Dinosauria II, they discuss it in the basal ornithopod chapter. Basically, their position is unresolved. Most of the time heteros actually came up as basal ornithopods, below the 'hypsies', which would then
814:
The content of both articles is based on the same set of knowledge: since humans were not present to observe dinosaur evolution directly, this knowledge must be inferred, and it is this inference which leads to their classification. In smaller articles, phylogeny and taxonomy are listed together.
394:
Heterodontosauridae should be moved out of
Marginocephalia. While it is a very appealing idea to me, there is a huge amount of disagreement on the topic. Some workers put it in Marginocephalia, others in Ornithopoda, others outside of both. I think we should put it outside of both, but inside of
315:
While the information contained on this page is interesting, I think two things need to be added: The standardized dinosaur classification being implemented throughout
Knowledge (XXG), and a phylogenetic tree that uses cladistics. I'm going to start working on the first since it should be pretty
546:
My opinion on this is that yes, in most cases every genus does not need a family (there are already many that only list superfamily or even some norank taxa, esp in the big superfamilies like tyrannosaurs and ornithomimes). However in cases where you have a long gradient of single-genera clades
335:
Removal of
Spinosauroidea from Carnosauria... nobody besides Benton includes it there. Everybody else would remove it and make it a sister taxon to Avethropoda, which is a group containing Carnosauria (which is more often used instead of Allosauroidea) and Coelurosauria.
935:
Also, regarding
Oviraptoriformes. I've seen a note repeatedly get attached here asking for a "proper" name for this clade. Oviraptoriformes is the proper name. Sereno 2005, and I believe it's been used in one or two other sources since then for the ovi+theri group.
601:
I'm not opposed to discussing the other published classifications, though I think the one we use here should be on this page, just to help people make better sense of the taxoboxes. Having the taxoboxes use a classification scheme that is not listed in the article
780:). However, there is little evidence that supports this family, and this state will probably continue until some unlucky grad student in Beijing sits down with the multitude of mamenchisaur and omeisaur species and figures out what is really going on.
855:
has been a stub for the half-year since its creation, only giving a brief overview of dinosaurs' closest relatives and the earliest dinosaurs, and I cannot see this being expanded on short of a major set of palaeontological discoveries. By contrast,
376:
Replace Titanosauridae with Titanosauria... this is recommended by leading sauropod workers like Upchurch and Wilson, but it might not matter for our purposes here. This is something that could just be mentioned on the Titanosauridae page instead.
358:
Ditch Chuniaoia... nobody uses it at all. The original publishers of the name don't even use it, they actually just left it in the supplementary information of their paper by mistake, after deleting it from the body of the text. All it includes is
634:
a widely accepted, easily justified standard. I am currently working on this article to make it more or less completely non-self-referential, but it will take a while as there is a lot to do. Don't stop making any necessary changes though!
354:
We should also remove Alvarezsauridae from Ornithomimosauria, or at least put a question mark in front of the name, as everyone seems to have a different opinion of where they go. I would put them right under Coelurosauria, with a question
860:
goes into great detail on the different stages of evolution in the lineage that led from dinosaurs to birds, with many specific comparisons being made, and a large section on theories regarding the origins of bird flight.
282:
would be a better title. It would also open the door to more general discussions about how thoroughly the dinosaurian radiation has been mapped, historical schemes, sticky issues, and so forth (a great example is
409:
I guess one of my major questions here is, does every genus need to be put into a family? Cause a lot of them can't be, unless you A) make a special family for each genus or B) allow paraphyletic families.
542:
I guess one of my major questions here is, does every genus need to be put into a family? Cause a lot of them can't be, unless you A) make a special family for each genus or B) allow paraphyletic families.
531:
seems to suggest that some authors consider(ed?) hypsilophodontia monophyletic (though they are early 90s....). At any rate this might be one case where I'd suggest leaving a clade as-is and marking it
581:
The first sentence contains a self-reference. Is this page meant to be in the WP namespace or is there some reason why this classification scheme is notable other than being used on wikipedia? Thanks
508:
Fair enough. I'm not a big fan of monotypic families, but I'm not sure listing individual genera here is a great idea, maybe just delete since they're already mentioned on the higher-level taxa pages.
536:) for the sake of clutter, like Coeluridae (which should be marked paraphyletic on this page too, btw). The taxonomy on Ornithopoda would be eight pages long if we eliminated all the paraphyly there.
214:-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1159:
1082:
1081:
Non-expert here: The spindle diagram shown in this article doesn't say what the width of the spindles indicates. I guess it's probably number of families, but maybe that's worth specifying?
459:
We should also remove Alvarezsauridae from Ornithomimosauria, or at least put a question mark in front of the name, as everyone seems to have a different opinion of where they go.
463:
Agreed, put them under Coelurosauria, but maybe *after* T. and O.idae since they always come out at maniraptoriformes (also supported by their seemingly pennaceous feathers).
249:
504:
Ditch Pisanosauridae and Fabrosauridae. There is really only one member of each of these families. I think we should just list Pisanosaurus and Lesothosaurus instead.
490:
Replace Titanosauridae with Titanosauria... this is recommended by leading sauropod workers like Upchurch and Wilson, but it might not matter for our purposes here.
776:
back when it was thought to be a diplodocid. Mamenchisauridae is the name for a potential family of Chinese Jurassic sauropods (essentially Euhelopodidae without
1154:
239:
474:
My only problem with ditching it is that Protarchie and Incisivosaurus come out as a family on occasion, and Chuniaoia is the only published name for that group.
799:
I think that the two should remain seperate as, how the dinosaurs evolved from other archosaurs (naturally) is different from their classification (artificial).
395:
Cerapoda, until more is known for sure (which may not ever happen). Or at least put a question mark in front of it, to indicate that there is some uncertainty.
287:, which is well referenced and provides suitable context). However, I don't think changing all the links that point here to ] in the meantime is useful. -Pat |
271:
I think the article title is somewhat inappropriate, as it seems to refer to how the classification changed over time. Dinosaur classification would be better.
144:
700:-- FL might be more appropriate). Aranae did such a good job I used it as a model for this article when I added Benton's classification way back when. -Pat |
1164:
1149:
1139:
518:
I wasn't aware there was that much disagreement (pachys used to be in ornithopoda too, not for cladistic reasons obviously...). I'd go for a question mark.
134:
215:
958:") indicates the given taxa is a stem-based taxon, comprising all organisms sharing a common ancestor that is not also an ancestor of the "greater" taxon
529:
514:
Heterodontosauridae should be moved out of Marginocephalia. While it is a very appealing idea to me, there is a huge amount of disagreement on the topic.
1144:
1134:
907:
from a stub into a full article. There's still a lot more editing to do and a lot more to add, but when it's finished it will in no way resemble
484:
Agreed, also already reflected on taxon pages. In fact I'm not sure we should get down to sub-family level on this page, so maybe just delete it.
110:
206:
167:
316:
similar to what's already here. A discussion of ranked taxonomy vs. cladistics and how they apply to wikipedia would also be very useful.
1050:
1086:
720:, although I'm not sure that the family deserves a page). Were at least some of these included as a holdover from The Dinosauria I?
97:
58:
383:
Ditch Pisanosauridae and Fabrosauridae. There is really only one member of each of these families. I think we should just list
1116:: in this tree, the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and Neornithes doesn't include Sauropodomorpha nor Eodromaeus.
33:
955:
Am I misreading this section or is the definition used the exact opposite of what the symbols show? The definition given is
1059:
668:
885:
563:
re: Chuniaoia... leave it then, and when somebody gets around to writing a page for it, we can be more specific.
401:
Hypsilophodontidae should be detonated as it is massively paraphyletic, unless you basically restrict it to just
916:
109:
topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
39:
21:
908:
603:
295:
279:
1067:
904:
852:
560:
Looks really top-notch now, nice job. I agree about the (paraphyly) tag, that is an excellent compromise.
1036:
912:
693:
288:
284:
1063:
701:
647:
621:
1051:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/scientists-struggle-fit-strange-vegetarian-dinosaur-family-tree
880:
I think the two articles can do different things in a more complete state; a better comparison may be
1013:
893:
881:
1032:
768:
Euhelopodidae was the name for a family of Chinese Jurassic sauropods until it became apparent that
198:
998:
941:
842:
804:
106:
664:
748:
Mamenchisauridae is not a misspelling. It is a disused subfamily name, as is Mamenchisaurinae.
866:
820:
760:
739:
676:
582:
342:
Within Carnosauria (or Allosauroidea), we should add Carcharodontosauridae and Sinraptoridae.
736:
453:
Maybe, though Tyrannosauridae and Tyrannosaouroidea are the same page. For ornithomimes, yes.
439:
Within Carnosauria (or Allosauroidea), we should add Carcharodontosauridae and Sinraptoridae.
759:
Wait...so both are wrong? O_o Then why is Mamenchisauridae even on there in the first place?
89:
672:
657:
617:
1009:
991:
all organisms sharing a common ancestor that is not also an ancestor of the "lesser" taxon
889:
857:
830:
781:
721:
683:
433:
I wasn't aware it was in carnosauria, that might even be a misprint on my part. Change it.
697:
449:
List Tyrannosauridae within Tyrannosauroidea and Ornithomimidae within Ornithomimosauria.
405:. But all the other 'hyspilophodonts' are just on a long line leading up to Iguanodontia.
348:
List Tyrannosauridae within Tyrannosauroidea and Ornithomimidae within Ornithomimosauria.
1062:(if you can't access these web pages try searching for Baron, Norman and Barrett 2017).
834:
1128:
994:
937:
838:
800:
749:
607:
548:
317:
299:
1120:
1117:
1090:
1071:
1060:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/t-rex-gets-new-home-shakeup-dino-family-tree
1040:
1017:
1002:
945:
920:
897:
870:
862:
846:
824:
816:
808:
784:
763:
754:
742:
724:
704:
686:
650:
639:
636:
624:
610:
596:
593:
585:
571:
568:
551:
533:
417:
414:
320:
302:
272:
211:
1049:
It appears to make a lot more sense in the Baron/Norman/Barrett reclassification:
1029:
182:
161:
73:
52:
370:
Microraptoria should be a subfamily of Dromaeosauridae, not a separate family.
680:
495:
480:
Microraptoria should be a subfamily of Dromaeosauridae, not a separate family.
188:
79:
1113:
102:
772:
was related to the titanosaurians. Mamenchisaurinae was a subfamily for
524:
Hypsilophodontidae should be detonated as it is massively paraphyletic
494:
Yup, Titanosauridae is an invalid taxon and already re-directs to
851:
I take your point, though a significant difference here is that
646:
So do I. At least cladistics is settling out a little. -Pat |
15:
1112:
is inconsistent with both proposed definitions of the clade
965:. Reading this in terms of the given definition means that
911:. The two will be complementary and barely overlap at all.
294:
Very good idea, I'm moving this page plus its talk page to
829:
Maybe a good model would be the equivalent bird articles:
737:
http://www.kheper.net/evolution/dinosauria/Cetiosauria.htm
989:? This could be corrected by changing the definition to
592:
lot more uniform today than they were even 5 years ago.
443:
Agreed, this is the setup on the individual taxon pages.
1109:
1160:
Start-Class Palaeontology articles of Mid-importance
210:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
671:. Have the authors considered nominating it at
1100:: clade Dinosauria inconsistent with definition
528:I'm not up on my ornithischians, but this page
1028:Does this genus fit into the classification?
429:Removal of Spinosauroidea from Carnosauria...
8:
692:You might want to suggest the same thing at
19:
960:. However the listed classification shows
663:It strikes me that this article meets the
156:
47:
951:Weishampel/Dodson/OsmĂłlska classification
224:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Palaeontology
1083:2600:1700:A410:2D90:9002:B3E0:97BA:44BB
158:
49:
1155:Mid-importance Palaeontology articles
119:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dinosaurs
7:
1104:Hello! It seems to me that the tree
1030:https://en.wikipedia.org/Chilesaurus
204:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
969:would include all the ancestors of
38:It is of interest to the following
1165:WikiProject Palaeontology articles
1150:Start-Class Palaeontology articles
1140:High-importance dinosaurs articles
962:Herrerasauria (Herrerasaurus : -->
679:was nominated there recently. --
363:anyway... might as well just list
227:Template:WikiProject Palaeontology
14:
191:
181:
160:
82:
72:
51:
20:
977:that are not also ancestors of
957:The greater-than symbol (": -->
696:(which I recently nominated at
244:This article has been rated as
139:This article has been rated as
1145:WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
1135:Start-Class dinosaurs articles
122:Template:WikiProject Dinosaurs
1:
1121:05:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
669:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list
572:01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
552:17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
418:01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
321:22:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
218:and see a list of open tasks.
113:and see a list of open tasks.
1072:11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
1018:22:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
1003:21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
963:Liliensternus, Plateosaurus)
498:, which covers Titanosauria.
303:19:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1181:
1041:17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
1008:Okay, changed. Thank you!
809:08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
785:03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
764:01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
755:01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
743:01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
705:16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
687:10:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
651:16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
640:10:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
625:05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
470:Protarchaeopteryx instead.
250:project's importance scale
145:project's importance scale
921:07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
886:Classification of mammals
725:17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
611:03:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
597:02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
586:23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
291:19:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
275:03:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
243:
207:WikiProject Palaeontology
176:
138:
67:
46:
927:Changes to cited sources
1091:11:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
946:01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
909:Dinosaur classification
903:I've started to expand
898:18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
871:10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
847:01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
825:19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
604:Dinosaur classification
296:Dinosaur classification
280:Dinosaur classification
905:Evolution of dinosaurs
853:evolution of dinosaurs
751:Firsfron of Ronchester
230:Palaeontology articles
28:This article is rated
795:Merger with Evolution
694:Mammal classification
618:avoid self-references
285:Mammal classification
98:WikiProject Dinosaurs
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
882:Evolution of mammals
616:It's a good idea to
606:could be confusing.
331:let's say unique.
199:Paleontology portal
125:dinosaurs articles
34:content assessment
1058:described here:
677:List of dinosaurs
365:Protarchaeopteryx
361:Protarchaeopteryx
264:
263:
260:
259:
256:
255:
155:
154:
151:
150:
1172:
752:
711:Phantom families
423:Ok, here goes...
326:Proposed Changes
232:
231:
228:
225:
222:
201:
196:
195:
194:
185:
178:
177:
172:
164:
157:
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
107:dinosaur-related
92:
90:Dinosaurs portal
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1125:
1124:
1102:
1079:
1077:Spindle Diagram
1026:
953:
929:
858:origin of birds
831:Origin of birds
797:
750:
732:
713:
661:
579:
328:
313:
269:
229:
226:
223:
220:
219:
197:
192:
190:
170:
141:High-importance
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
88:
83:
81:
62:High‑importance
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1178:
1176:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1127:
1126:
1101:
1094:
1078:
1075:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
952:
949:
928:
925:
924:
923:
913:Mollwollfumble
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
835:Bird evolution
796:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
774:Mamenchisaurus
731:
728:
712:
709:
708:
707:
660:
655:
654:
653:
643:
642:
614:
613:
599:
578:
577:self reference
575:
559:
557:
556:
555:
554:
539:
538:
537:
521:
520:
519:
511:
510:
509:
501:
500:
499:
487:
486:
485:
477:
476:
475:
466:
465:
464:
456:
455:
454:
446:
445:
444:
436:
435:
434:
425:
424:
407:
406:
399:
397:Priority: High
392:
381:
374:
372:Priority: High
368:
356:
352:
350:Priority: High
346:
344:Priority: High
340:
338:Priority: High
327:
324:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
268:
265:
262:
261:
258:
257:
254:
253:
246:Mid-importance
242:
236:
235:
233:
216:the discussion
203:
202:
186:
174:
173:
171:Mid‑importance
165:
153:
152:
149:
148:
137:
131:
130:
128:
111:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1177:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1123:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1099:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:Herrerasaurus
984:
983:Herrerasauria
980:
979:Herrerasaurus
976:
972:
971:Liliensternus
968:
967:Herrerasauria
964:
959:
950:
948:
947:
943:
939:
933:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
872:
868:
864:
859:
854:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
822:
818:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
794:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
757:
756:
753:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
738:
735:my proof is:
729:
727:
726:
723:
719:
710:
706:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:
689:
688:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
659:
656:
652:
649:
645:
644:
641:
638:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
619:
612:
609:
605:
600:
598:
595:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
576:
574:
573:
570:
564:
561:
553:
550:
545:
544:
543:
540:
535:
530:
527:
526:
525:
522:
517:
516:
515:
512:
507:
506:
505:
502:
497:
493:
492:
491:
488:
483:
482:
481:
478:
473:
472:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
457:
452:
451:
450:
447:
442:
441:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
427:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
411:
404:
403:Hypsilophodon
400:
398:
393:
390:
389:Lesothosaurus
386:
382:
380:
379:Priority: Low
375:
373:
369:
366:
362:
357:
353:
351:
347:
345:
341:
339:
334:
333:
332:
325:
323:
322:
319:
310:
304:
301:
297:
293:
292:
290:
289:68.81.231.127
286:
281:
278:
277:
276:
274:
266:
251:
247:
241:
238:
237:
234:
221:Palaeontology
217:
213:
212:palaeontology
209:
208:
200:
189:
187:
184:
180:
179:
175:
169:
168:Palaeontology
166:
163:
159:
146:
142:
136:
133:
132:
129:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1105:
1103:
1097:
1080:
1064:Orbitalforam
1057:
1027:
990:
986:
985:not include
982:
978:
975:Plateosaurus
974:
970:
966:
961:
956:
954:
934:
930:
879:
798:
777:
773:
769:
761:Silver seren
740:Silver seren
733:
717:
716:redirect to
714:
702:68.84.34.154
662:
648:68.84.34.154
631:
622:68.84.34.154
615:
580:
565:
562:
558:
541:
534:paraphyletic
523:
513:
503:
489:
479:
468:
458:
448:
438:
428:
412:
408:
402:
396:
388:
385:Pisanosaurus
384:
378:
371:
364:
360:
349:
343:
337:
329:
314:
311:More Schemes
270:
245:
205:
140:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1024:Chilesaurus
730:Misspelling
630:Wish there
30:Start-class
1129:Categories
1114:Dinosauria
1043:jcardazzi
1010:J. Spencer
981:. How can
890:J. Spencer
782:J. Spencer
722:J. Spencer
718:Ceiosaurus
496:Titanosaur
413:Thoughts?
1033:Jcardazzi
778:Euhelopus
770:Euhelopus
116:Dinosaurs
103:dinosaurs
59:Dinosaurs
1106:Cau 2018
1098:Cau 2018
995:Khajidha
938:Dinoguy2
839:Dinoguy2
801:Rynosaur
667:to be a
665:criteria
608:Dinoguy2
549:Dinoguy2
391:instead.
367:instead.
318:Dinoguy2
300:Dinoguy2
1118:Grasyop
863:Robin S
817:Robin S
637:Sheep81
594:Sheep81
569:Sheep81
415:Sheep81
273:Phlebas
248:on the
143:on the
1108:shown
684:(Talk)
673:WP:FLC
658:WP:FLC
36:scale.
1096:Tree
698:WP:GA
681:ALoan
355:mark.
267:Title
1110:here
1087:talk
1068:talk
1037:talk
1014:talk
999:talk
973:and
942:talk
932:go.
917:talk
894:talk
884:and
867:talk
843:talk
833:and
821:talk
805:talk
583:Matt
387:and
135:High
105:and
675:?
632:was
240:Mid
1131::
1089:)
1070:)
1039:)
1016:)
1001:)
993:.
944:)
919:)
896:)
869:)
845:)
823:)
807:)
1085:(
1066:(
1035:(
1012:(
997:(
940:(
915:(
892:(
865:(
841:(
819:(
803:(
532:(
298:.
252:.
147:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
