Talk:Dysalotosaurus

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.

Naming[edit]

A question: How is it possible for Rudolph Virchow to have named Dysalotosaurus in 1919, when Virchow had died already in 1902? If it is a case of a similarly named, probably related, paleontologist, should that not be made clear in the article? Danhuser (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Just a guess, but could have been in a posthumous publication. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that it wasn't Rudolph Virchow, it was an H. Virchow. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, should have looked at the German version, he has an article there:[1] He was Rudolph's son. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

integument[edit]

I am working on a reconstruction of Dysalotosaurus, and am not sure whether to depict it with filamentous integument or not. It seems that because of the presence of "feathers" in primitive members of its clade the condition is basal, but many other reconstructions of more closely-related animals are scaly. Also there is no evidence of feathers in iguanodontians. Any input? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]