Talk:Thyreophora

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.

Ankylosauromorpha

On [1] I found Ankylosauromorpha which says it was name in 2001 by Carpenter. Can someone please verify this? Reid,iain james (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be added to the article or not? Reid,iain james (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], it seems to be a synonym of Ankylosauria under most common definitions. EDIT Actually, after further inspection, Ankylosauromorpha = Scelidonsaurus + random ankylosaurians > Stegosaurus. In Wiki's current consensus arrangement, Scelidosaurus is more basal than the ankylosaur/stegosaur split, which would make the clade Ankylosauromorpha empty (i.e. it is designed to "self destruct" or invalidate itself if Scelidosaurus is not a close relative of traditional ankylosaurs). So as it stands now, Ankylosauromorpha is not a valid clade. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a recent study (David Norman et. al. 2020) found a new topology of the Thyreophora revalidating the clade Ankylosauromorpha, so it may be reconsidered. Hiroizmeh (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scelidosauridae

There is no reason to have Scelidosauridae separate from Thyreophora. The family does not have a clear phylogenetic definition, and in modern literature Scelidosaurus is considered a basal thyreophoran, with no reference to Scelidosauridae. Scelidosaurus, Emausaurus and Scutellosaurus are widely agreed to form a basal grade, not a monophyletic family. The other taxon considered to a Scelidosaurid, Bienosaurus is currently considered a nomen dubium. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Scelidosauridae is a historically significant paraphyletic group (which, to my knowledge, it is not), I would favour a merge. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When this was merged with Thyreophora, the name "Scelidosauridae" was not even mentioned in that article. That does not help anybody. We need to keep the information, not just delete it. The name "Scelidosauridae" is, however, discussed in detail in Scelidosaurus, and I therefore would consider merging with that article instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was most appropriate here because Scelidosauridae was used primarily as a paraphyletic grouping to refer to basal thyreophorans, but I appreciate your logic. I am open to having it redirect there instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the classification section of Scelidosaurus seems reasonable to me as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lythronaxargestes:, @Jens Lallensack: With all three of us in agreement, can I go ahead and redirect Scelidosauridae to the classification section of Scelidosaurus? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but we should wait a bit longer: According to Wikipedia:Merging, we should wait at least one week after the discussion was opened. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good time now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already made the change 2 and a half weeks ago Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]