Talk:Hylaeosaurus

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance 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 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.

The original author of this article in 2004 mentioned a "Hylaeosaurus conybearei" but I've been unable to find any scientific reference to such a taxon. Should anyone know the origin of this name, I would be much obliged. Is it a simple corruption of Pelorosaurus conybearei? For the time being, it seems best to keep it removed.--MWAK (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a mistake. By the way, do you know if these elements are still considered part of Hyaeosaurus?[1][2][3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Barrett & Maidment simply reject anything outside of the holotype. However, their stance might be considered too severe; in 1993 Pereda-Suberbiola included more specimens. The problem is that Owen does not provide an inventory number for each fossil. Plate 41 is BMNH 3789, the type of Hylaeosaurus oweni. This is the "second partial skeleton" often mentioned. As you can see, it is mainly a tail. The image should certainly be added to WikiCommons, if only because it is to be expected that someone will soon suggest a new generic name. The sacrum BMNH 2484 (Plate 37 fig.1) was referred by Pereda-Suberbiola to Hylaeosaurus. Plate 37, figures 2,3 & 4, specimen BMNH 28936, a partial sacrum, is from the Isle of Wight and thus likely of Polacanthus. The jaw of Plate 39, BMNH 2422, is the type of Regnosaurus! (So that can be added regardless :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll upload! That site is a treasure trove of historical images, but one really needs to know what to look for... I've spent a lot of time trying to identify stuff there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The later Owen publications are a jumble, really. He combined earlier texts without updating them, probably because it was cheaper to reuse the old type settings (with expensive books, these were stacked and stored by the printer for a possible new edition). That is part of the reason the names Regnosaurus and Hylaeosaurus oweni are not mentioned (the other reason being that they were coined by Mantell). And catalogue numbers of later acquisitions are not indicated. Sometimes it is possible to find some corrections or additions in the supplements but always in very covert terms as Owen was not the man to admit he had ever been wrong...--MWAK (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were the fossils that Mantell found at Tilgate Forest or in the Tilgate Forest strata from the quarries at Cuckfield? --Erp (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular to quote Mantell himself in "Petrifactions and their teachings, or A hand-book to the gallery of organic remains of the British Museum" (1851), page 204 in reference to Whiteman's Green, Cuckfield, quarry "From that quarry, long since filled up, and the area covered by pasturage and gardens, I collected the first and most interesting of the fossil remains of the Iguanodon, Hylaeosaurus, Pelorosaurus, and other stupendons creatures whose existence was previously unknown and unsuspected." --Erp (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hylaeosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131412190800/http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/dino/index.shtml to http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/dino/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502005115/http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/dino/goo1859.shtml to http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/dino/goo1859.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]