|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I thought that more information can be gathered about two species of pterosaurs found in northeastern China: Nurhachius ignaciobritoi and Feilongus youngi. I found out about these from this website 
Yes, in the monograph "Discovery of an ornithurine bird and its implication for early Cretaceous avian radiation" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 102 no.52 December 27, 2005 pp. 18998-19002) Zhonghe says of Hongshanornis that "...the new bird represents only the second, but much more complete, ornithurine from the Yixian Formation" It is from an outcrop of the Yixian across teh Liaoning border in Inner Mongolia.Jbrougham (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This page has taken on a snazzy new look. I wonder, though, about using taxa like "amphibians" and "ankylosaurs" as equal headings, and not putting birds in theropods. Since the Amphibia are a class, and ankylosaurs are a suborder of Ornithischia, it seems weird to give them equal status. It sort of makes the groups appear random. I would prefer that we group all dinosaurs together, or at least by Orders (Saurischia, Ornithischia) or other equal ranks. Maybe we could have major headings (Dinosaurs) with minor headings (Theropods, Sauropods) within them.Jbrougham (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeholornis vs. Shenzhouraptor
in 2006 Dr. Zhou Zhonghe formally made Shenzhouraptor a junior synonym of Jeholornis; Zhou Z.-H. & Zhang F.-C. (2006): Mesozoic birds of China - A synoptic review. Vertebrata Palasiatica 44(1): 74-98.Jbrougham (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Dinoguy's Recent Revert
I know where you're coming from, Dinoguy, but there are a couple of reasons why I put in the genus label. The main one is that while we need to include all the known species to give a full appreciation for the site's diversity, there is usually such little difference between the species or so little information available about the distinctions that it doesn't make sense to give each species its own row in the table. Grouping them by genera is much more economical.
Second, acknowledging when a table row represents a genus with a label allows us to include entries (rows) on indeterminants that can only be ascribed to higher level taxa. this can be done by replacing "genus" with "family" or whatever rank is appropriate. If we were only including described species, we would be giving an incomplete picture. I never intended on labeling species as genera, I just didn't have time to change monospecific genera entries to the proper formatting, which would make them look like the Caudipteryx entry only with one species. So I guess it really did look like that. I'm gonna fix things tonight/tomorrow morning, though, so it won't be like that for long. :) Abyssal (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok fair enough, it just seemed to me that the purpose of these lists is to illustrate taxonomic diversity, the impact of which is lessened the more we use 'artificial' taxa like genus and family. The lack of information of specific differences isn't so important--that's the reason we lump them all into one genus-level article, at least in WP:Dino, but this is more of a list, and the job of this page is just to identify what taxa are present, not discuss subtle differences, be it between C. dongi and C. zoui or between Microraptor and Graciliraptor (which are arguably just as similar--the "genericometer" is totally arbitrary when you get down to it). Also, in articles on specific formations, multispecific genera are always going to be in the minority--in vert paleo, one of the big justifications for erecting a new species is difference in horizon. It seems redundant to have lists and lists of Genus 1: Species 1 type examples, with only one or two Genus 1: Species 1, Species 2. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)