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.
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.
The second edition of The Dinosauria (published in 2004) paces Agathaumas milo as a synonym of Edmontosaurus regalis. However, the type specimen of A. milo consists of a sacral centrum and a tibia fragment, both of which are not diagnostic. Therefore, A. milo is considered to be Dinosauria indeterminate.126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
Agathaumas monoclonius is a typographical error for A. sylvestris, while other species referred to Agathaumas are not assignable to Agathaumas. Therefore the species section needs cleanup.188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
The article isn't implying that they are referable as far as I can see, if fact it lists other species they are referable to. As a nomen dubium, nothing is referable to Agathaumas but the type specimen. Do you have a reference for A monoclonius being a typographic error? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
How can an 1890s painting be based on an animal (Styracosaurus) which was not discovered until the 1910s? FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
IIRC he based it on Monoclonius with the spiny (quilled...??) skin/frill based on skin impressions. Need to find some actual sources to expand that section. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)