From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Agathaumas milo[edit]

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. (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. (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)

Knight painting[edit]

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)