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.
It seems like two very different restorations have made of the skull, based on the images here? Which is more correct? FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question. As far I know, even the most complete skeleton of Epachthosaurus lacks of any cranial material, I don't know about the affinities of this animal to say which of the skulls could be more likely in light of their relationships...--Rextron (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Since our cladogram shows it close to nemegtosaurs, I'd guess the long skull showed in the taxobox would be most correct? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Possibly, although it may be more basal than that. Honestly, we can move the third image, which the darkened skull into the taxon box, since it shows more anatomy, and the unknown skull isn't the primary focus. IJReiddiscuss 15:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there are actually more photos of that mount on Commons that show the head even more obscured and with a tighter crop, maybe better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)