Talk:Lambeosaurus

Another species?

I have a personal record of another species, L. clavinitialis. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a juvenile of the type, last I checked. J. Spencer 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

Looks really good. I felt there was no COI as I had only done a typo and hadn't seen the article otherwise (what a nice surprise!). Nice and concise and yet fairly comprehensive. Prose good. Only thing I can think of is the ?L really bugs me but I can't see another way of writing it without some wordy explanation, though there is one further in the article, which then leaves minor problem of having one in the lead without an explanation. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've listed this for Good Article review. While I think this article meets all the requirements personally, it's important to get community feedback and I'd like to avoid even the appearance of Conflict of Interest. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG!

Man this one is looking pretty good for an imminent FA nom as well...what to do then...copyediting?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This bipedal/quadrupedal, herbivorous dinosaur is known.. - What a tricky concept to term succinctly. This looks sort of ok and I guess we mean it could either be bipedal or quadrupedal. I'm not sure how others like the use of slashes like this.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

named, from Alberta (Canada), Montana (USA), and Baja California (Mexico), but only..

"From across western North America" (?) - better or leave as is. I'm not fussed just throwing up some ideas (well, not gastroenterlologically..)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit lean in some sections, now that I look at it: lead, classification, paleobiology...; could use another image or two (a skeleton would be nice). J. Spencer 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

OK, I've put some stuff into lead. Would be good to have another para eitehr underneath or connecting onto bottom of that one detailing what other dinosaurs come from that time. I am not sure what comes from where withni the separate layers of the formation.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To-do

Quick thoughts, in order of importance:

1. New scale diagram, to have both big L.? laticaudus and bog-standard 10 m Lambeosaurus
2. Species etymologies
3. Lengthened lead
   

J. Spencer 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nice scale diagram - nice use of shadowed plain-colour figures. I'll take your word on the accuracy :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Added derivation of laticaudus, do you want paucidens as well? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Added a sentence to the lead -feel free to tweak. The lead is as long as Parasaurolophus. Nothing sticks out as needing fixing overtly so nominate when ready. Justin let us know what you want the rest of us to do and I'm sure we'll do what we can. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we've got etymologies for the other three species in the taxobox, it would be good to do paucidens as well. And yes, L. laticaudus is huge, but nobody knows about it (they've also got supersized Kritosaurus in Mexico, although not quite as super; they made 'em big out that way). Otherwise, I'm ready to send this one in. J. Spencer 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose the skull of L. laticaudus is known, huh? It would be cool if some museum did a reconstructed mount. Standing next to a hadro skull three times as volumous as a human would be quite a thing! Dinoguy2 05:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think (I'd have to go back and check) that the lower part of the skull is known, but not the crest. Someone could probably make a decent mock-up, as lack of remains hasn't prevented skeletal mounts of Argentinosaurus, Saurophaganax, or "Seismosaurus". J. Spencer 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about what I thought. You get a partial premax, maxilla, and jugal, but nothing much preserved above the lower margin of the eye socket. You can see that the premax is starting to steepen in front of the eyes, but what it eventually does is unknown. J. Spencer 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added an external links section. I'm quite surprised this article didn't have one. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be a place for readers to begin their research, and naturally some sort of external links should be included in the article. I'm certainly open to changes in the specific links I've provided. I tried to introduce links to non-commercial sites with some encyclopedic value, but the section isn't very robust at this point. We should also link to Wikispecies and Wikipedia commons in this section. J, do you know of some good books on Lambeosaurines that you might recommend for a "Further reading" section? Something along the lines of Dodson's book on ceratopsians?

I also made some very small adjustments to the text. I'm not sure how well the question marks in front of the dubious species in the body of the article will go over with regular readers, but if they must be included at all, it should be consistent. I've added some missing question marks for consistency. Please tell me if this is not appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Analogous to chewing"??

"... a sophisticated skull that permitted a grinding motion analogous to chewing." -- In what sense is it logical to say that L's dental processing of food was "analogous to chewing"? "Chewing" redirects to "Mastication", which says "Mastication or chewing is the process by which food is mashed and crushed by teeth." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition online gives "chew 1. To bite and grind with the teeth; masticate." [1]. What L was doing was not "analogous to chewing", it was chewing. Or is there something I'm missing? -- 201.19.77.39 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've probably simplified it too much, but the action is different between mammals and hadrosaurids; mammals only have the jaw joint, and grinding comes from various motions at that joint alone, whereas hadrosaurids had other locations capable of motion, with the most accepted version being that the upper jaw bones bowed out when the upper and lower tooth rows contacted, grinding trapped material (the other option being the lower jaws rotated inward slightly). It's just a case of being very careful when applying mammalian terminology to dinosaurs, perhaps too careful. J. Spencer 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Better to say "analogous to mammalian chewing," just to make this clear. Dinoguy2 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- 201.19.77.39 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed tail on image

Old tail.

File:LambeosaurusDB2.jpg

New tail.

This image by a Russian illustrator, who has released it into the public domain, was unfit for the article due to an erroneous tail, I've tried to correct it, both versions are available on the right. Is it correct now, or should it be further tweaked? Funkynusayri 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks to be about within the range of possibility. J. Spencer 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Should I put it back into the article? Funkynusayri 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I already did. J. Spencer 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

size graph

Im a little concerned with the the size graph in the article, it makes lambeosaurus look like godzilla. For example: compare the two images. 69.76.55.224 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus

Size comparison of selected giant theropod dinosaurs

L. laticaudus was enormous, around 15 m/50 ft, and it should look odd and striking because few hadrosaurs got that big. Part of the difference is the pose of the lambeosaurs compared to the theropods, part of it is that hadrosaurs as big herbivores were chunkier by nature and bony anatomy than comparable theropods, and there's probably some variance to do with how the length was measured (along the curves vs. straight lines). Admittedly, the lambes are doing a bit of a high-step, but that's the artistic interpretation, and a traditional straight-on flat profile may be a worthwhile revision. J. Spencer 00:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, in case you wanted a more conservative pose for the size comparison, I whipped up a second option based on AW's Corythosaurus drawing (modified crests of course). Dinoguy2 11:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the angle better on this new version, but either way, L. laticaudus was freakin' huge for a duckbill. It'd be kind of cool to make a diagram with the largest dinosaurs of each suborder together. J. Spencer 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool, I'll see if I can get one together by tonight. Maybe using Argentinosaurus rather than Amphicoelias, so the other ones are visible ;) Dinoguy2 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Duckbill bracketed?

Why is Duckbill bracketted in the lead? I haven't seen this in any other dinosaur article, so why now? I'm gonna remove it, but I just thought I'd post here first... (As it is, there's waay too many brackets in the lead anyway, and this just makes it seem like simple Wikipedia...) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs Major Rewriting

This is a prime example of Poor Writing (capitals INTENDED). We go from a fairly detailed description to Taxonomy to the History including a list of species to a revision of the taxonomy to a list of species that doesn't agree with the previous one to the Ecology to the Biology (which entails the physical description again). The lunatics rewriting the dinosaur articles have turned many of them into total MESSES stylistically. And it doesn't help that some people are treating dinosaur articles as their PERSONAL domain which one needs PERMISSION to revise. Logically, you go from A to B to C, from General to Specific, but this is like in the Article about Abraham Lincoln you start by a physical description of Lincoln, including a detailed analysis of his mole, then talking about his family, then his accomplishments as President, but going into detail only about the Emancipation Proclamation, covering the Civil war in one or two sentences with a subsection about his career as a lawyer in Springfield, then his assasination, and finishing by talking about the technology of the mid-19th Century. You're going from A to C to N to B to $ to G to D. Don't People learn how to write anymore?? And then when I try to fix the articles, I get sworn at. CFLeon (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am "the" lunatic (singular) who rewrote this article back in the spring of 2007. It looked like this when I started. It's a bit unfair to call everyone a lunatic when it was pretty much me, and it's additionally misleading to suggest that I am doing it now ("rewriting") when it's been done, as far as I'm concerned, since the end of 2007. But I digress; you're in the heat of the moment.

I'm sorry you don't like the way the article is written. I respectfully submit that this is because we have different reading and comprehension methods, and probably basic philosophical differences as well. Leaving aside the introduction, because it is intended to be a summary, here is how it was written:

Description - this was put first to provide the reader with a mental picture of the beast. I don't want someone to have to go any farther than the beginning to know what they are dealing with.

Classification - it seems to me that this is a reasonable place to have a section dealing with classification. We have the description of the animal, now we have where it fits in the scheme of things.

Discovery and history - Lambeosaurus is a pain in the butt as far the history of its study goes. Multiple defunct genera and species are part of the story. I adopted a chronological framework based at the various taxonomic actions. By necessity, this involved the discussion of a number of species that are no longer accepted as valid.

Species - because of the convoluted nomenclature, I decided it was necessary to have a separate species section. Whether or not it should be in bullets, I don't care; if a format is deemed necessary by the Manual of Style, so be it.

Paleoecology - this section is intended to describe the environment of the living animal. Maybe it should follow the description. As far as I am concerned, its presence is not negotiable in any dinosaur article that is intended to be comprehensive; they were living creatures, and I am not interested in presenting dinosaurs as simply things that some people named a while ago.

Paleobiology - this section is intended to describe things that the animal is thought to have been capable of in life. In part, it overlaps with the physical description; the rule of thumb is the description is for "nuts and bolts" without interpretation, and Paleobiology is for anything that was interpreted from the "nuts and bolts".

It simply does not work to go from the general to the specific with such a broad topic as a genus of animal. It has to be broken down into sections. These are the sections I chose. Each section, in itself, describes some facet of Lambeosaurus. I can see an argument for putting the paleoecological and paleobiological sections higher, or moving the species section (although I think that this section best follows the history because there is a need to wrap-up all of those superfluous procheneosaurs and the like). However, I cannot see an argument for not starting with the description. The comparison to Abraham Lincoln is weak in that everyone knows what a human looks like, but nobody has seen a living Lambeosaurus (although in fact Mr. Lincoln is one case of a person where a physical description is of interest because his physical characteristics have been such a topic of commentary). Your previous edit on Edmontosaurus had the effect of putting the reader in media res, where the article is discussing Edmontosaurus without previously establishing what an Edmontosaurus is.

The hypothetical Lincoln article is also not comparable on the grounds that what we know of Lincoln and what we know of Lambeosaurus are not comparable. For Lincoln, we have newspaper articles, speeches, letters, government documents, and a host of other resources we can use to consider the President from all sort of angles. For Lambeosaurus, we have the remains of perhaps two dozen individuals scattered from Alberta to northern Mexico over a period of several million years. They are interpreted as representing both sexes and several growth stages, but there's not really much that could be done statistically, for example. What you see here in terms of references is pretty much what is out there. With the Lincoln article, I could add material that fills in gaps in the history. That is not the case for Lambeosaurus, or most dinosaurs: there's usually just a handful of publications dedicated to a given genus (maybe only one, maybe none if named with several other taxa), and then some mentions in wider reviews.

If this discussion just boils down to "I don't understand your writing, and you don't understand mine", I don't really know where we can go from there. J. Spencer (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CFLeon, you seem to be complaining about readability but I have no idea what your actual complaint is. Could you be specific, with some examples of what you think should be changed, and why? MMartyniuk (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CFLeon, can you point out where you were sworn at? People shouldn't be doing that, but I haven't seen it. A quick look at your talk page shows "Thank you for working on the taxoboxes", "Hi CF, thanks for clarifying." It seems like people have been pretty welcoming. I will ask you to remove the screed about "lunatics" and "poor writing". That's not really appropriate, and is somewhat ironic, considering the typos in the above post. The article on Lambeosaurus was written by someone who has written professionally on hadrosaurs, so I'm not sure it truly needs many more "improvements" (bullet points, section rearranging, etc). Firsfron of Ronchester 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Haha: "Don't People learn how to write anymore". FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

L. laticaudus size issues

"L. laticaudus is estimated at between 15 m (50 ft) and 16.5 m (54.1 ft) long, with a weight of up to 23 metric tons (25 tons)". Well, maybe. The paper naming it (Morris 1981) does indeed say 16.5 m, 23 metric tons; but the 23 tonne estimate is cited to a 1972 paper by Morris, where that estimate is given for a specimen not actually referred to L. laticaudus in the 1981 paper.

(It's almost certainly a huge overestimate anyway...) Vultur (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Didanodon; Procheneosaurus nomenclature

The only thing that Osborn (1902) says about Didanodon is: "A third new species or even genus P. (Didanodon) altidens Lambe is distinguished by exceptionally high narrow teeth." (p. 7). Since Osborn doesn't indicate Didanodon as a new genus, it could probably be a typographical mistake. The fact that Osborn probably didn't mean to establish Didanodon as a new genus would explain why Didanodon is not mentioned in Lull and Wright's hadrosaur monograph. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Lambeosaurus laticaudus

A re-assessment of Lambeosaurus laticaudus is forthcoming (Prieto-Marquez et. al., submitted).

Prieto-Márquez, A., Chiappe, L., and Joshi, S. H., submitted. The lambeosaurine dinosaur Titanolambia laticaudus from the Late Cretaceous of northern México. PLoS ONE. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Heh, seems like the name was ditched. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tetragonosaurus

Tetragonosaurus is listed a s a synonym of both Lambeosaurus and Corythosaurus, but this obviously cannot be true? Same goes for Procheneosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Tetragonosaurus is a synonym of Procheneosaurus. They both have a collage of species being junior synonyms of Corythosaurus or Lambeosaurus. Iainstein (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A genus can only be the synonym of one other genus. Species synonymy is another issues. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The type specimen of Procheneosaurus, P. praeceps, is usually regarded as a synonym of Lambeosaurus rather than Corythosaurus. The confusion comes from the fact that other species/specimens belong to Corythosaurus, but this does not make them synonym, just incorrectly referred. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

Link label — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Noise-making crest

Is there any more information about this? How the noise would have been made? Its purpose? With no further info, all I can imagine is a kazoo. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lambeosaurus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==General== Decide whetehr or not you want to treat L. laticaudus as a species and get rid of its mentions or of the question mark accordingly. Having the question mark for the whole article (instead of explaining the situation in the "species" section) is just pointlessly confusing. If it's so dubious (and yet not a nomen dubium), why mention it at all? Maybe you should only keep the question mark at the "Reconsideration and consolidation" mention. For all practical purposes, Wikipedia treats it as a Lambeosaurus, so keeping the question mark is just pointlessly confusing. Okay, fair enough The only people links in the reference that are not in the article are Weishampel and Norman. All other (especially seeing as most are repeated) can reasonably go. How about a temporary compromise, wherein I take out all the repeats? I kind of like to have at least one link there to the relevant article. Certainly an amelioration. Is there a specific reason so few specific specimens are mentioned. I like tat aspect of other dino article, but then I'm nerdy like that. Okay ==Intro== are well-known at this point. Done "are currently well known" or "have been the topic of much studies" etc. okay The taxonomy of Lambeosaurus has had a complicated history Done Maybe just "The genus has had a complicated taxonomical history" okay small crested Done Is it an error for "small-crested" or does it mean "small-sized crested"? Both descriptions are truthful, but the "small bodied with crest" connotation is more important That sentence and the previous one are slightly repeating themselves. Done I agree; I switched them around, but I don't think that has totally fixed it yet. I do think they work better in the reversed order They do social functions, like noisemaking and recognition. Done drop that comma okay that large ?L. laticaudus was Done that the larger since its great size was already addressed a couple of sentences above, I decided it didn't need repeating. ==Description== and vertically-stacked hollow chambers in the front within the crest.Y I don't like this phrase, though I can't see what to do with it at the moment I think I got it Tried to further tweak it, but I suspect we'll eventually decide to rewrite the entire sentence from scratch. How's this version? all fours as shown by footprints of related animals. Done ad a comma before "as" okay preventing it Done "that prevented it" minus the comma in front okay is the lack of a thumb relative to humans or related dinosaurs? Done That one turned out to need more work, since most people are probably unfamiliar with the idea of finger counts and the order they go in. I like the explanation pompadour needs disambiguation Done okay its great size and very tall tail. Done "very tall tail" doesn't seem to make much sense to non-anatomist lil' me How does "deep" strike you? Perhaps "vertical" should get into the act as well somewhere. Still doesn't mean anything to me, I'm afraid. Maybe rework it by describing the tail's attachment instead of the tail itself...? Well, the tail itself in profile is tall; I tried another tack by describing the bones concerned. Better. ==Classification== little to separate them Done "separating" okay in the tribe Lambeosaurini, but this has not been formally defined. Done "in a tribe Lambeosaurini, but such a tribe has not yet been formally defined." okay made up Corythosaurini. Done "makes", maybe? "Make"? Oh, right. ==Discovery and history== All those parenthesised names are just making a whole lot of confusion. Use one name (ideally the one the authors of the time used instead of looking like you don't now which way to go. Paleontological conventions are all fine and dandy, but I've said it before: this is a general encyclopedia, not a paleontological book. Done Er, that's what it was called; at that point and to that author, Pteropelyx was a subgenus of Trachodon. I'm not sure mentioning a subgenus that gathers no mention in the genus article is necessary, then. Okay. I cut it out. Linking paleontologist (redirect to paleontology) looks pretty pointless to me. Done okay (then called the Belly River Formation) Done Interesting, but ultimately unnecessary parenthetical note. It would be better placed in Dinosaur Park Formation itself. Okay Lambe decided that two skulls belonged to T. marginatus and were evidence that it deserved a new genus, which he named Stephanosaurus marginatus in 1914. Done This sentence might do a poor job of summarizing because (haven't read the next part) it makes little sense to me. "Decided" is probably a poor choice of verb too. I think it's more graceful now. ==New species and procheneosaurs== The intro lacks any context, and again makes almost no sense at all. I expect a "restart" with the "intro" text being a summary of the two next sections, but this section sounds like it picks where the previous left, which is not the case and... *head asplodes* I have to say this is one of your least clear work on taxonomic history, people. Now returning to your scheduled copyediting... a left upper jaw from the Dinosaur Park Formation, described by Henry Fairfield Osborn Done Drop that comma okay It was referred to as Trachodon (Pteropelyx) altidens by Lambe Done Did he used that name,with the actual parentheses? (oh gawds...) Yes. No comment. See above re: the same. It's gone. Parks believed that this was inadequate. Done What "this"? The name? The attribution? The new genus? The naming And this whole thing is swerving wildly without a clear linking between the species. Tried to help out a bit with the magic of nouns. definitely better the type species Tetragonosaurus praeceps and second species T. erectofrons' Done Missing a "a" somewhere, I think okay Procheneosaurus praeceps and altidens have become probable synonyms of Lambeosaurus lambei, Done Let's be a bit more categoric here: "are considered likely synonyms of" (with link to synonym (taxonomy)) okay although both predate that name and should technically be suppressed. Consider rewriting that ("suppressed"??) or dropping it entirely. A source would be a good idea too. "Suppressed" is actually the term used, although it certainly reeks of human power politics. Basically, the names are both older than Lambeosaurus lambei, so the correct binomial becomes Procheneosaurus altidens (oldest genus, oldest species) if taken to the extreme. I know that, I was just surprised, probably because I'm more used to "rejected" I think this section would gain from starting with making the preocheneosaurus-lambeosaurus link sooner. Done How's the first sentence work for you now? I'm trying to get away from my essayist instincts here. Works like a charm ==Reconsideration and consolidation== in a short geological time frame and in a small area Done "within such a short geological time frame and small area" okay ==Species== L. magnicristatus (C.M. Sternberg, 1935) is only known from two specimens, both with skulls; unfortunately, the majority of the articulated skeleton of the type specimen was extensively damaged by water while in storage and was discarded before description; other portions of this skeleton have also been lost. Done I'm not sure the long sentence with semi-colon is needed, especially as it's not aimed to wrap everything for a reference. Took out the first semicolon. I was thinking about breaking the sentence, actually. Okay. I split it again. I'm not sure which section is best for that, but there should some details on why the placement of L. laticaudatus is so uncertain. Not done Probably here is best, so I inserted a couple of sentences. Actually, what you added does not explain why the placement is uncertain (or did the material from "locomotion" accidentally overwrite it?) Are you sure you're in the right section? In the species section, the wording is: "Morris used a question mark in his work because no complete crest had been found for his species, and without it a definitive assignment could not be made. From what was known of the skull, he considered it to be most like Lambeosaurus." Yeah, I didn't see that part, which I thought should have been added in the paragraph where it is first said "because he could not definitely assign it to Lambeosaurus but found it to be most like that genus." My screw-up. I put it in the wrong place and then wrote essentially the same sentence to go with it. Is there some sort of prize for a double error like that? Upon further review, I agree that it should go with the earlier paragraph. L. paucidens is regarded as a dubious name in the review, and is listed under Hadrosaurus paucidens, although at least one author, Donald F. Glut, has accepted it. Done Drop "the review", since it's pretty much the current consensus. The sentence seems funny without using some form of "the review", although I think it works better after the second clause. Indeed, it does use "accepts", "has accepted" implies he does not anymore Done okay' ==paleoecology== I'm not sure the semicolons really make the enumeration more legible. Done Okay, how about commas? looks okay, but then I suspectit'll end up going back and forth in the long run anyway L. lambei was common, but L. magnicristatus was rare and only present at the top of the formation, where the marine influence was greater. Done You compare a live species and a fossil here. Combined this with part of the troublesome paragraph from below. I think I liked it more with 2 paragraphs (though admittedly I'm not sure where a break can be introduced) ==Feeding== dental batteries that contained hundreds of teeth Done Hundreds per battery (!) or hundreds total? Both are accurate to a degree; I don't have exact numbers for Lambey, and it varies by size, but a typical lambeosaurine count is 40-45 tooth positions per battery, 3-4 teeth per position, giving 120-180 per battery and 480-720 per jaw, so "over 100 each" is pretty safe. okay ==Cranial crest== The large size of hadrosaurid eye sockets and the presence of sclerotic rings in the eyes imply acute vision and diurnal habits, evidence that sight was important to these animals. Done Unless that's from Hopson, a source would be a good idea here. That's Hopson, also repeated in Norman 1985 age and gender differences are more likely than having "more likely explanations" removed as redundant Along these lines "For that reason" removed as redundant Additionally, because of differing layouts of the nasal passages, the three species would have had intrinsically different sounds if their hollow crests were used for vocalization. Blends very poorly with the rest of the paragraph, which describes temporal placement and likeliness of age/sex difference. Sound more like an argument for separating them than like something pertinent to "Paleobiology" The whole paragraph, actually, is slightly out of place in that regard, as it does not describe the impact of the crest on their biology/ethology as much as its taxonomic implications Upon further review, much of the paragraph had already been stated before in other places, and the part about stratigraphic separation makes much more sense in Paleoecology. ==Locomotion== Rename that section or add more on the terrestrial locomotion of the genus For example, hadrosaurid tails are heavily reinforced by ossified tendons, reducing their flexibility, and their posture is shown by many skeletons to have been more like a quadrupedal animal than the classic tripodal posture, which would have reduced the stress on its hips. Make it clearer those are counter-arguments to Morris,not the aquatic hypothesis as a whole. Done This section wasn't really fair, as the second half was about hadrosaurids in general as no one has commented on his specific interpretations. Therefore, I took part and added it to the earlier discussion on L. laticaudus, and deleted the rest. See above re: the effects of that reworking

Last edited at 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lambeosaurus. 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/20141006113229/http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/fae/DBWpdf/R3_1981aWeishampel.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

@FunkMonk: I don't think this has been covered before. Why is our taxobox image so cropped? It just shows the skull and the neck, nothing else. Wouldn't a image of the Royal Tyrrell mount be better? I think it's good to show as much of the animal as possible in the taxobox image.BleachedRice (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Maybe this one?

I feel the current one is a lot easier to makeout as a thumb at a glance than the proposed new one. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that mount is that the tail is unnaturally curved downwards. It seems it wouldn't have been allowed by the ossified tendons in life. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)