Talk:Iguanodon

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Iguanodon new NT.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Re Mantell: "His passing" is a bit twee, isn't it? If you mean his death, why not say it? Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Over at the Wikiproject paleontology discord, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the new paper splitting I. galvensis from Iguanodon into the new genus Paulodon . Several objections have been raised, namely:

• 1. That despite the (relatively new) journal Mesozoic being published by the generally reputable Magnolia Press (who publishes journals like Zootaxa), there is no evidence of a high standard of peer review, particularly within vertebrate paleontology, due to the fact there are numerous errors throughout the manuscript (such as at one point referring to "unnamed genus galvensis" as if the publication did not name Paulodon) that any serious pre-publication review would have caught. This means that the reputation of the manuscript stands on that of the authors alone.
• 2. That these authors seem to be amateurs with no real reputation of being recognised subject matter experts within the field of dinosaur paleontology.

As such, I propose that Paulodon be made a redirect back into Iguanodon until other paleontologists who are clearly subject matter experts have weighed in on the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the paper specifically stated that "we propose referring to the Galve material provisionally as unnamed genus galvensis" while also naming a new genus, and that the abbreviated "ug galvensis" has been used 5 times within the paper, Paulodon can be considered a conditional proposal in my opinion, which does not satisfy ICZN article 15; I'd argue it also does not satisfy article 16 and Appendix B.

Regardless of the concerns above, there has been a precedent when a new genus has been named for a particular species, but the Wikipedia article for that species has not been renamed until at least two years before there was some form of acceptance among other researchers that the species does differ from its original genus assignment (e.g. Palaeopanthera). Therefore, support merge for now. Junsik1223 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Also supporting a merge for now. The anatomical descriptions are so spurious as to be practically pseudoscientific (not to mention unethical) and I don't think the existence of "Paulodon" can be treated as any kind of scientific fact until actual dinosaur palaeontologists weigh in on the manner formally. I understand it is our position to accurately report, not to judge, but it seems against the spirit of Wikipedia to platform such a fringe "study" as this one. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No paleontologist has corroborated the generic separation, yes, but no one has formally lodged criticism against this ostensibly peer-reviewed paper either. All the criticism has been in informal channels, which may not count as WP:Reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards. Until a formal paper comes out criticizing the name, the paper, or the authors, I’d say hold off the merge. Atlantis536 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

But see WP:TOOSOON. This topic is controversial, and as long as we only have this single source, we cannot be neutral about it. Merge for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Also support a merge as there has been numerous informal criticism of this name by reputable authors, which has been used before as a threshold for considering decisions. We are not obligated to give every potential genus its own article, and in this case I would rather not for the time being. Jens' response captures the situation well, we cannot be neutral at this time and having the article exist in itself goes against that neutrality and published consensus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty blatant example of taxonomic vandalism in pursuit of naming rights. Similar story regarding Paul & Sancarlo’s insistence that Nanotyrannus can be split into a myriad of different genera, christening each specimen with a new genus and species combination (namely Eleganstyrannus and Gilmorelarsontyrannus; as a side note, these are among the clunkiest taxon names I’ve seen). In both examples, Paul and Sancarlo have made basic anatomical errors as they have based their research on photographs and figures from other authors instead of viewing specimens first hand. Additionally, they haven’t contacted the requisite institutions/authors to ask their progress on the specimens they are studying. Zanno & Napoli had express permission from the Burpee to study BMRP 2002.4.1 (Jane) as apart of their Duelling Dinosaurs project, while allowing Carr et al. to have priority in their description of Jane. Paul & Sancarlo did not show such professionalism. Sancarlo et al. did not contact the workers currently studying the “Iguanodon” galvensis material, among them a PhD student studying the material for their thesis. It is both a professional courtesy and the ethical way to approach research, something that Paul and Sancarlo have avoided because the allure of naming rights is too great. The only difference between each paper is that the Eleganstyrannus/Gilmoretyrannus research is a preprint and this is published. Discussions on the Dinosaur Mailing List reveal that no palaeontologist worth their salt would adopt these names (instead begging for retractions), allowing priority to the workers currently researching Nanotyrannus and “Iguanodon” galvensis. Contrary to the ICZN, whether or not a name is adopted is at the discretion of other workers. Regardless, I agree with the notion that Paulodon does not satisfy Article 15, Article 16, or Appendix B, and thus cannot be adopted (that said, Paulodon will probably remain the oldest generic name for “Iguanodon” galvensis even if the paper is retracted). Ultimately, Paulodon should be sunk into the Iguanodon article with a paragraph on Sancarlo et al. It satisfies the necessity for impartially reporting on that data, as well as being mindful of discussions surrounding the unethical and unprofessional nature of Paulodon’s naming, if not stated explicitly. ~2025-41584-35 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

About Paulodon potentially still being an available name even if the paper would be retracted -- note a similar case happened before. The pterosaur Javelinadactylus sagebieli was named in mid-2021 based on a specimen that would end up being named Wellnhopterus brevirostris later that year in a major, long-in-progress monograph. The former name was also created to beat out the researchers who were studying the actual material. Javelinadactylus ended up being retracted at the describer's request and Wellnhopterus is now the accepted name for the taxon. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support merge per proposal — I was initially hesitant to respond here as I felt it unfair to preferentially dismiss the "Paulodon" paper based on perceived incompetencies without any "official" or "published" counterargument. But the situation is what it is: an unfortunate display of ignorance and ineptitude on the part of the authors, and their unprofessional and unethical approach was immediately met with extensive criticism from established researchers. Ultimately what is most important in terms of encyclopedic coverage is the fossil material (and the species), not whatever genus it has been placed under. The Iguanodon page is the appropriate place to discuss these things until better resolution can be achieved. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• Merge until the dust settles. This seems to be an extreme case of claim-jumping, as proper work on the actual material has been underway for years, only to be pre-empted by a shoddy paper based on tracings of old published figures. Same seems to be the case of Paul's recent tyrannosaur names, which is sad to see. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Paulodon's validity check and why not merge the pages... yet. If we are going to merge these two pages, its best to just wait. It hasn't been considered officially valid. If we are going to get an answer, let's wait at least a few days to find out. Maybe that's a topic for next year. Or maybe within the last 12 days of 2025, somebody might publish an article checking the validity of Paulodon and deeming it as valid or as Iguanodon again. Then we do something about the articles. Its only fair. Irritatorchallengeri313 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, I can confirm that the authors used "ug galvensis", and that I think its odd. They bring it up in the end of reason 1 of the differences between Iguanodon bernissartensis and I. galvensis. But the differences are noticable. Irritatorchallengeri313 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)