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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
That's actually Fabrosaurus australis, but such a species could not exist under the ICZN, because, it's the type species of Fabrosaurus, and Fabrosaurus predates Lesothosaurus, so to synonymize them would put everything under Fabrosaurus.
J. Spencer22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Actualy to my reseach on dino books,there is a same species to this dino(with same bones).Pls search it carefully. 18:25, 9 Feb 2013 (HK)10:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
218.103.247.199 (
Treehouse basher clubleader-Javy)
There are two possible problems with than one, though. Thee eye is largely too big, they would never fill up the entire orbit, only the inner circle of the sclerotic ring, and it looks like it's tipping over. The one we have already is more accurate in these regards.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Possible pronation?
I have a dinosaur-book that shows a Lesothosaurus skeleton with pronating-hands, which is odd 'cause the book's creator was careful to draw theropods, sauropodomorphs and heterodontosaurs with correct-hand-positions, but I'm stumped about this one being an exception (along with Hypsilophodon and its kin and pachycephalosaurs also being drawn with pronating-hands), so I'm confused.
184.186.4.209 (
talk)
22:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Ironically, heterodontosaurs are the most likely of any ornithischian to have been able to pronate their hands. This might have been an assumption based off the wrist rotation of heterodontosaurs, but I'm unsure about that if they were shown with non-pronation. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}}21:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It's dubious; it's more than likely the same animal but the material is too poor to know for sure. They're not treated as definite synonyms by the literature, hence why the younger name Lesothosaurus is used. No merge.
LittleLazyLass (
Talk |
Contributions)
02:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Lesothosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
From
Echinodon: Butler, P.M.; Sigogneau-Russell, D.; Ensom, P.C. (2012). "Possible persistence of the morganucodontans in the Lower Cretaceous Purbeck Limestone Group (Dorset, England)". Cretaceous Research. 33 (1): 135–145.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2011.09.007.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡15:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply