Talk:Agustinia

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Status of Agustinia

The name Augustia is a nomen nudum, because Jose Bonaparte's 1998 paper that proposed this name was only one page long. Therefore, Augustia Bonaparte, 1998 is not considered pre-occupied.

Curry rogers (2005) confirms the placement of agustinia within Titanosauria.

K. A. Curry Rogers. 2005. Titanosauria: a phylogenetic overview. In J. A. Wilson & K. A. Curry Rogers (eds.), The Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. University of California Press, Berkeley 50-103

Does the beetle really have anything to do with the name?

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any evidence that the name "Augustia" was changed to Agustinia because of Augustia? It's named after a person named Agustin, so one would assume Agustinia would have been the intended name all along. I haven't been able to find the conference abstract in which the name "Augustia" allegedly appears; assuming that it does appear in the abstract, is there any reason to assume it isn't just a typo for the intended name Agustinia? Ornithopsis (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic