Talk:Buriolestes

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.

New Buriolestes paper

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A new paper about Buriolestes, showing an excellent new skeletom, has been released. The same paper also shows that silesaurids are ornithischians, rendering "Dracohors" as a synonym of Dinosauria. What does this mean for the Dinosaur Wikipedia? Here's the paper: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/zoolinnean/zly009/4996397?redirectedFrom=fulltext# Atlantis536 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In other words, does this mean we have to edit a lot of dinosaur-related articles, Buriolestes included, to match the new paper's findings? Atlantis536 (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is best to wait for some kind of scientific consensus, see also here:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 2018 paper's osteology is wonderfully comprehensive, and the idea about silesaurids being within Ornithischia was actually from the phylogenetic analysis in the original Buriolestes description, Cabreira et al. (2016). Honestly the issue is not directly relevant to Buriolestes itself, and the rest of the paper is very useful for the article. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic