Talk:Citipati

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance 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 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.

This may be wishful thinking, as I always knew the famous tall crested dinosaur as Oviraptor during my childhood, but is it possible that Oviraptor and Citipati are simply two different genders of the same species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Theft Victim (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are not present at the same sites and the morphological differences are quite large. Besides, the holotype of Oviraptor was apparently also a female, her crest is unknown and the famous brooding Citipati specimina are crested.--MWAK (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Citipati is also quite a bit larger. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself says this specimen may or may not be Citipati "pending further study". Lü et al. (2004)[1] found this specimen to be Oviraptor philoceratops' sister taxon. Senter (2007)[2] placed it distant from both Oviraptor and Citipati. The analysis of Hartman et al. (2019) found Citipati to have been more closely related to Anomalipes than to IGM 100/42. How should this be dealt with here? Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you laid it out above, give all opinions without taking sides. In the end it'll most likely end up in a new genus anyway, if it ever stops being on traveling exhibit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]