Talk:Ornithodesmus

This article is rated Start-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.

I know Ornithodesmus has been classified as a bird, pterosaur and a troodontid dinosaur, and that it's certainly not a bird, but I'm not sure whether it is considered a dinosaur or a pterosaur now. With the taxobox I just added I decided to follow the article's current content, but a definitive answer would be welcome. Jerkov 12:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now considered to be a dinosaur. All pterosaurian material has been assigned to the genus Istiodactylus.--Apatomerus 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to some reconstructions it was possible to imagine how this animal could present itself, whose main feature was its beak-shaped shoe equipped with strong teeth, like a toothed spoon to better catch the fish while flying."

The meaning of this sentence is incomprehensible to me. It seems like it is describing the pterosaur. I have removed it.

Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added (or left over?) from a source that still considered this specimen a synonym of Istiodactylus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my naïvité, but I was of the understanding that "Ornithodesmus" was placed within Dromaeosauridae, and that would appear to be what this article suggests, but the cladogram at the bottom has it listed as a possible Unenlagiid. Is this correct and if so, does the article need tweaking? Which cladogram is the Wikipedia one based on? 2A01:388:2AD:150:0:0:1:205 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 2019 study considered Ornithodesmus an unenlagiine, and found that unenlagiines and halszakarptorines were outisde family Dromaeosauridae, which was closer to Troodontidae according to that study. Yet, many other papers mantain that Unenlagiinae is part of Dromaeosauridae so the situation is ambiguous.Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]