Talk:Tuojiangosaurus

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.

Shoulder spikes

The December 2007 issue of National Geographic says that tuojiangosaurus had an extra pair of spikes coming out through the shoulders. Why do other sources not show them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.246.227.19 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably based on the old misidentification of Gigantspinosaurus as a Tuojiangosaurus exemplar. Remember that the shoulder spines are not parts of the skeleton peeking through :o). They are skin ossifications covered by horn.--MWAK (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of tail spikes

Gregory S. Paul restores this with three pairs of tail spikes in his 2010 field guide. What is the basis for this, and is it even valid? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thagomizer arrangement shown by Paul is based on the "Chungkingosaurus sp. 3" specimen CV 00208, an articulated tail end with spikes. Paul assumes that the four Chungkingosaurus species and Tuojiangosaurus are one and the same. Maidment (2006) concludes that Chungkingosaurus is valid but most of the material could not be found (indeed of both genera!). Reading Dong (1983), I personally believe Paul is right as the qualitative distinguishing traits suggested are indeed vague, illusions caused by damage or ontology-dependent. That leaves the size difference but Chungkingosaurus specimen CV 00207 is a pelvis larger than that of Tuojiangosaurus.--MWAK (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Correction: Dong apparently meant "larger than the Chunkingosaurus holotype". Well, CV 00205 is still estimated at longer than five metres...--MWAK (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]