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
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
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Zapsalis redirects here, but the article states it might be a synonym of Richardoestesia? FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Larson & Currie 2013 acknowledge Zapsalis as a valid separate taxon (see page 9: "Zapsalis abradens, in the current study, is regarded as valid because the distinct morphology is absent in the type specimen of Dromaeosaurus albertensis"). It therefore needs an article of its own.--MWAK (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, haven't read the paper, though I took the photo from there. Yup, seems it needs an article. I see there's already one in Dutch, wonder who made it! FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We Dutch are blessed with the gift of Foresight :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
