Nedcolbertia
genus of reptiles (fossil)
Nedcolbertia is a genus of theropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous (Valanginian-aged) Cedar Mountain Formation of Utah. The type and only described species so far is N. justinhofmanni, known from at least three partial skeletons.
Discovery and naming
Three skeletons of a theropod were discovered in 1993 by Christopher Whittle near Cisco in the basal Yellow Cat Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation of Utah, dating to the Valanginian. These were subsequently studied and reported in 1995 by Kirkland, Britt, Madsen and Burge. Though in 1996 it had been announced that the taxon would be named "Nedcolbertia whittlei", in 1998 it was actually described and named by Kirkland, Whittle, Britt, Madsen and Burge as the type species Nedcolbertia justinhofmanni. The generic name honours the American palaeontologist Edwin Harris Colbert, known as "Ned" to his friends. The specific name honoured Justin Hofmann, a six-year-old school boy from Newton, New Jersey, a participant of a contest for children by Discover Card, the winner having a dinosaur named after him.
Description
The holotype, CEUM 5071, is one of the specimens, a partial skeleton lacking the skull. It belonged to a juvenile individual. The paratypes are the other two specimens: CEUM 5072 and CEUM 5073, both fragmentary skeletons again lacking the skull.
“Nedcolbertia” enters the record as genus of reptiles (fossil). Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Nedcolbertia, genus and reptiles can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Nedcolbertia” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Nedcolbertia, genus and reptiles provides the most credible route into that argument.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q2629075. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1998.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Nedcolbertia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Nedcolbertia primary sources, Nedcolbertia archive and Nedcolbertia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nedcolbertia”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Nedcolbertia” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.