Given the internal debate we witnessed with yesterday's articles, it is fairly understandable how some paleontologists think that Hadrosaurus is a viable name and others say that it is not a viable name. Regardless of that argument, the people in Haddonfield, New Jersey are not about to relinquish their town's sculpture of the Hadrosaurus that was found in their backyard. The second article yesterday stating that there are some characters available in that small mixed bag of bones which constitute the type specimen of Hadrosaurus I still have not been able to read, but the fact that a detractor had a second look and changed his opinion means that there must simply be quite a bit of evidence that was overlooked the first time (I highly doubt that the people of Haddonfield were beating down his door to restore the validity of the name of Hadrosaurus). Of course, as I stated before, the only sure way to really save Hadrosaurus from this debate would be to find more skeletal elements that possess the same traits that Prieto-Marquez was going to explain in that newer article as allowing Hadrosaurus to retain its validity as a scientific name. That would require the people of Haddonfield, or some investigative spirit on the East Coast at least, to begin poking and prodding all around New Jersey and other likely states with outcroppings or erosion sites of similar geological age to the marl pit that contained Hadrosaurus' type specimen remains. The characters in the leg, arm, vertebrae, and other associated bits can be used to identify other remains of the animal and then those characters can be used to more fully describe and differentiate Hadrosaurus from other dinosaurs. Our wish for Hadrosaurus then is more fossils!