Talk:Postosuchus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Postosuchus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Palaeontology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Postosuchus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rauisuchid or poposaurid?[edit]

The Rauisuchidae page lists Postosuchus as one of the genuses belonging to that family, but here it says it belongs to the Poposauridae. Which is right? Jerkov 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally Postosuchus was considered a rauisuchid, but Paul Sereno 2005 defines the Rauisuchidae as "The most inclusive clade containing Rauisuchus tiradentes Huene 1942 but not Aetosaurus ferratus Fraas 1877, Prestosuchus chiniquensis Huene 1942, Poposaurus gracilis Mehl 1915, or Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti 1768. --Firsfron 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The groups Poposauridae and Rauisuchidae have been confused since Chatterjee's 1985 paper on Postosuchus, which he names a poposaurid. However, his discription is based on 3 separate taxa, 2 of which, were poposaurids. Thus Postosuchus is not a poposaurid, but what would be considered traditionally, a rauisuchid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.144.231 (talk • contribs)

You may be right, but you're going to need to publish this before modifying the article. This is an encylcopedia, not the JVP.Dinoguy2 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Triassic Carnivore?[edit]

I remember in Walking with Dinos the Narrorator guy says Postosuchus was the largest carnivore on earth. Give the "You-are-there" feeling of the program I assume he ment the Largest Carnivore of the Triassic. Is this true? Was Postosuchus the largest carnivore of the triassic? In North America yes but there were larger carnivores than Postosuchus

Is Postosuchus a dinosaur? 96.229.179.106 (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but like a lot of big predatory "thecodonts", it was once thought to be a dinosaur. J. Spencer (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah like said above they were a type of reptilen that was closely related to the dinos it also ate dinos as you may konw Secthayrabe (talk) 13:04, 13 september 2008 (UTC)

Height[edit]

"Postosuchus was one of the largest carnivorous reptiles during the late Triassic, reaching up to 4 meters (13 ft) in length and 2 meters (6.5 ft) in height"

That line doesn't make much sense, regarding height, this is a reptile, meaning the tail is close to half the total lenght and at 4-5m it certainly won't be 2m tall at anywhere, the source is incomplete though I could find it (Postosuchus, a new thecodontian reptile from the Triassic of Texas and the origin of tyrannosaurs) but I can't access it to verify such claim. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I've read the source, what is cited here appears in page 432 but some things are omited here, first, they're based on a very innacurate skeletal and life restoration by today standards (figures 19 and 20) and second, it says that is 2m at the head as standing, what does the text mean by standing? given how its only 1.5m tall at the head in the skeletal it's most likely that is 2m tall in tripod pose. I will remove that part of the text as height in tripod pose is an outdated measure. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, it certainly wouldn't be able to hold it's head like that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of inaccurate skeletal reconstructions, does anyone know why some skull reconstructions show the upper profile as concave, and others convex? What is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postosuchus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructed skulls[edit]

The skulls we have images of either show a concave or convex upper profile. Is this due to updates to reconstructions, or differences between species? FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]