Talk:Mosasaur

Update regarding dallasaurus turneri was made by me. I forgot to log in. Kyaa the Catlord 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Tail Flukes

The tail fluke theory needs to be threated for what it actually is, a theory. We have no proof other than one supposed skeleton whick in all actuality shows little more than the articulation found in nearly every mosasaur fossil found, and the fossil in question isn't articulated nearly as much as several other fossils.

First off, "theory" is not synonymous with "guess" or "hypothesis" like you're implying in your first sentence. Secondly, this paper [1] presents evidence that mosasaurs had tail flukes due to the articulation of tail vertebrae. Do you have a verifiable source presenting counterevidence to show that this is not so?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lizards

Should we just go ahead and call them "swimming lizards"? - as that's what they are, and it's a shame to pass up a popular term when it seems to be accurate. Thoughts? John.Conway 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as, after all, taxonomically speaking, both they and snakes are lizards, too.--Mr Fink 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree, snakes diverged from lizards and are not regarded as so. An extict genera, species is hard to speculate there relationship to other animals, as it might change in the future. I havnt come accross this term either of describing them. Enlil Ninlil 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For snakes it is probably unwise to refer to them as lizards. For mosasaurs, however, they are indeed exceptionally large sea-dwelling lizards, their closest living relatives are monitor lizards like the Komodo dragon and Nile monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mesosaurs?

I am currently taking a comparative vertebrate anatomy class, and our text (the latest edition) refers to these animals as mesosaurs. If requested, I could provide a citation or ISBN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.28.98 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mesosaurus is a totally different reptile all together.--Mr Fink 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mosasaur-snake clade

I've made the statement more assertive: "These ferocious marine predators are now considered to be the closest relatives of snakes." In the decade since Lee's article of 1997, has this been fundamentally challenged? Any essential adjustments that have been published should be referred to. --Wetman (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Caldwell and Palci (2007), describing Komensaurus (an "aigialosaur") still use Anguimorpha as the host for Mosasauroidea. J. Spencer (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fossil range

I found it appropriate to add a fossil range box (slight improvement to the article), but I'm not sure about the starting date. Anyone with better information, please change this. --Heburnslikethesun (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page needs cleanup

The stuff at the top which is a lot of subjective propaganda should be discarded. Is of little relevance or help to the article at hand. And by the way, who makes these evaluations, and why is it so cumbersome to revise and improve. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh its not hard to change if you go through the proper channels that you have been directed to a number of times on various talk pages.--Kevmin § 00:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You may have, but I don't recall and have no record of it. The format here doesn't seem to provide for direct edit of the top entry as do some. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox

The automatic taxobox, added 26 Nov. 2010 to replace the regular straight forward taxobox, adds nothing to the content or quality of the article and requires extra cumbersome steps to revise. I realize there are those who have put a lot of effort - so it appears- into creating taxonomy templates, which might be linked as references but not used to create auto taxoboxes which should be done away with. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to the talk page of template:Automatic taxobox. --Kevmin § 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It belongs here since it applies to this page. I'll leave it as is, at least for now, but will take the direct approach if I find a valid reason to revise the taxonomy. Remember taxonomies aren't absolutes.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a discussion on the overall use of the automatic taxobox template and as such should be on the talk page there where a much wider audience will see it and respond.--Kevmin § 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambo

^ This may merit a "See Also" link. It may seem silly, but is peripherally relevant; anybody interested in this article would be interested in that article, if only for a moment. I write here because I don't know how to do it :)

121.91.98.64 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is a gambo even peripherally relevant? No mosasaur has been made into one, and gambos do not resemble mosasaurs.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hainosaurus length

The article on the Hainosaurus [[2]] states that the estimate of 17 meters is an old and no longer supported one, but this article claims it to be the current belief. Maybe a correction is needed in one of the two articles. Skomakar'n (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pharyngeal jaws?

The Discovery Channel documentary Mega Beasts: T-Rexs of the Deep depicts Mosasaurus as using its pterygoid teeth like an eel's pharyngeal jaw and being capable of primitive echolocation. Is this the truth - Discovery Channel's documentaries have been known to exaggerate facts and make assumptions that aren't necessarily true - and if so should it be added to the anatomy section? 207.216.193.21 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers references that are peer-reviewed and or are reputable. Given the tremendous lack of quality in recent Discovery/Animal/History Channel documentaries, I strongly advice against using them as references.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Abyssal (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the palaeontologists they consult count as reputable sources? 207.216.193.21 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)