Talk:Hainosaurus

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Tylosaurus
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Tylosaurus

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Hainosaurus 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hainosaurus wasn't on Sea Monsters

Although it may be possible, I doubt that Hainosaurus was the 50 foot-long giant in the BBC program Sea Monsters. I have recently checked on The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life and it is revealed that Tylosaurus was the one featured on Sea Monsters, not Hainosaurus. There was another sea-dweller, Halisaurus, but he was much much shorter, about 4 meters in length. Would someone please change the written article and write on the Tylosaurus article that Tylosaurus was featured on Sea Monsters? Radical3 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic, actually. 50.111.60.168 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tylosaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Looks like the consensus is to merge on the basis of junior synonymy, with Otodus and Cathetosaurus as precedents. Macrophyseter | talk 02:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the general consensus for the last decade is that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym of Tylosaurus, so is the practice to merge these two? I don't imagine we have completely separate articles for junior synonyms User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be based on this 2015 paper?[1] But yeah, should be merged then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when exactly the practice is to merge the articles of two genera due to synonymization. Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell appear to be sticking to their 2016 synonymization in more recent work, maintaining that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym (they also interestingly dismiss Kaikaifilu as a nomen dubium). Others have accepted the synonymization as well, such as Madzia & Cau (2017), and I can't find any respones that attempt to refute it. The name sometimes continues to be used in practice however, prominently by researchers in Germany (example 1, example 2) and Sweden (example 1; though not much work on the mosasaurs in Sweden since 2016) to refer to fragmentary fossil material similar to H./T. bernardi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any disagreement, I think it's best to keep them separate for now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there have not been any papers rebutting the synonymization of Hainosaurus into Tylosaurus, combined with the fact it frequently clades within Tylosaurus in phylogenetic analyses, I do think said synonymy is solid enough at this time that the pages on Wikipedia should be merged. Pryftan213 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument for keeping Hainosaurus distinct is in that the dental differences between T. bernardi and typical Tylosaurus are distinct enough. However, this doesn't address the paraphyly issue brought up by multiple phylogenetic studies at all, so even if we recognize the dental differences as being very great, it wouldn't be cladistically valid to grant a distinct genus. Otherwise, we should also bring back the Carcharocles articles despite the fact that the taxon's paraphyly hasn't been strongly disputed yet (as with Hainosaurus, the existing arguments center on dental differences and appear to come from scientists who are more liberal with applying phylogenetic conventions). Macrophyseter | talk 21:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna drop in here again to say this page really should be merged with Tylosaurus. As Macrophyseter stated above, "Hainosaurus" is now firmly within the genus Tylosaurus so there is no reason to still maintain a separate article. Pryftan213 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a parallel to the Cathetosaurus situation. I think the info here could be folded into the Tylosaurus article if it is broken up and placed into that article chronologically. For example, if one study found various positions for the species, add it there, instead of as a block only about Hainosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might've only just noticed that the discussion was taking place here, and not on the talk page in the notice (oops). Silly of me. Anyways, yeah, I proposed the merger because Hainosaurus seems to be firmly within Tylosaurus. Cheers, --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.