Talk:Karamuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Karamuru not a valid taxon[edit]

I've done some digging and this is what I've gathered so far. "Karamuru" is based on a skull (88cm long including lower jaw) and a presacral vertebrae with articulated osteoderms originally described by Barberana (1978) catalogued as UFRGS 0156-T. To find out its phylogenetic position, Parrish, 1993 scored it and the holotype of Prestosuchus chiniquensis as separated terminal taxa and found both specimen indistinguishable from each other, he then assigned UFRGS 0156-T to P. chiniquensis. This was challenged by Kislatch (2000) which proposed a set of autopomorphic features as said in Langer et al. (2007) and erected the taxon Karamuru vorax for this specimen but it seems Kislatch never made a proper proposal of this name, like in which paper did he named it? no one seems to know, rendering it pretty much a nomen nudum, this hypothesis by Kislatch (2000) seems to have been overturned by the phylogenetic analysis of Nesbitt (2011) which along with a new, pretty much complete specimen catalogued UFRGS 0152-T, ended up indistinguishable from each other; they formed a polytopomy when scored as separate taxa and retained the same position in the analysis even when combined as a single OTU.

Thoughts? should we merge this page with Prestosuchus? Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)