Talk:Pseudolagosuchus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudolagosuchus redirect.
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

Dinosaurs

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles

Palaeontology

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

Merger with Lewisuchus

These two names have been tentatively considered separate for a while due to absence of clear evidence towards their synonymy. However, now we know of a specimen (CRILAR-Pv 552) which demonstrates that the two represent the same animal. There isn't really a synonymy debate like, say, Torosaurus and Triceratops, so I'm proposing a merger between this page and Lewisuchus. We don't need two pages of the exact same taxon. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - pretty short article too, so a merge should be easy. Also note the similar situation with Lagosuchus and Marasuchus [1]... FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the 2019 paper we have the synonymization data needed.--Kev min § 15:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose only for the reason that Bittencourt et al. 2014 said they were not synonyms, and the authorities of the two papers have no overlap. Future discussion will probably happen. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than directly stating that the two were not synonyms, Bittencourt et al. (2014) said "the available information from the material attributed to any of these taxa is not enough for a formal synonymization between them". They weren't necessarily opposed to the idea that they were synonyms, they just recognized that at the time there just wasn't enough overlapping material to compare or contrast the two to determine whether they were synonyms or not. That was written prior to the description of CRILAR-Pv 552, which possesses the combination of features considered diagnostic for Pseudolagosuchus along with those diagnostic for Lewisuchus. It's the overlapping material that Bittencourt et al. needed, and I doubt that they'd be opposed to synonymy at this point. The second author, Andrea Arcucci, named Pseudolagosuchus and even she has wanted to synonymize them in the past. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the 2019 paper was the final nail in the coffin for Pseudolagosuchus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]