Talk:Steneosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Paraphyly[edit]

Steneosaurus is also recovered as paraphyletic with respect to Machimosaurus in the cladistic analysis of Young et. al. (2012). If an alpha-taxonomic review of Steneosaurus confirms the paraphyly of Steneosaurus, then Macrospondylus von Meyer, 1831 may be used for S. bollensis. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

But as for now, there's not much we can do here, or is there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Steneosaurus Holzmaden.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Steneosaurus Holzmaden.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 2, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Steneosaurus
A fossil of Steneosaurus bollensis, from the extinct genus of teleosaurid crocodyliforms Steneosaurus. This specimen was found in Holzmaden, Germany, and dates from the Early Jurassic (185 million years ago).Photograph: Didier Descouens


Split up[edit]

With recent cladistic analyses recovering Steneosaurus as paraphyetic with respect to Machimosaurus (Young et al. 2012), I am of the opinion that Aeolodon and Sericodon should be redirected to separate articles just in case an alpha-taxonomic revision of Steneosaurus finds Aeolodon and Sericodon more advanced than the type species of Steneosaurus. What is your take on my suggestion? Extrapolaris (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I think this needs to be suggested in print before we can do anything. There are many other similar situations, but we should only act when it is published. FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

History of Discovery[edit]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention the story of the discovery of the species - and the debate between Geoffroy and Cuvier?

PlotKrot (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)