Talk:Zapsalis

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

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

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synonym of Saurornitholestes langstoni

According to this new paper[1] describing a complete skull of Saurornitholestes langstoni, Zapsalis just represents the second premaxillary teeth of that taxon, and is therefore a synonym. Should we go ahead and merge it, as it seems a clear cut case, or wait for it to be acknoelwdged by others, which could take years? FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it I dont think there will be much opposition. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the authors hold back on synonymising the two—in fact they explicitly recommend keeping them separate—on the basis that the holotype tooth of Zapsalis differs slightly from the equivalent teeth of Saurornitholestes, and that they belong to two distinguishable forms of teeth that seem to vary between different formations. They acknowledge that they are evidently closely related, but are probably distinguishable at least at the species level and recommend maintaining their generic distinction "pending the discovery of associated skeletal material from the Judith River Formation of Montana". DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 05:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't get the full paper yet, so I see the line "teeth previously identified in the Dinosaur Park Formation as Zapsalis abradens can now be identified as the second premaxillary tooth of S. langstoni" does not necessarily refer to the holoype, which is from the Judith River Formation... I'll remove the merge request then, but at least the articles should be updated. Cool with the prompt responses! FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]