Talk:Carnotaurinae

Taxonomy Problem

Throughout the next few days I will be performing heavy revisions on the taxonomies of subgroups of this clade, kike the fact that the subdivisions list does not even mention Furileusauria, Carnotaurinae is synonymous with Brachyrostra, Carnotaurini needs its own page or at least to be redirected to Furileusauria and not Carnotaurinae, and whether or not the ditypic newly named Abelisaurinae needs a page. ---Hiroizmeh (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Carnotaurinae isn't a synonym of Brachyrostra since Brachyrostra means all taxa closer to Carnotaurus than Majungasaurus, while Carnotaurinae means all taxa closer to Carnotaurus than Abelisaurus. Meekororum (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposals

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.

The result of this discussion was unanimous support for the suggested merges. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Support: The merges were initially proposed at WT:DINO as part of a larger discussion. Furileusauria and Carnotaurini have little independent value and only serve as nodes to distinguish each taxon's relatedness to Carnotaurus, which could easily be included within the scope of this article. I'm currently drafting a merged article in my sandbox that I'll post here when it's complete. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft of the merged article is here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - kind of curious whether this page should be Carnotaurinae or Brachyrostra, but the merges would be applicable either way. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  They appear to have the same, or at least very similar definitions. But Carnotaurinae has priority because it was erected first. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Right, but are they used in equal measure? Abelisaurs aren't my strongsuit but I get the impression Brachyrostra sees more use, namely due to its much more stable definition. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Google scholar gets 117 hits for "Carnotaurinae" and 82 hits for "Brachyrostra", so there doesn't seem to be a clear preference in the literature. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Correct Name

I know that the name Carnotaurinae was chosen for this article a few months ago, but looking into the phylogenetic definition, it turns out Sereno's original definition of the clade is quite different from that of Brachyrostra, since it uses Abelisaurus rather than Majungasaurus as the external specifier. Carnotaurinae only exists under certain uncommon phylogenies which have Abelisaurus more closely related to Majungasaurus than Carnotaurus, but most of the literature groups the South American abelisaurids as one clade separate from Majungasaurus. Maybe this page should be named Brachyrostra instead? Just putting it out there and would be interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts. Meekororum (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. If your assessment based on the literature is that Brachyrosta is more appropriate, then I'm fine deferring to that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)