Talk:Montealtosuchus

	Montealtosuchus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile 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.

Changes to article; page move

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The page move has been reverted, as the article is about the species, not the genus. The other changes to the article seem to be contradictory to the original facts. Please state your sources. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the previous version. This brings this article into line with that of other monogeneric genera, i.e. the genus is given its own article page not the binomen (see Carcharodontosaurus, Uberabasuchus, Mahajangasuchus, etc. etc.). Also, a good deal of the information on the previous version was wrong. It is known from Turonian-Santonian deposits, not Campanian; plus the line "is thought to be the missing link between present-day and prehistoric crocodiles" is a clear copy from a news article [1] and not actually in the published paper (and strictly speaking unture). It was described in 2007, not 2004. Mark t young (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mark, sorry for the confusion. Looks like this is my second big goof-up this week!

Did I forget to cite that news article? I thought I cited it. I'll have to check the history. Also, it's not word-for-word at all.

I see now that the paper does say 2007. It looks like 2004 was the date of discovery, not publication. I'll go ahead and mention that in the article.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of the article being on the genus instead of the species, but standards are standards. I suppose I ought to make appropriate changes on the Nichollsia (plesiosaur) and Nichollsia borealis pages as well. I'm still looking for a species paper on that one, though. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally I prefer the idea of articles of monogeneric genera being "on" the genus rather than species, but only for monogeneric ones. If there is another species found, you can always resurrect the other one :) Mark t young (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic