Talk:Nuralagus

This article needs help

I would like to ask for expert help with this article. I have not come with much information about this lagomorph, most of the information has been translated from the catalan wiki and from articles related to the other balearic extinct animal Myotragus balearicus. We need the proper binominal name, I know it is a lagomorph but I am unsure of the family it belongs. Once this is done, then the taxo box could be added. If there were any photographs of the fossil or an artistic impression of this animal it would be welcomed. I will try to investigate futher nontheless. --Francisco Valverde 15:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't even find what common name is used in English. Knowing this, the search would be easier. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that this whole thing isn't just a hoax?

I am sure that it isn't a hoax.Francisco Valverde 08:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a name, but its still unpublished. It looks like it was the subject of a 2005 dissertation by a Josep Quintana Cardona. Helioseus 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that the name is Nuralagus Rex, can anyone confirm this so we can add it to the article...?Francisco Valverde (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Catalan page has a photo of a comparison of the leg bones of Myotragus, the giant lagomorph, and a rabbit. It's copyrighted, but I was wondering if a drawing/diagram after the photo would be suitable? If so, I am willing to do it. Piatnitskysaurus 7:17 PM, 1 April 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Nuralagus rex → Nuralagus –

• Wikipolicy is that generic name takes priority over specific name when dealing with monotypic genera Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)--Mr Fink (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can you link the appropriate policy? I find this hard to believe. Powers ^T 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• points* This policy here [1] Why is such a policy "hard to believe"? I see it done all the time.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It still seems a bit odd to me, and from looking at the talk page, there's no strong consensus in favor. I oppose. Powers ^T 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support A noncontroversial move that follows the regular policy for monotypic and extinct taxa. The lack of strong consensus is not really relevant, as the policy has not been contested or removed since it was implemented before 2010.--Kevmin § 03:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support Why is following standard procedure "hard to believe" or "odd" or even controversial? The 4 year old discussions about the binomial concerned finding out what the scientific name would be prior to the papers officially describing the beast being published and released.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• • You're the nominator; your support is assumed. Powers ^T 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Using the genus name for monotypic genera is standard procedure with strong and long-standing consensus behind it. Ucucha (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

• • What strong consensus? Look at WT:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article titles: Monotypy of extant versus extinct taxa. There's no strong consensus there. Powers ^T 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • That's mostly people being confused about common names, which is not at issue here. Ucucha (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So, LtPowers, can you please explain why is following standard procedure "hard to believe" or "odd" or even controversial? Or at least can you give us a justification we should not follow standard procedure concerning monotypic genera?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I find the "standard procedure" odd and hard to believe; why omit the species name just because its genus is monotypic? It doesn't make any sense to me. And I also challenge that this is actually "standard", versus a change that went in three years ago without prior discussion and that no one much noticed until 2012. Powers ^T 21:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Its very easy to believe, just look at the ambiguous monotypic extinct genera. The vast majority are at the genus name. Why should it be at the species name when the topic is both the genus and the species, and the majority of the information is genus relevant, like what separates the genus from related genera.--Kevmin § 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FEMURS (drets) de Myotragus, Conill gegant, conill de camp.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)