- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn implicitly. ("I think that as a result, the page of Pseudoamohicyon should now be deleted instead of moved to another page.") Note that deletion requests are covered in WP:HOWTODELETE. (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Pseudamphicyon → Simamphicyon – According to the 2016 source "Whence the beardogs? Reappraisal of the Middle to Late Eocene ‘Miacis’ from Texas, USA, and the origin of Amphicyonidae (Mammalia, Carnivora)," [1] Pseudamphicyon appears to be a synonym of Simaphicyon (type and only species S. helveticus, known from the late-Middle Eocene, first occurrence MP16), since the authors of the source mention a 1942 source by Jean Viret that mentions the name "Pseudamphicyon" (need to find the source, haven't found it yet), and authors after the source such as the 1966 "Les Miacinae (Carnivora, Miacidae) de l'éocène de la Suisse" [2] list the name "Simamphicyon helveticus." Also, its taxobox would need to be updated so that it's now considered a
Carnivoraformes genus similar to Miocyon, since it's been no longer considered an amphicyonid. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Leaning oppose. @PrimalMustelid:, as far as I can tell, Simamphicyon and Pseudamphicyon are not considered synonyms (and Pseudoamphicyon would have priority if they were synonyms). It would be good to see the Viret paper, but apparently Viret erected Simamphicyon for some specimens that had previously been considered Pseudamphicyon (see the PDF available at this link). Pseudoamphicyon has included other species, e.g. P. cayluxenis and P. crassidens (see here), and P. bavaricus (lv:Lāčsuņu dzimta (not that Wikipedia is a reliable source)). Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry that I forgot to respond, was a bit occupied as of late. Besides the distinct lack of research articles on the supposed genus Pseudamphicyon (which would be strange if still valid since amphicyonids are amongst the most well-researched extinct mammalian families in the paleontological record), in the Bulletin du Muséum national d'histoire naturelle of 1950, we see that the Pseudamphicyon species P. cayluxensis and P. crassidens are listed, with Cynodictis being listed species synonyms of the two. However, in a recent 2020 source, we see that Cynodictis cayluxensis is the valid name instead, and in another 2020 source, we see that the species crassidens is attributed to Cynelos crassidens. I definitely know this is the case even without the primary source that first synonymizes the species because all three sources state that the species were erected by Filhol (the 1950 source says 1876, the other two say 1876-1877). Also, I couldn't find any source stating that there is a Pseudamphicyon bavaricus, and it'd be strange and coincidental if somehow it were somehow valid considering that is an amphicyonid species known as Pseudarctos bavaricus.
- I think there's a strong case to be made against the validity of Pseudamphicyon based on recent sources that it should be deleted or redirected to another page. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I think that as a result, the page of Pseudoamohicyon should now be deleted instead of moved to another page. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.
