Talk:Sebecus
 | A fact from Sebecus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Size?
editDo we really have all this info, yet not a single mention of size, either estimated whole-organism or just skull length? Mokele (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Restoration
editCan someone with access to the paper here[1] tell me if the restoration has become outdated? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I have this quote of the conclusions: "The proportions of the femur relative to the vertebral column indicate that S. icaeorhinus was a long-limbed crocodyliform in comparison with neosuchian crocodyliforms, resembling the proportions of the high-snouted and ziphodont eusuchian Pristichampsus and other basal crocodyliforms (e.g., Protosuchus)." Your reconstruction have elongated legs, the I guess that the reconstruction is well. But if you need, I can send you the paper.--Rextron (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, didn't see this until now. Yeah, I drew it in a resting pose to prevent it from becoming outdated. Then the stance remains ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. By the way, have you seen this photo of the described remains?[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rextron (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Missed this again! No, hadnt seen it, but thanks! Seems like the restoration isn't too far off, or what? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. By the way, have you seen this photo of the described remains?[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rextron (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, didn't see this until now. Yeah, I drew it in a resting pose to prevent it from becoming outdated. Then the stance remains ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently is still accurate, I think that the remains it confirms that sebecids are comparable to the baurusuchids in the general body form, I guess that the reconstructions was made with these premise, right?. --Rextron (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, phew! FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
One single species
editIf this genus only has one single Eocene species, we shouldn't have to put such a huge range in the taxobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, the age must reflect the SALMA in which has been found S. icaeorhinus.--Rextron (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Taxonomic problems about Sebecus
editis an unnecessary nomenclatorial change and we regard Zulmasuchus querejazus and Langstonia huilensis as junior synonyms.
This is what has said on the paper of Sebecus ayrampu from last year, but S.huilensis and S.querejazus were transferred to other genera. But there is still some taxonomists still regard the original classification, similar to how some taxonomists still regard Tarbosaurus as Tyrannosaurus bataar.In my point of view, it's not a major consensus so we can still regard Langstonia and Zulmasuchus as seperate genera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)