| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Temnodontosaurus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vandalism
editIs there any evidence that Temnodontosaurus reached 12 metres in length, because I'm pretty sure it only reached 9. Unless someone can find evidence that it got this big, I'm dismissing the addition as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's what the reference says (http://www-alt.naturkundemuseum-bw.de/stuttgart/pdf/b_pdf/B298.pdf, page 71). J. Spencer (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is contradicted by McGowan's work though (McGowan, 1974a, 1995, 1996), which claims that the largest adult of T. platyodon, with 1.9m long skulls were 9m long, the largest specimen of T. burgudiae is also around 9m long but with a proportionally smaller skull (at 1.53m, though an specimen with a longer skull had a total length over a meter shorter than it, why is that I don't know), the reference is newer but it doesn't describe the discovery of a new specimen of T. platyodon with a 2.6m+ long skull nor one of T. bugudiae with a 2-2.4m+ long skull, it just says Temnodontosaurus exceeded 12m without any evidence nor citation. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks now none of us can use this article idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.249.242 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editThe following discussion 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.
@Fishboy86164577, FunkMonk, Larrayal, and Hemiauchenia: I propose merging Temnodontosaurus eurycephalus into Temnodontosaurus. I aknowledge the fact that it is more than likely a distinct genus, however so are many other species of Temnodontosaurus that are also probably distinct genera, and if we're suddenly making articles for species that are more than likely distinct genera but haven't been named yet, there should be a lot more articles being written to account for this. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned here[1], it is most likely a new genus, so it's a matter of time before it is split anyway. Not the best practice, but I don't think this is the worst offender. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- My question then is what about all the other species that are probably and even definitely distict genera? They should all get their own articles now should they not? If anything thinking over it again I propose we do something like Javelina azhdarchid as to not cause confusion. Alternatively (and what I think is better practise) create a section under this article stating which species are most likely distinct and why. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I don't think this is the best practice, and we shouldn't be doing it generally. In this particular case, a lot of revisions within Ichthtyosauria are begin published, so it would seem something could happen with this taxon very soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- This isn’t a very unique case at all, though. Ichthyosaur phylogeny changes often, and T. eurycephalus isn’t the only species of Temnodontosaurus we know definitely doesn’t belong in the genus. I don’t see any reason why we should make this taxon an exception (I’m not aware of any upcoming revisions to T. eurycephalus, so I’m not sure what makes you think it will be very soon). There are numerous ichthyosaurs that have been recognized as being distinct genera in formal literature for years but still have not gotten their own page because their genus name hasn’t yet been changed, this seems like an inconsistency to keep this page up. Fishboy86164577 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I don't think this is the best practice, and we shouldn't be doing it generally. In this particular case, a lot of revisions within Ichthtyosauria are begin published, so it would seem something could happen with this taxon very soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- My question then is what about all the other species that are probably and even definitely distict genera? They should all get their own articles now should they not? If anything thinking over it again I propose we do something like Javelina azhdarchid as to not cause confusion. Alternatively (and what I think is better practise) create a section under this article stating which species are most likely distinct and why. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
New discovery of T. trigonodon
editFossils of Temnodontosaurus trigonodon have been found in February 2021 at Rutland Water Nature Reserve in UK. Should that be mentioned in the article...?
- Huge Skeleton of Jurassic Ichthyosaur Unearthed in UK
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/rutland-ichthyosaur-10448.html - Britain's largest ever ichthyosaur is discovered in Rutland Water
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2022/january/britains-largest-ever-ichthyosaur-is-discovered-rutland-water.html