Talk:Tylosaurus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:52, 15 March 2022

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Tylosaurus 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Preoccupied?

The article contains the following quote: "Marsh named a more complete specimen as a new genus, Rhinosaurus ("nose lizard"), but this name soon proved to be preoccupied." What does that even mean? Does the author wish to indicate that the name was already in use for another species? If so, what species, and why does the redirect for Rhinosaurus come here? We could definitely use some rephrasing here to use something more appropriate than "preoccupied." Carychan (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, preoccupied means the name had already been used for something else. I'll clarify and try to find out what actually holds that name. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater or freshwater?

Saltwater or freshwater? It doesn't say. 91.186.72.51 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph the article says "was a mosasaur, a large, predatory marine lizard closely related to modern monitor lizards and to snakes." Also mention that it lived in the Western Interior Seaway. By the way, the only confirmated mosasaur from freshwater is Pannoniasaurus.--Rextron (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Tylosaurus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tylosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "KC11":

From Plioplatecarpinae: Konishi, Takuya (2011). "Two new plioplatecarpine (Squamata, Mosasauridae) genera from the Upper Cretaceous of North America, and a global phylogenetic analysis of plioplatecarpines". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 31 (4): 754–783. doi:10.1080/02724634.2011.579023. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Latoplatecarpus: Konishi, Takuya; Michael W. Caldwell (2011). "Two new plioplatecarpine (Squamata, Mosasauridae) genera from the Upper Cretaceous of North America, and a global phylogenetic analysis of plioplatecarpines". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 31 (4): 754–783. doi:10.1080/02724634.2011.579023.
From List of mosasaur genera: Konishi, T.; Caldwell, M.W. (2011). "Two new plioplatecarpine (Squamata, Mosasauridae) genera from the Upper Cretaceous of North America, and a global phylogenetic analysis of plioplatecarpines". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 31 (4): 754–783. doi:10.1080/02724634.2011.579023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tylosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053322/http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings to http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Temporal

tylosaurus lived up to 66 or to some countries 65 MYA acording to fossilworks.Here the source^[1]

It's 66 mya: sources that continue to use 65 mya are outdated. We've told you this before.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "FOssilworks Tylosaur".

Hainosaurus

Since there is a paper dated 2016 that considers Hainosaurus a synonym of Tylosaurus should we merge the Hainosaurus article with this article? -User:1morey June 6, 2020 3:18 AM (EST)

A quich search on Google Scholar reveals several post-2016 papers that still use Hainosaurus; it shouldn't be merged on the basis of a single paper but we can discuss the prospect of synonymization in both articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I've proposed a merger for Hainosaurus and Tylosaurus, as it seems that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that? I don't seem to see that a synonymy has been widely accepted. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that a handful of authors have continued to use the name Hainosaurus in literature published after the lump was proposed in 2016, T. bernardi has been consistently recovered as nesting deep within the genus Tylosaurus in recent mosasaur phylogenies (meaning that not including "Hainosaurus" within Tylosaurus would make the latter genus paraphyletic, the same reason that Wikipedia now recognizes the species formerly referred to Carcharocles as Otodus), such as Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018, Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell 2019, Madzia and Cau 2017, Otero et al. 2017, Simões et al. 2017, and Strong et al. 2020, and most mosasaur researchers now accept it as a species of Tylosaurus. Accordingly there is ample cause to merge the Hainosaurus article into Tylosaurus. Pryftan213 (User talk:Pryftan213) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "FOssilworks Tylosaur".

[1]

Revision as of 21:51, 15 March 2022 edit Pryftan213 (talk \| contribs) 246 edits m →Merger Proposal ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:52, 15 March 2022 edit undo Pryftan213 (talk \| contribs) 246 edits m →Merger Proposal Next edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:
	:What is your source for that? I don't seem to see that a synonymy has been widely accepted. [[User:Logosvenator wikiensis\|Logosvenator wikiensis]] ([[User talk:Logosvenator wikiensis\|talk]]) 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)		:What is your source for that? I don't seem to see that a synonymy has been widely accepted. [[User:Logosvenator wikiensis\|Logosvenator wikiensis]] ([[User talk:Logosvenator wikiensis\|talk]]) 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

	::Despite the fact that a handful of authors have continued to use the name ''Hainosaurus'' in literature published after the lump was proposed in 2016, ''T. bernardi'' has been consistently recovered as nesting deep within the genus ''Tylosaurus'' in recent mosasaur phylogenies (meaning that not including "''Hainosaurus''" within ''Tylosaurus'' would make the latter genus paraphyletic, the same reason that Wikipedia now recognizes the species formerly referred to ''Carcharocles'' as ''Otodus''), such as Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018, Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell 2019, Madzia and Cau 2017, Otero et al. 2017, Simões et al. 2017, and Strong et al. 2020, and most mosasaur researchers now accept it as a species of ''Tylosaurus''. Accordingly there is ample cause to merge the ''Hainosaurus'' article into ''Tylosaurus''. [[User:Pryftan213\|Pryftan213]] ([[User talk:Pryftan213]]) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		::Despite the fact that a handful of authors have continued to use the name ''Hainosaurus'' in literature published after the lump was proposed in 2016, ''T. bernardi'' has been consistently recovered as nesting deep within the genus ''Tylosaurus'' in recent mosasaur phylogenies (meaning that not including "''Hainosaurus''" within ''Tylosaurus'' would make the latter genus paraphyletic, the same reason that Wikipedia now recognizes the species formerly referred to ''Carcharocles'' as ''[[Otodus]]''), such as Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018, Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell 2019, Madzia and Cau 2017, Otero et al. 2017, Simões et al. 2017, and Strong et al. 2020, and most mosasaur researchers now accept it as a species of ''Tylosaurus''. Accordingly there is ample cause to merge the ''Hainosaurus'' article into ''Tylosaurus''. [[User:Pryftan213\|Pryftan213]] ([[User talk:Pryftan213]]) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)