Jump to content

Talk:Plesiosaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the process for merging data? I missed Plesiosaur when I created this page.  :( It seems (to me) that the scientific name is more appropriate for a title, so this would be the primary page. How would you fix links to the other page??? Nodosaurus 22:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I moved the content to Plesiosaur and shall move this Discussion there too. Plesiosaurus will remain as a link, so nothing is lost. (Compare entry Mosasaur, which includes other genera.) --Wetman 22:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Status of Plesiosaurus tournemirensis

[edit]

Plesiosaurus tournemirensis Sciau et al., 1990 has now been given its own genus, Occitanosaurus Bardet et al., 1999. Thus, it is NOT a junior synonym of Plesiosaurus guilelmiimperatoris Dames, 1895.

feel free to edit the page accordingly! Maybe a page for Occitanosaurus would be in order as well (I notice all the dinosaur genera names have at least stubs, why not the same for the Sauropterygia?  ;-)) M Alan Kazlev 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

Could we perhaps have the length in U.S. Customary System units? Ratso 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. guilielmiiperatoris/Seeleysaurus

[edit]

This article states that "only two species are unambiguiously recognised" and names P. dolichodeirus and P. guilielmiiperatoris, yet Plesiosauria.com states "Bakker (1993) retained the name Seeleysaurus for P. guilielmiiperatoris, a taxonomic change later justified and formalised by Grossman (2007)"[1], and there is also a short Wikipedia article about it (Seeleysaurus). So what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox: class

[edit]

The taxobox says their class is "Sauropsida", with a link to Reptile. According to Sauropsida, it is an unranked taxon, not a class. The taxobox should be change to say either "Class: reptile" or "(unranked): Sauropsida". Which would be preferable? (Is there a consensus here for dealing with the "reptilia is paraphyletic" problem?) Wardog (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus as reflected in the automatic Taxobox is Reptilia. I'll implement the auto box which should solve the issue. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction is "currently believed", not "known"

[edit]

I changed "known to be extinct" because that is scientifically inaccurate. Science is based on proof via the discovery of evidence. You cannot prove a negative, and extinction is a negative, therefore it can never really be proved and is therefore never "known" in the scientific sense. People thought that the coelacanth was "known" to be extinct for many decades -- right up until evidence was discovered which proved that it wasn't after all. Nobody knew germs existed until they were discoverd, either. Scientific knowledge is constantly subject to change pending the discovery of new evidence. Therefore, until such evidence is discovered, it is more scientifically accurate to say it is "currently believed" to be extinct. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero tetrapod genera alive today that were also alive 65 million years ago. Genera simply do not and probably cannot last that long without either going extinct or evolving into new genera. The idea that plesiosaurs are alive today is ludicrous; the idea that Plesiosaurus itself is alive today is biologically impossible. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence states it is extinct. Referencing "myths" and then stating it's known to be extinct sounds defensive and probably invites this kind of challenge. Isn't stating it's extinct in the opening sentence sufficient? --74.211.59.228 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Plesiosaurus

[edit]

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 Plesiosaurus'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 "Marmornectes":

  • From Liopleurodon: "A new pliosaurid (Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the Oxford Clay Formation (Middle Jurassic, Callovian) of England: evidence for a gracile, longirostrine grade of Early-Middle Jurassic pliosaurids". Special Papers in Palaeontology. 86: 109–129. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01083.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  • From Plesiosauria: Hilary F. Ketchum and Roger B. J. Benson (2011). "A new pliosaurid (Sauropterygia, Plesiosauria) from the Oxford Clay Formation (Middle Jurassic, Callovian) of England: evidence for a gracile, longirostrine grade of Early-Middle Jurassic pliosaurids". Special Papers in Palaeontology. 86: 109–129. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01083.x.

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⚡ 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Plesiosaurus

[edit]

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 Plesiosaurus'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 "Bensonetal12":

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⚡ 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plesiosaurus. 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:

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) 16:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plesiosaurus&oldid=1194442374"