Talk:"Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis
 | This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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 redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
A new genus yet to be named?[edit]
The position of the authors of the 2008 paper seems to be that Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis is a nomen dubium and that the teeth named as Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis are those of a new species, only related, not identical, to Siamosaurus.--MWAK (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed that; not sure where that came from, as it was not italicized either. J. Spencer (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Article name change[edit]
To avoid future confusion, the name of the article should be changed to "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis b/c S. fusuiensis is not in the same genus as Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis (the authors who named S. fusuiensis were unaware that Young had restricted Sinopliosaurus to the pelvic elements and re-assigned the tooth to Peipehsuchus).Extrapolaris (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian