Talk:Steneosaurus

	Steneosaurus 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Paraphyly[edit]

Steneosaurus is also recovered as paraphyletic with respect to Machimosaurus in the cladistic analysis of Young et. al. (2012). If an alpha-taxonomic review of Steneosaurus confirms the paraphyly of Steneosaurus, then Macrospondylus von Meyer, 1831 may be used for S. bollensis. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

But as for now, there's not much we can do here, or is there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macrospondylus bollensis Holzmaden.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Macrospondylus bollensis Holzmaden.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 2, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A fossil of Steneosaurus bollensis, from the extinct genus of teleosaurid crocodyliforms Steneosaurus. This specimen was found in Holzmaden, Germany, and dates from the Early Jurassic (185 million years ago).Photograph: Didier Descouens

Archive – More featured pictures...

Split up[edit]

With recent cladistic analyses recovering Steneosaurus as paraphyetic with respect to Machimosaurus (Young et al. 2012), I am of the opinion that Aeolodon and Sericodon should be redirected to separate articles just in case an alpha-taxonomic revision of Steneosaurus finds Aeolodon and Sericodon more advanced than the type species of Steneosaurus. What is your take on my suggestion? Extrapolaris (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I think this needs to be suggested in print before we can do anything. There are many other similar situations, but we should only act when it is published. FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Discovery[edit]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention the story of the discovery of the species - and the debate between Geoffroy and Cuvier?

PlotKrot (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now we also have various species and genus synonymies listed that do not seem to be covered by the 2020 paper. Anyone know what they are now? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The synonyms are from the earlier paper declaring Steneosaurus a nomen dubium[1], which explicitly named them as objective junior synonyms of S. rostromajor. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, so they can stay here. But I wonder what species not mentioned in the new paper such as atelestatus, blumembachi, and oplites are considered now... FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mortimer's thoughts on Steneosaurus.[edit]

Mickey Mortimer has just published a new blog post saying that, among other things, Steneosaurus is actually diagnostic, and that the decision to make it a nomen dubium was wildly misguided. What are your thoughts on this, and should we edit the article to reflect it? Atlantis536 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't do much until that suggestion is published in a peer reviewed paper. Mortimer generally has many interesting ideas, but as long as they are only in blog form, we can't really include them for controversial claims. Anyhow, it won't make much difference to this article, because whether Steneosaurus is considered dubious or not, the article will remain here, but I don't think there is much doubt that the many assigned species need new generic names (though the issue of S. leedsi is more contentious). FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]