Talk:Aegisuchus

Untitled
A specimen photo was included on this page without citation for the attribution of it to Aegisuchus. There is only one specimen of Aegisuchus (Holliday and Gardner, 2012). All other specimens lack formal referral and save any published action doing so, would indicate original research, which is not what Wikipedia is intended to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.119.23 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the holotype is shown, what do you mean? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the user is referring to this photo. The file description says it is ROM 64736, but the holotype is ROM 54530. I'm inclined to believe it's an actual specimen that wasn't mentioned in the paper, since this article says the material was to be put on display at the museum. But then again, I have no proof to say that ROM 64736 is a specimen of Aegisuchus, or even that the fossil in this photo is ROM 64736! Smokeybjb (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice, since the image was removed before I looked. Well, if the museum label said so, why should we doubt it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. I doubt the uploader would have lied or made a mistake about the specimen number, since they were probably right next to each other on the exhibit label. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasons why we should doubt the museum label (IF IT IS EVEN LABELLED AS SUCH IN THE MUSEUM FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO PROOF): museums make mistakes in labeling all the time. There is no published referral of this specimen to Aegisuchus, and FYI, almost 100% of the specimens in this collection set were originally referred to Hamadasuchus (though most are obviously not). I have personally examined ROM 64736 and it is not Aegisuchus. If you could see it any view other than an out of focus lateral view, you'd see that it looks nothing like Aegisuchus and is a specimen of Sarcosuchus or some closely related pholidosaurid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.119.23 (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I trust what you are saying. Out of curiosity, did you get to see ROM 64736 on display? Was it actually labelled Aegisuchus? Smokeybjb (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the material was on display at that time. I am waiting to hear back from a friend who lives in the Toronto area to see if she can find out how the specimens are labelled there. 71.61.151.47 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Laganosuchus similarity
it looks just like it's contemporaneous relative Laganosuchus, but won't they both be mistaken for being one and the same?
 * The life restoration does, but all we have is a braincase. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Size [Error]
From the 'Size' section: 'However, these proportions have been met with a lot of scrutiny, and it is more likely that Aegisuchus reached only 3.9 metres.' This is preposterous, as the fossil skull alone is nearly three meters. Probably just a typo. The citation for this information does not mention an agreed-upon size estimate, so I'm not going to make a change right now. Here is the relevant text from the cited article: 'Body length sizes estimated from regression analyses of these two skull lengths range between 15–21 m (Gavialis) and 16–22 m (Crocodylus). Even by our most conservative estimates, if Aegisuchus was 15 m long, it would still be significantly longer than the reported lengths for Deinosuchus (12 m [21]), Gryposuchus, (10 m [22]), Purussaurus (11–13 m [23]), and Sarcosuchus (∼11.65 m [4]). Admittedly, there is significant error associated with estimating skull and body size from a fragmentary, cranial specimen and a length of over 15 m is still almost certainly an overestimate. However, given the absolute size of the skull table and occipital condyle and the above results, Aegisuchus was undoubtedly a large animal.' RobotBoy66 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)