Talk:Anchisauridae

Orphaned Article
Whoever insists on removing Anchisauridae from Prosauropoda needs to add it elsewhere; there is only a single passing reference to the genus and a link on a cladistic diagram for the family. This is far too important of genus for this. Just because ONE source removes it from Prosauropoda, does not mean this has been accepted by a majority of researchers. And if you remove it, THEN ADD IT TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE!!! The result has orphaned BOTH the family and the genus. Also, is it really proper for the clade to link to the genus, but there be a seperate link to the famly? CFLeon (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Other genera?
Mention is made in this article about genera other than Anchisaurus being referred to this family, but none is mentioned. There needs to be at least a mention of what has been associated in the group. CFLeon (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, as far as I know, only one other named putative anchisaurid: Ammosaurus, which in all likelihood is the same as Anchisaurus. The sticking point has been whether or not the type of Anchisaurus is diagnostic.  If not, Ammosaurus would receive the other Anchisaurus specimens, and we'd be talking about Ammosauridae instead (except it would be a monogeneric family, which is kind of redundant). J. Spencer (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)