Talk:Anhanguera piscator

Merge discussion
Initiated by


 * Based on this conclusion of Pinheiro & Rodrigues on Anhanguera, several species such as A. araripensis, A. robustus and A. santanae are considered nomen dubia, but A. piscator remains as a species of Anhanguera. The other species (A. araripensis, A. robustus and A. santanae) are known from scarce remains, and according to the paper, they are considered nomen dubia, so merging those pages with Anhanguera would result uncertainty. As for A. piscator, I think we should merge it with Anhanguera, based on the conclusion of Pinheiro & Rodrigues 2017.


 * Here I leave another paper with some earlier conclusions of the species just in case the other one isn't reliable. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is there are various groups of workers with different schemes. So the conclusion of one group will be contested by another group in the next paper, etc. But I don't think paleo species stubs have any value, the question is just where the best place to redirect them is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You do have a point on that, A. piscator for example is also considered as Coloborhynchus piscator by many, so redirecting or merging A. piscator into Coloborhynchus can be another option, but based on the papers, most of them consider it as a species of Anhanguera (the first option to merge it into). The other species would be worth mentioning in the article of Anhanguera itself, and like you said, having separate articles for different species aren't practical, so I also think it's best to merge them or at least redirect them into Anhanguera. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should probably wait for more views as to where exactly to merge first. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)