Talk:Atractosteus africanus

Redirect
, it is standard practice in the paleontology project to not have pages for nomina dubia, i.e. species of dubious taxonomic validity. This page is the unilateral creation of. By his own admission, Grande et al. (2010) recognize this species as a nomen dubium, and he has not provided any evidence that it has been recognized as valid since then (and indeed I cannot find any in a search of the literature). 128.189.216.55 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I think it would be a good idea to wait, and let (and/or other editors) weigh in first. You effectively deleted the page, which generally requires community consensus. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I said it was regarded as a nomen dubium by Grande in (2010). But that WAS the case, its no more one not really anything else. I never admitted it was Unvalid. Also even if it is still considered invalid why can we still have this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon. We can have nomina dubia we just need to mention that. --Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Troodon is a taxon of historical significance. This is not. And can you point me to a quote in the form of "A. africanus is a diagnostic species, here are the diagnostic characters"? 128.189.216.55 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lionel_Cavin--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)