Talk:Cetiosauriscus

Comments on Cetiosauriscus ICZN petition
As a last note, the petition of Charig (1993) was done under Article 70b (misidentified type species). 68.4.61.237 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Species referred to Cetiosauriscus
Upchurch and Martin (2003) could find no characters support referral of Cetiosaurus glymptonensis to Cetiosauriscus and considered it a distinct taxon of diplodocoid requiring a new genus name. Whitlock (2011), however, has taken a conservative position by assigning C. glymptonensis to Eusauropoda incertae sedis because he feels that the available evidence is insufficient to confirm the diplodocoid position of this taxon. Furthermore, Cetiosauriscus was recovered as a non-neosauropod eusauropod by Rauhut et. al. (2005) in their phylogenetic analysis of Brachytrachelopan. Ornithopsis greppini clearly represents a non-neosauropod eusauropod distinct from Cetiosauriscus (Schwarz et. al. 2007) but has not yet been given a new genus name.

Rauhut, O. W. M., Remes, K., Fechner, R., Cladera, G. & Puerta P. 2005. Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia. Nature, 435, 670–672.

Schwarz, D., Meyer, C. A. & Wings, O. 2007. Revision of Cetiosauriscus greppini – new results and perspectives. Pp. 57–58 in J. Le Loeuff (ed.) Fifth Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists Abstract Volume, Muse ́e des Dinosaures, Espe ́raza, France.

Upchurch, P. & Martin, J. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 208–231.

Whitlock, J. A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 872–915. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cetiosauriscus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131212154934/http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=38667 to http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=38667
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131212154922/http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=67741 to http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=67741

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Alligator CCF". Can we please clarify this?
Article says:

the cartilage caps of sauropods may have been larger than predicted by an Alligator CCF

Can we please clarify the meaning of "CCF"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.51.140 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is currently in the process of being revamped and that will end up being removed during it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Metaphysics of bones?
Article says

... the cartilage caps extended fairly far onto the metaphysics of some long bones ...

We don't really want "metaphysics" here, do we? Can somebody fix this?

-- 189.122.51.140 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed?
This snippet of text seems incorrect or unclear: "The coracoid is incomplete, but enough is preserved to show it is rectangular, and longer, at 35 cm (14 in), than it is wide—38 cm (15 in)"

Are the measurements mixed up? Ubilaz (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)