Talk:Cosmopolitodus hastalis

Requested move 2 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Been relisted twice without a clear consensus being developed. No prejudice against another RM in the near future if better sourcing can be found that would alter the discussion. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Isurus hastalis → Carcharodon hastalis – the new name for the species. I could not put in the requested moves place because it kept on causing a error message  Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  10:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Ehret's 2012 paper is behind a paywall for me, but I can't figure out some pretty basic facts about the taxonomic history of this species. Was it first described as Isurus? If so, was it ever placed in Carcharodon prior to Ehret? If not, are there post 2012 reliable secondary sources that accept Ehret's placement? Fossilworks is a sometimes reliable secondary source that is following Ehret, but they don't seem to properly indicate the original genus, which throws their reliability into doubt in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support since it's been relisted with no other input than my comment. Assuming good faith in nomination, and following Fossilworks treating this species as Carcharodon. Still would like to see another source for placement in Carcharodon though. Plantdrew (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Ehret, 2012 is probably the most recent real attempt to rename this species but the literature has been back and forth between other genera (Isurus and Cosmopolitodus) for years. Might be safe to just keep it as I. hastalis until the dust settles. Ryan shell (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm the original genus? Isurus show authorship for this species as "Agassiz 1843" (no parentheses). Plantdrew (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This story is bound to get complicated but I'll do my best. Agassiz named it O. hastalis back in the 1840s. Her originally put it in Oxyrhynchus which as far as I can tell is a defunct genus. Meanwhile there are plenty of researchers who use C. hastalis as recently as this year - the original move to Cosmotolitodus is a fairly old one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895981116302127 this article refers to Glickman, 1964]). Agasiz also named Isurus as a genus in the same work, he just didnt put hatalis in it at the time. I have yet to fing the person to coin Isurus hastalis as opposed to Oxyrhina or Cosmopolitodus, but the name is still around in the literature. Hope all this helps! Ryan shell (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.