Talk:Cynognathus

(This information has been derived from [1] TRIASSIC CYNODONTS; Cynognathidae, Probainognathidae and ‘Allies’, an internet directory. As that's my webpage, there are no issues of copyright. Trevor Dykes) ((MOVED FROM MAIN PAGE))

= Endothermy/ectothermy = features indicate that Cynognathus was an endothermic animal

Untitled
Those features (secondary palate and diaphragm) are also present in crocodilians, which are clearly NOT. 89.189.179.81 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

subclass =/= class
Why is Synapsida listed as a class? Clicking on the link reveals it as a SUBCLASS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangoFett (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Linnaean taxonomy is an outdated concept. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Skull Images
Are both skulls actually from the same genus? They don't seem to be very similar. 80.121.93.245 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing. The wikicommons images might have been mislabeled, or maybe the museum displays listed old taxonomy. With a complex taxonomic history that is plausible. But maybe this genus shows extreme variation?--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be ontogenetic changes, as well as crushing. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And a poor restoration.--MWAK (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction
The article clearly states that the forward limbs were more splayed like a typical lizard, while the hind limbs were more typically arranged like an animal. However, this reconstruction does not show this. How was this reconstruction done? Just an amateur drawing? Look, if someone with expertise wanted to take another crack at this, I suggest looking at google images for an "echinda skeleton" for the front-half, then something like a rat for the back half. Qed (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)