Talk:Diapsid

"Two holes"?
I think the description here should be a little clearer. It repeatedly refers to diapsids being characterised by having two openings on either side of the skull, and yet every picture shows a skull with four openings. I assume this means in addition to an eye and a nostril, but as it's written now that's far from clear. While in scientific literature one could assume the reader understands this, in an encyclopaedia I think it should be explained. 76.118.92.242 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diapsid. 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://web.archive.org/web/20050502234511/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Diapsida.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Diapsida.htm

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) 05:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Neodiapsida
Hi everyone, do you think we should merge Neodiapsida into this article? The only consistent difference between the two taxa is that Neodiapsida excludes Araeoscelidia. But recent studies have found that the araeoscelidians, if they were even reptiles at all, likely evolved their diapsid skulls independently of neodiapsids.

Therefore all undisputed diapsids are also neodiapsids, making the two taxa basically synonymous. Currently both the Diapsida and Neodiapsida articles are kinda short, and won't require much effort to merge. But should we? —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 12:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think merging is probably fine. Given the lack of content in the Neodiapsida article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Neodiapsida is just 3 cladograms with a header, which is a type of article that irks me a great deal.  Any content that could be added to expand Neodiapsida would be regarding stem-group diapsids, which would be equally at home on Diapsida proper which certainly has nomenclatural priority (i.e. there's no situation where Diapsida should not have it's own article). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per above. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't support it. The cladogram in the second article uses the term Neodiapsida. The page size is not so small, and, in addition, views on classification can change quickly, which was already clearly seen in the example of Nanotyrannus, an article about which would be nice to restore. Xiphactinus88 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support; I cannot possibly imagine the topic of all neodiapsids plus araeoscelidians is a significantly distinct topic from all neodiapsids without them, even if they were a stable member of the group. It's a content fork. Pretend for a second both pages were magically carried all the way to FA status; Diapsida is classically one of the most fundamental units of tetrapod classification. Is the suggestion that Diapsida would only cover the topic of how areoscelidians and neodiapsids relate to each other, and the information anybody searching for the "diapsid" article is looking for only be elaborated upon at Neodiapsida? It just doesn't make sense.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)