Talk:Istiodactylus

What to do with I. sinensis?
It seems no one considers I. sinensis to belong to Istiodactylus, the question is rather where it belongs instead. In that sense, it is de facto removed from this genus, so since I am about to expand the article for promotion, I'm wondering how to treat that species here. It definitely warrants discussion in the history and classification sections, but should this article really go into detail about it's physical features and ecology, given that it is bound to become part of some other genus in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd put info on it in its own article. Then if it ever gets a new genus name the title can be changed. In the mean time, since this is the only name it has, at least it's searchable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one thing about that is, in the unlikely case we write a long description of I. sinensis there, and it turns out to be a junior synonym of for example Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, how are the two descriptions of the same species consolidated? FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We've consolidated bigger articles before. And, if they are synonyms or even possible synonyms, there technically shouldn't be any differences in their descriptions anyway. Anything that had previously been different between them would have turned out to be based on misinterpretation and would be deleted anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it is so common that we split longer articles compared to merging them that I didn't really remember what the procedure would be like. But in any case, pterosaur taxonomy seems a lot more unstable than dinosaur taxonomy, so it's quite a mine-field... FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was working on some species in the Ornithocheirus complex he other day... (see Ptenodactylus). I think in situations like these we just need species-level articles titled with the original or most traditional name, then discuss possible alternative nomenclature in the text. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On a related note, an earlier version of the article stated "In 2006 Lü Jun-Chang e.a. concluded I. sinensis was a junior synonym of the istiodactylid Nurhachius", apparently citing this Chinese book. But Witton does not mention that I. sinsensis had previously been proposed as a synonym, in either his 2012 paper or 2013 book. Does anyone know whether this is actually mentioned in the Chinese book, or some kind of mistake? This 2006 paper seems relevant, but it doesn't mention I. sinsensis. It also seems a bit quick for a book published in 2006 to declare a taxon named the same year a synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)