Talk:List of crurotarsan genera

Split the List?
Crurotarsans are such a diverse group in terms of diet, lifestyle, morphology and time period wherein they lived that I think it would be more useful if this list was split into a few more specific ones:
 * List of aetosaurs
 * List of rauisuchians
 * List of phytosaurs
 * List of crocodilians

What do you guys think? I know the lists would be quite a bit shorter, but in my opinion they would be a bit more coherent. Abyssal leviathin 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When I started this list I gave thought to that quandary but ultimately considered it needless for the purpose of this list. My objective, to make it clear, was listing genera pertaining or that pertained to the clade Crurotarsi, much as in List of dinosaurs which are as or more diverse even without birds. Splitting the list the way you propose one would get a "cruft" of basal forms one would not know where to put ("basal crurotarsans"?) and very short lists that would look better on the pertinent articles. I'd rather lump the genera in this list and leave the minutiae of classification to the clade articles. The only list that would fare better would be that of crocodilians but since it is a clade with extant genera and there are already lists pertaining to crocodilian species, I though it was unnecessary duplication of information and, as a cladist, an arbitrary cuttoff that rendered a neat monophyletic list paraphyletic ;-) I'm all for including links to the pertinent taxonomical articles in the See also section and in the Introduction, though. Dracontes (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. You've made your point. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent alterations to the list
As some of you will be aware, User:Abyssal put forward wide-ranging changes for the List of dinosaurs, see:Talk:List_of_dinosaurs.

However, after those changes being rejected, he has implemented his proposals here. To get community consultation going, who supports the changes being made?


 * Oppose: as per my comments of Talk:List of dinosaurs Mark t young (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some reasons why the conversation at LoD may not apply here. The most obvious one is that they are, after all, separate lists (I believe the list of crurotarsans was modeled after the LoD, but that's beside the point). Do conversations about one article automatically apply to another? Another observation is that this list is considerably shorter than the LoD, meaning objections about the size of the table-fied article may not apply. Schoolkid vandalism may also occur at a lower rate (because children are interested in dinosaurs but not crurotarsans). And the FL-status argument doesn't follow here; this isn't a FL. In short, Abyssal can't be blamed for attempting a table here when most of the rationale for not having a table entry doesn't apply to this list. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I felt comfortable making these changes to this article because of the consensus on the LOD talk page, not in spite of it. Several criticisms of the proposal there were advanced. While most of them were not valid, the ones that were convinved me that it was not practical to use this format on such a large and popular article.

The consensus ended with no criticism of the actual proposal; all complaints were directed at some aspect of its implementation or failure to live up to a purely hypothetical potential. I also had received support about the proposal itself in a "it looks good, it's just not very practical" kind of way. I was also encouraged to continue pushing the issue by making another sample table of the "Q" dinosaurs so that the proposal "could be judged on its own merits."

I took these criticisms into very serious consideration and, since I had been given specific ones, yet still encouraged to pursue the project in a general way, I then searched for an article where those criticisms couldn't be said to apply.

Consensus on List of dinosaurs seemed to be that there were three objections to instituting the table format in LOD:


 * 1) It's too hard.
 * 2) It'll accumulate vandalism.
 * 3) The sort feature is not as useful as it conceivably could be.

The first seemed to be based on the length of the LOD. This list doesn't bear out that criticism due to its significantly shorter length. Same thing with the "it'll make the file size gigantic" argument. Also, it could have been be converted over in one day- therefore the "it'll take to long" criticism is meritless. It was also not a good or featured article, thus in no danger of being delisted, while under construction.

The second criticism didn't even make sense; there's no reason to suspect that a table will be a vandal-magnet. Three, while true fails to consider that while the sort function isn't as great as it could be, it is significantly better than nothing at all.

I'm trying to say that I have not acted in anyway contrary to the consensus given on the LOD. I acted very specifically in a way where criticisms that were given would not be applicable, while embracing what small amount of encouragement I did receive.

Also, I was not trying to start an edit war with my last saved revision. I was just trying to make sure that the changed I made that would have been lost in an edit conflict would still be in the article history so that if consensus ended in my favor I could just revert back to my last edit while not actually losing any work. Abyssal (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I said some of that above. Editors should be encouraged to be be bold and make changes where needed. I don't think you should be discouraged from your vision; other editors might feel the same way as you if they saw the completed version. With that in mind, I've restored your version on a sandbox page so that editors can make an informed judgement of the merits of your version. If you agree, Abyssal, we could continue your work on the sandbox version until it was ready for comparison. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with the whole sandbox thing is that, what if I finish it, and then everyone starts going on with the whole "no table!!!!" thing again? I think the amount that is finished should be enough to visualize what the finished result will be like. I've put a lot of work in on this today. Something like 4-5 hours worth. If my time is going to be wasted, I'd rather lose 4-5 hours instead of 8-9, which is about what it would take to finish things up completely.


 * If what you're proposing is to finish things up in the sandbox, out of the public eye and then implement them, then you have my full support, and I will thusly redouble my efforts. If not, then I'd rather get things out of the way quickly. I'm tired of being a lone salmon trying to swim upstream, if you'll pardon the cheesy metaphor. The environment is starting to seem sightly antagonistic here and I don't think that editing should have to be a battle.


 * Abyssal (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about tons of work being wasted if the consensus is still against the list. However, the tabled list in its current form is no different than the sample table on talk:List of dinosaurs. The tables haven't been filled out on even one letter, and nearly all of the fields are blank, so there's no chance of evaluating the merits of the list. Would you consider filling out the table on, say, letter 'A'? I agree that editing shouldn't be a battle. One other option might be to revive your Talk:List_of_crurotarsans proposal, so that a tabled list would be easier to implement. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Abyssal's version
...has been completed for the letter 'A', and is available here. A lot of work went into this, and I think the merits and disadvantages of a table-fied list can be discussed at this point, now that we can see for ourselves how the data would be presented. Comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The one thing I'd watch out for is the status column, as there's always subjectivity in synonymies and declaring something dubious. Perhaps that column should be used sparingly? J. Spencer (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but it was subjective before the table was made, too, and no one had any qualms about adding basically the same information was included when it was a bullet-list. And, I think we can be confident enough in using it to reflect the current scientific consensus; I don't think there's too much to worry about. :) Abyssal (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one name is listed as dubious on the current list. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there'll be plenty more though/ :PAbyssal (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to admit I like it. One minor quibble though, the size of the article. Last time I checked, its at 47 kilobytes. The "some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb" message comes up. Does anyone know if anyone if that is a major concern or not? If it is, then the list could be split into crocs, rauisuchians etc as Abyssal had earlier suggested. Either way I like the table-ified version. Good work A :) Mark t young (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking from personal experience, I don't really have trouble with articles of that size- and my internet connection sux. They take longer to load, but not horribly so. Besides, a lot of our dinosaur articles are bigger than that, some more than twice as big. :) Abyssal (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cystosaurus and Omosaurus
Cystosaurus: there is no a Wikipedia article on such a crurotarsan. The link points at Cryptosaurus that was a dinosaur. Is this correct?

Another dinosaur, described as Omosaurus, was renamed Dacentrurus because a crocodilian Omosaurus had already been named. Where is that Omosaurus on this list? What crocodilian is it?

31.11.242.231 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 31.11.242.231 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tablified list
I'm cleaning out my userspace and I found my old draft for a table-based version of this list. I was wondering if anyone thought we should revamp this article along those lines. The idea has met with hostility before, but I ask because if no one wants a table version of the article I'll be deleting that draft. Abyssal (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm deleting that userpage. I'll leave the code here if anyone wants it. Abyssal (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This list of crurotarsans is a comprehensive listing of all genera that have ever been included in the clade Crurotarsi, excluding purely vernacular terms. The list includes all commonly accepted genera, but also genera that are now considered invalid, doubtful (nomen dubium), or were not formally published (nomen nudum), as well as junior synonyms of more established names, and genera that are no longer considered crurotarsan. Extinct taxa are denoted with a dagger (†).

The list currently contains 403 genera.


 * Extinct genera are marked by a dagger (†).
 * Extant genera are bolded.

Scope and terminology

There is no official, canonical list of crurotarsan genera, but one of the most thorough attempts can be found on the Crurotarsi section of Mikko Haaramo's Phylogeny Archive.

Naming conventions and terminology follow the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Technical terms used include:
 * Junior synonym: A name which describes the same taxon as a previously published name. If two or more genera are formally designated and the type specimens are later assigned to the same genus, the first to be published (in chronological order) is the senior synonym, and all other instances are junior synonyms. Senior synonyms are generally used, except by special decision of the ICZN, but junior synonyms cannot be used again, even if deprecated. Junior synonymy is often subjective, unless the genera described were both based on the same type specimen.
 * Nomen nudum (Latin for "naked name"): A name that has appeared in print but has not yet been formally published by the standards of the ICZN. Nomina nuda (the plural form) are invalid, and are therefore not italicized as a proper generic name would be. If the name is later formally published, that name is no longer a nomen nudum and will be italicized on this list. Often, the formally published name will differ from any nomina nuda that describe the same specimen. In this case, these nomina nuda will be deleted from this list in favor of the published name.
 * Preoccupied name: A name that is formally published, but which has already been used for another taxon. This second use is invalid (as are all subsequent uses) and the name must be replaced. As preoccupied names are not valid generic names, they will also go unitalicized on this list.
 * Nomen dubium (Latin for "dubious name"): A name describing a fossil with no unique diagnostic features. This can be an extremely subjective and controversial designation and is to be used cautiously.

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

I

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Z

References


 * Crurotarsi @ Mikko's Phylogeny Archive
 * List of Paleocene reptiles @ paleocene-mammals.de

* Crurotarsans Crurotarsans