Talk:Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis

Megapnosaurus
Isn't this still Megapnosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you talk to. The only recent species-level phylogeny I know of (reproduced in the article) found it nested within Coelophysis (but so was Camposaurus). So, it's a question of Genericometer setting. I figured splitting all these spices into their own article would help lessen all the confusion. Google Scholar search from 2010-present shows 6 instances of "megapnosaurus rhodesiensis" and 13 instances of "coelophysis rhodesiensis", for what that's worth. Widening the search to the last 10 years shows 13 for Megapnosaurus and 31 for Coelophysis. So C. rhodesiensis appears to be current consensus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heheh, it also seems the "genericometer" has been retuned so that the name could be gotten rid of... In most other cases, dinosaur palaeontologists seem quite eager to split. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coelophysis rhodesiensis. 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/20130504013424/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Coelophysoidea.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) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Page name
When looking up the different names given to this animal on Google Scholar and allowing only articles published since 2017, Syntarsus rhodesiensis produces 70 results, Megapnosaurus produces 57, Coelophysis rhodesiensis produces 39, and Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis produces 28. Calling it Syntarsus is obviously inaccurate and cannot be done according to ICZN rules even if it is still the most popular name for whatever reason. The use of Megapnosaurus is evidently increasing and is promoted by the latest study on basal avepod phylogeny due to rhodesiensis being closer to Camposaurus than to Coelophysis (same result that had already been found 10 years ago). Renaming this page Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis would allow it to remain cladistically neutral as a proximity with C. bauri wouldn't necessarily mean belonging in the same genus, but calling it Coelophysis rhodesiensis implies it is closely related to C. bauri. Similarly, page Coelophysis kayentakatae should, in my opinion, be renamed Syntarsus katentakatae (or "Syntarsus" kayentakatae) as it currently cannot be safely assigned to any valid genus, forcing us to preserve the original combination as a placeholder. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But if this is a different genus after all, it should just be Megapnosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. Megapnosaurus keyentakatae is less used (at least in the last 4 years) than the other two and most analysis seem to place it outside the bauri+rhodesiensis clade. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems keyentakatae will end up in a new genus? FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we don't have any serious alternatives to Syntarsus yet - Coelophysis kayentakatae was only used 9 times in recent publications while Syntarsus katentakatae was used over 40 times. We unfortunately have to keep using that, though rhodesiensis can be moved to Megapnosaurus with breaking any rules or implying it's related to anything. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Content move
, I feel the move of content you've done from Megapnosaurus to this article, as well as from Coelophysis kayentakatae to Megapnosaurus kayentakatae should be discussed somewhere like WP:DINO before being implemented, as it is a fairly major change and one to a set of articles which already have a history of debate surrounding what the appropriate name for the would be. In addition to being done without discussion, it caries two structural problems. First, in moving the articles manually as you've done the revision history is obscured. Secondly, it is paradoxical to redirect the genus article to an article for the type species but also insinuate, through the name of the Megapnosaurus kayentakatae article, that a second species might exist in the genus. The existence of "M." kayentakayae means that the topic of Megapnosaurus as a genus and of Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis are not synonymous, with the former as a broader topic. The existing arrangement where this article is named Megapnosaurus seems more appropriate and I'm not sure what the motive for moving is supposed to be.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 20:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge or Delete
I believe this article should either be merged with Megapnosaurus or deleted, due to the fact that they both contain literally the exact same information and the only differentation is that Megapnosaurus may include "C." kayentakatae as a species (which is very unlikely.) Should this article be either merged or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logosvenator wikiensis (talk • contribs) 00:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)