Talk:Mosasaur/Archive 1

Untitled
Update regarding dallasaurus turneri was made by me. I forgot to log in. Kyaa the Catlord 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Tail Flukes
The tail fluke theory needs to be threated for what it actually is, a theory. We have no proof other than one supposed skeleton whick in all actuality shows little more than the articulation found in nearly every mosasaur fossil found, and the fossil in question isn't articulated nearly as much as several other fossils.
 * First off, "theory" is not synonymous with "guess" or "hypothesis" like you're implying in your first sentence. Secondly, this paper  presents evidence that mosasaurs had tail flukes due to the articulation of tail vertebrae.  Do you have a verifiable source presenting counterevidence to show that this is not so?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lizards
Should we just go ahead and call them "swimming lizards"? - as that's what they are, and it's a shame to pass up a popular term when it seems to be accurate. Thoughts? John.Conway 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, as, after all, taxonomically speaking, both they and snakes are lizards, too.--Mr Fink 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dissagree, snakes diverged from lizards and are not regarded as so. An extict genera, species is hard to speculate there relationship to other animals, as it might change in the future. I havnt come accross this term either of describing them. Enlil Ninlil 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For snakes it is probably unwise to refer to them as lizards. For mosasaurs, however, they are indeed exceptionally large sea-dwelling lizards, their closest living relatives are monitor lizards like the Komodo dragon and Nile monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Inexpertly, Mosasaurs could be called "marine Megalania", an identification which would be memorable, to help teach the topic. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So Megalania is more well known to the general reader than lizards? Anyway, I doubt any published source refers to them as such. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is important to note - when relating them to other lizards - that the mosasaur were vivipary like the ichthyosaur and did not lay eggs, so they are not as closely related to modern day lizards as one might think. 166.67.66.7 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with relation? Some sharks give live birth as well. Does that mean they're not related to other sharks? And oh: viviparous lizard FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Modern day lizards are evolved from branches farther back on the evolutinary tree that were still egg-laying. The implication that I took from what was being said was that "present day lizards evolved from mosasaur" and that does not appear to be the case unless the evolution meant reverting to egg-laying which I have not seen evidence of occuring. (I'm going to look into the sharks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.7 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lizard is a paraphyletic term that refers to squamates aside from snakes and amphisbaenians. Also, since Mosasaurs have been referred to as lizards in some journals, it wouldn't be entirely wrong to refer to them as such. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117079 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:41E0:382:6C3B:2892:8272:3184 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Mesosaurs?
I am currently taking a comparative vertebrate anatomy class, and our text (the latest edition) refers to these animals as mesosaurs. If requested, I could provide a citation or ISBN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.28.98 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mesosaurus is a totally different reptile all together.--Mr Fink 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mosasaur-snake clade
I've made the statement more assertive: "These ferocious marine predators are now considered to be the closest relatives of snakes." In the decade since Lee's article of 1997, has this been fundamentally challenged? Any essential adjustments that have been published should be referred to. --Wetman (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Caldwell and Palci (2007), describing Komensaurus (an "aigialosaur") still use Anguimorpha as the host for Mosasauroidea. J. Spencer (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't ask whether it was still an oppinion being put forward. He asked if it had been fundamentally challenged.  Which it has. many times (Zaher 1998, Zaher & Riepel 1999, Riepel et al 2003, Fry et al 2005, Vidal and Hedges 2005, Apesteguia & Zaher 2006, Conrad 2008, Zaher et al 2009...I could go on). Squamate phylogeny is hugely debabtable at the momment. Most morphological analyses actually put snakes with Amphibaenians (e.g. Nydam 2000, Evans et al 2006, 2008, Conrad 2008), while most molecular analyses put them in a clade with Iguania and Anguimorpha (e.g. Fry et al 2005, Vidal & Hedges 2005). Analyses like those of Scanlon, Palci, Lee and Caldwell (Lee & Caldwell 2000, Caldwell & Lee 2004, Palci & Cladwell 2007, Caldwell & Palci 2010) are still appearing, but it is misleading to put only their oppinion. For this reason I am editing the text to take into account other oppinions (Neil Brocklehurst, Museum Fur Naturkunde, Berlin)

Fossil range
I found it appropriate to add a fossil range box (slight improvement to the article), but I'm not sure about the starting date. Anyone with better information, please change this. --Heburnslikethesun (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page needs cleanup
The stuff at the top which is a lot of subjective propaganda should be discarded. Is of little relevance or help to the article at hand. And by the way, who makes these evaluations, and why is it so cumbersome to revise and improve. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh its not hard to change if you go through the proper channels that you have been directed to a number of times on various talk pages.-- Kev min  § 00:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You may have, but I don't recall and have no record of it. The format here doesn't seem to provide for direct edit of the top entry as do some. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox
The automatic taxobox, added 26 Nov. 2010 to replace the regular straight forward taxobox, adds nothing to the content or quality of the article and requires extra cumbersome steps to revise. I realize there are those who have put a lot of effort - so it appears- into creating taxonomy templates, which might be linked as references but not used to create auto taxoboxes which should be done away with. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take this to the talk page of template:Automatic taxobox. -- Kev min  § 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It belongs here since it applies to this page. I'll leave it as is, at least for now, but will take the direct approach if I find a valid reason to revise the taxonomy. Remember taxonomies aren't absolutes.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a discussion on the overall use of the automatic taxobox template and as such should be on the talk page there where a much wider audience will see it and respond.-- Kev min  § 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambo

^ This may merit a "See Also" link. It may seem silly, but is peripherally relevant; anybody interested in this article would be interested in that article, if only for a moment. I write here because I don't know how to do it :)

121.91.98.64 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is a gambo even peripherally relevant? No mosasaur has been made into one, and gambos do not resemble mosasaurs.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hainosaurus length
The article on the Hainosaurus [] states that the estimate of 17 meters is an old and no longer supported one, but this article claims it to be the current belief. Maybe a correction is needed in one of the two articles. Skomakar&#39;n (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pharyngeal jaws?
The Discovery Channel documentary Mega Beasts: T-Rexs of the Deep depicts Mosasaurus as using its pterygoid teeth like an eel's pharyngeal jaw and being capable of primitive echolocation. Is this the truth - Discovery Channel's documentaries have been known to exaggerate facts and make assumptions that aren't necessarily true - and if so should it be added to the anatomy section? 207.216.193.21 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers references that are peer-reviewed and or are reputable. Given the tremendous lack of quality in recent Discovery/Animal/History Channel documentaries, I strongly advice against using them as references.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Abyssal (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the palaeontologists they consult count as reputable sources? 207.216.193.21 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends: did the paleontologists say these things in a peer-reviewed setting, or did they air their personal opinions, or did they say things that were edited in order to make sensational soundbites to grab more ratings?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Impossible to determine. 207.216.193.21 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then no.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mosasaur/snake affinities
I think the statement in the intro 'Mosasaurs are now considered to be the closest relatives of snakes' is extremely misleading. There is a plethora of recent studies (Zaher 1998, Zaher & Riepel 1999, Riepel et al 2003, Fry et al 2005, Vidal and Hedges 2005, Apesteguia & Zaher 2006, Conrad 2008, Zaher et al 2009...I could go on) which have shown snakes not to be related to this group.

Squamate phylogeny is hugely debabtable at the momment. Most morphological analyses actually put snakes with Amphibaenians (e.g. Nydam 2000, Evans et al 2006, 2008, Conrad 2008), while most molecular analyses put them in a clade with Iguania and Anguimorpha (e.g. Fry et al 2005, Vidal & Hedges 2005). Analyses like those of Scanlon, Palci, Lee and Caldwell (Lee & Caldwell 2000, Caldwell & Lee 2004, Palci & Cladwell 2007, Caldwell & Palci 2010) are still appearing, but it is misleading to put only their oppinion.

For this reason I will change the sentence in the intro to 'Mosasaurs have been considered to be the closest relatives of snakes, although this is disputed' and will include the appropriate references

Neil Brocklehurst Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin
 * Good point. I added some additional information and moved all of it to the section "Evolutionary antecedents", as I think it was growing too large to keep it in the introduction.--Macrochelys (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

USA states as fossil locales?
The section titled "Environment" lists a number of nations where fossil Mosasaurs have been recovered including the USA. The paragraph then goes on to detail a number of US states where fossils have been recovered. Since the article doesnt specify political subdivisions of the other nations mentioned and already states that fossils have been found in the USA it seems both parochial and redundant to then list the political subdivision of the USA. It is meaningless to most people not from the USA (which is the vast majority of Wikipedia users) and there are far too many Wikipedia articles that overly reference USA states. Should the references to states be removed? 58.166.241.254 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Meaningless perhaps to people who are not English-speakers, but very familiar to the British (like me), the Aussies and the Canadians. Please don't speak in generalities that you have no facts for, thanks.
 * Also, N. America was split into two and the great inland sea was an important environment - so the geography has deep meaning for scientists and educated laymen.104.169.31.99 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jurassic World (and Discovery Channel) pop culture?
This. Plus a "2015" before film. I was edit conflicted before I could fatten it up.

Aye? Nay? Why? Why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, it seems very cruft to have the mention of Jurassic world in the article. An unidentified Mosasaur was in the film, in an important role, however there is no real dialog about it, and it doesnt really change much about this article.-- Kev min  § 17:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't add much, but it doesn't take much space. It can say more, but I don't know enough. I definitely notice a resurgence in popularity for this old beast ("Ash the Fish Expert" recently became "Ash the Dinosaur Expert"], but haven't seen the movie. Discovery Channel probably helped, but I haven't watched that in years, either.


 * Definitely seems significant to me (and the IP who inspired me), others can fill in the blanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These were fantasy-park reconstructed/modified creatures, so whatever base species it was had been modified by Wu & company to make it more spectacular. Trivia for this article.104.169.31.99 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:IPC seems to cover this situation fairly well, until there are articles that show JW has had a discernible impact on Mosasaurs other then a temporary fan blip, it doesn't actually add to the article.-- Kev min  § 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be a crystal ball, after all. That, and would it still be worth reinserting if this nascent trend is nothing more than a string of monster of the week appearances?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're holding it to a higher standard than many articles. The source I used has encyclopedic info about the real thing, too. You don't often find those in "In popular culture" sections. You often don't find any sources there. They look like this one's "Palaeobiology" and "Discovery" sections, with no indication of significance at all, but in far more words.
 * I'd delete those, but it would look like a pointy edit. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You tube and pod casts rarely get used as viable references on WP due the to lack of verifiable nature. This is the standard that most paleo articles get held to, with only the exceptional cultural events being included.  if you feel the paleobiology section is not viable feel free to tag it, I happen to agree the lack of citations is problematic.-- Kev  min  § 19:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * YouTube and podcasts can be fine, if timestamped and not just from average Joe (that YouTube one is a copyright violation, so no), but I wasn't proposing them as references, just using them in this discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing is connective trivia unless it is discussing specifically how JW made Mosasaurus popular, or ushered it into the public imagination, or changed the public perception of mosasaurids. Some or all of these things may happen in the future, but the movie just came out last month, so it's far too early for there to be many sources discussing it or any valid measurements of cultural impact. What this should not be is a celebrity's filmography. Writing "An animated Mosasaurus appeared in the film Jurassic World is the definition of useless trivia unless it can be followed by something relevant or interesting. The answer the the question "so what?" needs to follow the initial statement. Alternately, it could be mentioned in the context of a larger discussion of mosasaurs' depiction in art and culture. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you. That was completely intended as a starting point, not a finished section. Figured it might have time to grow, as those who can answer "So what?" notice it in the first place. Like how we're waiting for someone to eventually elaborate on those wacky French and their trade-a-fish-for-wine ways. "It is said". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we don't yet know what the answer to "so what?" is, or if it has an answer. The movie came out a month ago. Fort all we know, in a year, the fact that mosasaur was in it will not be remembered by anyone except the movie's super fans. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a hunch, but hunches don't matter. Here's a little bit of so what. Helping a Manitoba museum out. The mosasaur's portrayal (among others') apparently annoys some palaentologists with the lies, damn lies. General audiences tend to trust the screen over scientists.
 * It's not all about the movie, though. Probably something to be said for Discovery's stuff (and whatever else). It's no Shark Week yet, for sure, but this thing ate sharks. It's a matter of time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, there seems to have been some qualified discussion of how oversized the thing was in the movie. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Discovery of color
Isn't the presence of melanin irrelevant? All animals have melanin as their sole pigment as far as I know, either the black version or the red version. Actual color relies on more than pigment, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Not all animals (vertebrates or otherwise) have melanin for pigment, which is black (many have no pigments at all), 2) Carotene and its derivatives are red, not melanin, and most importantly, 3) the discovery of any pigmentation, melanin or otherwise, in fossils, is always significant, as pigmentation very rarely fossilizes, and the presence of fossilized pigmentation helps to further refine reconstructions and basic understanding of the living organism.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there are multiple kinds of melanin that produce different colors. By "red" or reddish orange is phaeomelanin (as found in Sinosauropteryx etc.) Bright reds and yellows are caused by carotenoids, a different kind of pigment besides melanin. And all of these colors can be modified further by refraction through the skin or keratin of scales as structural color. So yes, melanin is only one small part of the story when it comes to determining color, but it's still informative. Patterns of melanin across the body can at least reveal dark and light areas, giving us a "black and white" picture of the animal even if we don't know what specific colors the dark and light areas were. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Should mosasaurs be referred to as lizards?
"Lizard" is a paraphyletic term referring to many squamates. While amphisbaenians and snakes are understood to not fit in the "lizard" vernacular term (despite emerging from them phylogenetically), what is it with mosasaurs? Are there any sources clearly stating either that mosasaurs are lizards, or that "lizard" also excludes mosasaurs? Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 00:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Several scientific articles in the references call mosasaurs lizards in the title, and I'm not familiar with any reliable sources that dispute this. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  23:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Mosasaur → Mosasauridae – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  BD2412  T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * pinging pre-request commenters Macrophyseter &#124;  talk  22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, I believe, and I also support the creation/split of a separate Mosasauria article as well. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per below; I would also be okay with combining Mosasauridae, Aigialosauridae, and Mosasauroidea into a single article, but either way, I'd consider "mosasaur" too ambiguous a title. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Existing discussion: Mosasaur vs. Mosasauridae vs. Mosasauroidea vs. Mosasauria: proposed article splits
Right now the mosasaur article conflates several higher taxa, which may not be necessarily reflective of how "mosasaur" is used in academia. Unfortunately, there isn't really a consensus on what the word should mean exactly. There's even arguments (i.e. Caldwell (2012) ) that "mosasaur" might as well be an informal term. From I understand of the taxonomic situation, the three main Mosasauridae subgroups (Mosasaurinae, Halisaurinae, and Russellosaurina) either have or are implied to have at their phylogenetic bases terrestrial-limbed taxa we would normally call aigialosaurs. "Aigialosaur" itself seems to either be used as an evolutionary grade (i.e. Makadi et al. 2012 ) or avoided altogether in favor of terms like "basal mosasauroid." So if we were to make "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauridae, there would be the awkward situation of aigialosaurs that aren't that different from each other being split between Aigialosauridae, Mosasauridae, or neither. I don't think congruency with Mosasauroidea would make much sense either, since scientists almost never use "mosasaur" that way (and only informally when so) and instead just use "aigialosaur" or "basal mosasauroid." Making "mosasaur" congruent with Mosasauria would also be problematic for similar reasons (plus the ophidiomorph hypothesis would make snakes = mosasaurs).

A possible way to stabilize the Mosasaur article would be to split it up into the following:
 * Mosasauria: Contains Dolichosauridae and Mosasauroidea. Maybe also merge Pythonomorpha into this as a more neutral article name, given that the former clade neither conflicts with the latter nor the snake terrestrial-origin hypothesis.
 * Mosasauroidea: Would be a "super article" that covers both aigialosaurs, Aigialosauridae, and Mosasauridae with the latter two not having independent articles (similar to Physeteridae with Physeteroidea). This allows a neutral space for conflicting viewpoints and definitions to coexist.
 * Mosasaur: Independent article in a similar format as River dolphin that strictly includes only taxa fitting the "traditional" definition of paddle-bearing mosasauroids (i.e. Caldwell (2012)). From a descriptive standpoint this also makes sense as the biologys of derived mosasaurs are similar to each other but different from aigialosaurs.

Or we can do away with "mosasaur" entirely, like we did with Ichthyosaur.

Opinions? Macrophyseter &#124; talk  23:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, first off, not every clade needs an article. I can see the case for seperate Mosasauria and and Mosasauridae, but I'd prefer that Mosasauroidea be redirected to Mosasauria, and no independent "Mosasaur" (either redirect or disambiguate). Merging Pythonomorpha into Mosasauria is also a good idea. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I'm curious about what problems you envision for an independent Mosasauroidea article that steers towards a preference for redirecting to Mosasauria. I agree that not every clade needs an article, but there comes a point when groups are different enough to warrant it, unless that's not the case for the situation for aigialosaurs? Macrophyseter &#124; talk  01:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think "mosasaur" is comparable to river dolphin, as it does not necessarily denote an unnatural group. That term should be used for (or redirected to) the highest taxonomic rank it can be applied to. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, as the guy who did away with "ichthyosaur" entirely, I'd be in favor of doing the same with "mosasaur" as an independent article for the same reasons - it is an ambiguous, inconsistent term that should be redirected or disambiguated. How stable is the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split? I think separate Mosasauria and Mosasauroidea articles would be good (from my experience reading the mosasaur literature, Mosasauroidea is generally addressed separately than the larger group containing the dolichosaurs), but if the delineation of Aigialosauridae/Mosasauridae is controversial, having the be redirected to Mosasauroidea seems like the cleanest way to discuss them for the moment. --Slate Weasel &#91;Talk - Contribs&#93; 15:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's been any updates since Madzia and Cau (2017) formally defined where the aigialosaurid/mosasaurid split should be (everything more related to A. dalmaticus than dolichosaurs or mosasaurs), but whenever upheld as valid in phylogenetic analyses, that definition only includes Aigialosaurus and Opetiosaurus to the exclusion of every other aigialosaur taxa. Besides Komensaurus, the rest aren't tested in recent literature anymore because of a lack of reliable skull material, but both past studies and Mekarski (2017)'s PhD thesis got them nestled within the Mosasauridae so it's kind of a maybe? So the question for replacing "Mosasaur" with Mosasauridae would be how mosasaurid aigialosaurs should be represented when those aigialosaurs are morphologically/ecologically more similar to aigialosaurids than mosasaurs (In other words, whether a GA/FA version of Mosasauridae and Mosasauroidea would have to rigorously describe aigialosaurs twice). Perhaps we could make aigialosaur information in Mosasauridae skim in practice and redirect most descriptions to Mosasauroidea. Thoughts? Macrophyseter &#124; talk  18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There's been a recent review of basal mosasaurians in the 2022 book The Origin and Early Evolutionary History of Snakes in the chapter "A Review of Non-Mosasaurid (Dolichosaur and Aigialosaur) Mosasaurians and Their Relationships to Snakes" (Wikipedia Library link I think a case could be made for splitting out Mosasauridae, but I agree that the issue about the definition of "Mosasaur" is messy. II think turning it into a disambig could be a good solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Created a formal move request for current article. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Marine life has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME policy; see Mosasaur (Britannica), National Park Service, etc. Wikipedia focuses on names in common parlance over scientific ones which is why acetylsalicylic acid is a redirect.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aspirin vs. acetylsalicylic acid is not an accurate analogy here. Those two names refer to the same chemical. Mosasauria and Mosasauridae describe two different groups, and, to oversimplify, "mosasaur" has been used to describe either to the exclusion of the other, hence the common name does not meet MOS:PRECISION. Macrophyseter</i> &#124; talk  22:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If people can come up with a substitute WP:BROADCONCEPT article for the "Mosasaur" concept then I'd be inclined to agree to the move. As it is, it will be overly confusing to move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412  T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose move per Zxcvbnm. This appears to be the common name used in sources, and I'm not convinced by the argument that the term is particularly ambiguous. If there are grey areas those can be discussed specifically within the text. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested closure for this at Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.