Talk:Nichollssaura

Two articles for the same animal
I have created a redirect from Nichollsia borealis to this article, as it is largely a duplicate of the information here. Both articles have been merged to ensure no information has been lost. There is no need to have two articles, 1) referring to a monogeneric genus with 2) referring to its type species. This is the same condition as per Montealtosuchus. Other monogeneric genera do not have two articles pertaining to the same animal, so I see no reason why that should start now; especially as both are stubs, and the taxa in question is not of cultrural note (although evolutionarily it does seem interesting). Mark t young (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you beat me to cleaning this up, thanks. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. The mention of the Western Interior Seaway isn't techincally correct. At that stage in time, and in that location it was the Boreal Sea. Mark t young (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be incorrect to say it is from the Boreal Sea then? I mean, obviously it's in the middle of this gigantic body of water which covered most of North America. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, Boreal Sea is fine. The Western Interior Seaway divided North America up from the late Albian when the Boreal Sea from the north became confluent with Tethyan waters from the Gulf of Mexico. As this fossil is early Albian, you can't say WIS :)Mark t young (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This ref might be of interest:


 * Sorry, all the talk about delta-13-O and delta-18-C and all is way over my head. I didn't do well in chemistry classes.  So the Bearpaw Sea is another name for this sea? Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bearpaw Sea was deposited during the Campanian-Maastrictian. The Western Interior Seaway although covering North America, it wasn't continuous throughout the Late Cretaceous. There were four marine cycles, the last being the Bearpaw. The other three were: Greenhorn, Niobrara, and Claggett. Mark t young (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholls(s)aura
The title of this article is Nichollssaura but in the text and infobox this name is spelled Nichollsaura. Which version is correct? Darth Ag.Ent (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The one with two s's is correct. Its name comes from the possessive phrase "Nicholls's lizard", and since Nicholls and saura both have an S, it gets two. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * May suggestion would be to check what the paper where the genus was renamed actually used. The above reasoning is good for guessing what the name may be spelled, but is not a guarantee that it actually is correct.-- Kev  min  § 23:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick check of the paper shows the Nichollssaura spelling is correct.-- Kev min  § 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did read the paper back when the name was changed. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nichollssaura. 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/20080404012601/http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/03/details_on_nichollsia_borealis.php to http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/03/details_on_nichollsia_borealis.php

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) 15:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)