Talk:Ornithocheirus simus

Genus appears to be monotypic now, perhaps this should be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Kellner and Unwin can't even agree what the type species of this genus is, let alone settle how many species it may or may not contain with a single position paper. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the problem with the uncertain type species. But even if we imagined O. compressirostris was declared the type species, the worst that could happen would be that O. simus received a separate genus name (Criorhynchus?)? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But I agree, this article has a unique problem due to the lack of a definite type species (unlike Tropeognathus and Coloborhynchus), so I'll self revert. But if there is still disagreement, doesn't that mean O. compressirostris should be mentioned in the Ornithocheirus taxobox, and Lonchodectes as a possible junior synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, never mind--I see that Kellner, in his newest paper, changed his mind and agrees with Unwin that simus is the type species. This can be safely merged into Ornithocheirus. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it was him, and not Unwin, who rejected simus? FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kellner & Tomida (2000) argued that compressirostris was the type species and this has been followed by some other researchers e.g. Veldmeijer et al. 2006 (who simply cited Kellner's opinion). I think now that Kellner has agreed with Unwin on this point it's safe to claim consensus is for simus. MMartyniuk (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)