Talk:Picrodon

Factual accuracy and misrepresentation of sources
The article states that a second species of Picrodon, P. solus was described in 2012, but the only citation close to it cites a paper from 2010, which, when I checked, does not mention Picrodon at all. As the article itself states, the correct combination is Anchisaurus solus, which is actually a synonym of Anchisaurus polyzelus. To my knowledge, no one has ever touched up on Picrodon or A. solus in recent years. Other statements throughout the article state that it was probably an indeterminate archosaur or synonymous with Avalonianus, both cited to a 2007 thesis. However, from my skim of the thesis, I can tell that all it does is focus on the basal sauropodomorphs from Eastern North America, without touching on these dubious British taxa at all. Checking the edit history, I noticed that before the 22nd of August 2020, the page was a redirect to Avalonianus (which is probably the right choice), but it was inexplicably removed, then rewritten by a 77.99.156.192 - an unusually prolific IP that normally does mostly good edits. Why would they do such a thing? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While the ip user usually makes good edits, they do stray into using poor sources like preprints, its probably just best to undo the creation to this article and let their good edits stand. The IP has no history of edit warring over removal, so it's not an issue Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)