Talk:Pteranodon sternbergi

Pteranodon sternbergi
You say that new paper=not a consensus, but there was never a consensus over the validity of Geosternbergia. Leading minds in the field, Bennett, Witton, Martin-Silverstone etc. all oppose the idea. In fact, the article even admits that it "is often considered simply an earlier species of Pteranodon itself". So much for a "consensus" --Edaphosaurus (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one said there was a consensus. The point is, if there is no consensus, we need to discuss how to handle it before radically changing the article by replacing every time the name is mentioned. No one disagrees these are two different taxa (unlike Dawndraco), so whether they belong to the same genus or not is a rather arbitrary decision. The new paper has got the ball rolling, so we should wait and see if it becomes widely accepted in the literature. Otherwise, we would have to change the name back and forth every single time Kellner or Bennet publishes a new paper that uses different terminology (this is likely to become an ongoing debate). The interrelation between the two species isn't really examined much in the new paper (they just state seperation isn't warranted), it is mainly about sinking Dawndraco. It seems Bennett is working on a paper that may go more into depth on the issue (see comment here:), so maybe we'll get a clearer picture then. Another possibility is that the original "subgenus" classification is kept, and we would still be able to use the name in some way. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation, I'll keep an eye out for Bennet's new paper if and when it comes --Edaphosaurus (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Name meaning?
Well, I was just curious about the meaning of Geosternbergia, but I didn't find it anywhere in the Internet.Mr. Hunter 6amm4 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * George F. Sternberg. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

is it really necessary that Geosternbergia may be merged?
Is pteranodon sternbergi may belong to geosternbergia or not, or should we merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just realised that the move creates a peculiar issue, where the Pteranodon genus article now only deals with the type species... Though, logically, that species should also then be split off... FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2023

 * 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.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Geosternbergia → Pteranodon sternbergi – Current title is a violation of due weight. There is only one prominent advocate of using the name Geosternbergia, Alexander Kellner; nearly every other pterosaur researcher to mention sternbergi has either explicitly argued in favor of using Pteranodon sternbergi (e.g. Witton, Martin-Silverstone) or simply continued to use the name Pteranodon sternbergi without comment (e.g. Andres, Bennett). Ornithopsis (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, better to use the more common name and explain the alternate name fairly. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - while, as you know, I'm generally against splitting species, in this case I think it actually fits all criteria, both articles are too long to merge properly. I do wonder, though, if we have heard the last from the Brazilian crew, which generally disagrees with everything on taxonomic issues. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear we agree on that matter in this case. It's true that we probably haven't heard the last of this debate, but it's clear that Geosternbergia hasn't caught on in the wider pterosaur research community, over a decade after Kellner first proposed elevating it to genus. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support as it stands, per nom and per SilverTiger12. BD2412  T 00:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)