Talk:Tanystropheus

Untitled
Ironically, this long-necked genus has a short article. And no picture. Totnesmartin 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a picture on the BBC link at the end of this article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Took out the "Wikiproject: Dinosaurs" thing. Honestly, crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than this thing is. 71.217.114.221 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Despite current thinking, this genus was at one time thought to be a dinosaur, and appears on Wikipedia's List of dinosaurs. The article was created by, and is maintained and supported by WP:Dinosaurs. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  22:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Tanystropheus is not a dinosaur.T.Neo 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But it was once thought to be one, in the past. So it falls within the project. Dinoguy2 14:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless someone creates WikiProject Prolacertiformes! Sheep81 23:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or WikiProject Tanystrophidae! ;) Firsfron of Ronchester  00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that being formerly recognised as dinosaur should be the only reason to be included in the Dinosaur wikiproject. My opinion is that being basal to a clade that evolved into dinosaurs all archosauromorpha that are now extinct (except for pterosauria that could as well have their own project, mainly to avoid the popular misconception that pterosaurs are dinosaurs) should be included in the project as related or as indicating to dinosaur evolution. You know better though.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

David Peters
I have removed the following passage from the article for a couple of reasons: for a start, it uses lots of weasel words ("some scientists have argued", "along with several other scientists"). In addition, as far as I can tell from a quick Google search, David Peters' views are generally regarded as "fringe" theories at best, so presenting them as orthodoxy is somewhat misleading. Icalanise (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the animal is generally considered to have been a sort of 'reverse amphibian', sitting on the shoreline and snatching fish and other marine life from the shallows with its long neck and sharp teeth, the almost disproportionate neck presents several problems for such a lifestyle. Some scientists have argued that such a disproportionate neck would have placed Tanystropheus' center of gravity in front of its arms- causing it to fall flat on its face every time its neck stuck out. For this and other reasons, David Peters has suggested a primarily terrestrial lifestyle, with the creature rearing up bipedally on its hind limbs, holding its neck vertically, keeping the creature balanced. Some who subscribe to this theory envision the animal waiting at the base of a tree and snatching small, arboreal animals out of its branches with its lengthy neck and small head. Peters (along with several other scientists) also believes that prolacertiforms (such as Tanystropheus) were the ancestors of pterosaurs, and thus assigns prevalently terrestrial behavior to them.
 * I'd agree with this, and the 'some scientists' stuff is especially weaselly in the second instance, since I blieve Peters is the only one advocating for these theories (squirrel-eater, prolacertiform ancestors for pterosaurs) and even he's abandoned the later in favor of lepidosaurian ancestors (!). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Should Tanystropheus be included under Wikiproject Dinosaurs?
It seems like this is a debatable topic when it really shouldn't be according to my reckoning. Although Tanystropheus is part of the List of dinosaur genera, I'm not sure if this is enough of a justification. Shouldn't the list be edited if Tanystropheus was included on it erroneously? Also, I'm not sure why people think that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur. I have yet to find any source which claimed that Tanystropheus was a dinosaur, apart from toys and stuff like that. Even going by the logic that Tanystropheus was once considered a dinosaur, is that really justification for its inclusion in the project? Should Megalosaurus be part of Wikiproject anthropology because the first fossils from that genus were mistaken for petrified human remains? Should elephants be part of Wikiproject mythology because people thought elephant skulls were cyclops skulls? None of the arguments presented seem to justify Tanystropheus being part of this project. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that just because something has at one point been considered a dinosaur, it doesn't warrant inclusion. But something like Teratosaurus, which was long considered a dinosaur, might be warranted. But this should perhaps be a wider discussion at the dinosaur project talk page. As for this case, we would at least need some source stating it was once considered a dinosaur by scientists if it is to be included at all. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, Teratosaurus and a few other examples would be relevant to the project due to their history in conversation on the group. However, as far as I know, the only people who think Tanystropheus was a dinosaur probably consists of the kind of people who think pterosaurs and plesiosaurs were dinosaurs. I wouldn't doubt that whoever put Tanystropheus on the list of dinosaurs was someone like that, although admittedly I'm not willing to look through that page's massive history for clarification. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)