Talk:Thalassodromeus

Images
Image available at. --Snek01 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'll upload this and a cropped version that removes the anachronistic Skimmer. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that we have other restorartions, I think it is ok to show the skimmer image as it was intended, to just show the two animals side by side during discussion of their lifestyles. Or well, that's what I had in mind for doing for an expansion of the article some day... FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the article
I'm currently expanding the article in honour of the most likely destroyed type specimen, with FAC as the ultimate goal. But I'm finding some of the existing text hard to verify; there is now a claim that the jaw tip now named Banguela (by some) was proposed as a "Thalassodromeus oberli" already in 2005, but I can't find this name in any of the sources listed. Seems this was added by, is there something I have overlooked? Also, does anyone know why the text on Thalassodromeus in Veldmeijer 2005 and 2006 is largely identical? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it was destroyed? It was not officially part of the collection of the MN. Anyway, the subject merits a FA-status! The mention of a 2005 Thalassodromeus oberli was based on a misunderstanding on my part. Veldmeijer prepublished parts of his dissertational research, as many universities encourage or even pose as a condition for promotion.--MWAK (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but many social media comments suggest it was there, and Mark Witton has stated that many Brazilian pterosaur specimens from other institutions were currently on loan to the National Museum: So better be prepared for the worst... FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ouch.--MWAK (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lacusovagus JWPhoto.JPG

Should the page Thalassodromidae be renamed as Thalassodrominae?
I know I should put this discussion in the actual Thalassodromidae page, but since this page gets more attention (and opinions from editors are more likely to appear), I thought of putting it here. So yeah, I'm well aware about the controversies of this group, and I know that the best way to keep things is to keep them neutral. But considering Thalassodrominae was named first, shouldn't this article be named with that name instead of Thalassodromidae (which was named later)? Also, a lot recent studies seem to favor Thalassodrominae over Thalassodromidae, but I guess that has nothing to do with this. As a side note, Saturnaliinae also seems to have the same issue as Thalassodrominae, with a certain later study reclassifying the group as Saturnaliidae. Jurassic Classic 767 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we could look at what most newer sources use? But then again, it comes down to which "camp" that publishes on the group. If Brazilian, we can be sure they use one name, if British, the other.FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, yeah, it's always like a "Brazilian vs British phylogeny" in these type of studies, because of course it has to be. :P But seriously, what I thought the actual issue here is that Thalassodrominae has priority over Thalassodromidae, but I guess that's not the only thing? But yeah, there has been a lot of these "Brazilian camp" studies published very recently (including Kellner et al. (2019), Pegas et al. (2018), Holgado et al. (2019), Ji et al. (2020), which apparently just follows Kellner et al. (2019), as well as Jiang et al. (2020)), while the latest "British camp" studies are Longrich et al. (2018) and Bestwick et al. (2018) if I'm not wrong.


 * Also, Andres et al. (2014) and Upchurch et al. (2015), even though using the "British camp" definition of the group, they actually use Thalassodrominae, so I guess we could take them into account as using Thalassodrominae as well? Correct me if I'm wrong though. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a mess, and something that will probably remain unsolved for a long time. I'm not sure it matters which version of the name was coined first, because it's just different forms of the same name, with the difference being their rank. So the important point is what rank it "truly" belongs to if we want to determine the name, which is of course also subjective, because ranks are arbitrary anyway... So in short, I don't really have an opinion on this, it's too much of a mess, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, so I guess it should just stay as it is right now? Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, others with stronger opinions might show up. But then I think there's a slightly bigger chance of making more people notice it if you make a section at the palaeo project. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I can try that. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)