Talk:Tropeognathus mesembrinus

Seems the genus is considered monotypic, so this should be merged. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too hasty to make any changes to ornithocheirids/anhanguerida that can't be easily undone or easily made to present two totally mutually exclusive taxonomies. Kellner has published a new paper, sure. In a month or two Unwin will publish one saying everything in Kellner's taxonomy is total rubbish. Since this kind of taxonomy is subjective and genericometers don't exist, this will go on until a majority of pteorsaur researchers join the club and agree genera are fake, and simply make *everything* monotypic. In my opinion the best solution right now is to keep all ornithocheirid/anhanguerid articles at the species level, whether monotypic or not. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand the point about constant reshuffling, but since the last revision was more than ten years ago, I don't think it is likely to change any time soon. I agree that all the uncertainly placed species without their own genus names should be kept separate, even the many "Pterodactylus" species, such as P. daviesii, which probably belong in new genera. But I don't understand why the type species of a genus should be split off from the genus article (as as the case with Tropeognathus, Ornithoceirus and Coloborhynchus)? They are surely identical however way you look at it? All info will be duplicate, and those articles will be redundant. And there is no chance that O simus and C clavirostris'' will be placed in genera other than ones they were initially placed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll copy my reply to one of the pages that get more traffic, so perhaps continue the discussion there? FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)