Talk:Tylosaurus

Preoccupied?
The article contains the following quote: "Marsh named a more complete specimen as a new genus, Rhinosaurus ("nose lizard"), but this name soon proved to be preoccupied." What does that even mean? Does the author wish to indicate that the name was already in use for another species? If so, what species, and why does the redirect for Rhinosaurus come here? We could definitely use some rephrasing here to use something more appropriate than "preoccupied." Carychan (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, preoccupied means the name had already been used for something else. I'll clarify and try to find out what actually holds that name. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Saltwater or freshwater?
Saltwater or freshwater? It doesn't say. 91.186.72.51 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph the article says "was a mosasaur, a large, predatory marine lizard closely related to modern monitor lizards and to snakes." Also mention that it lived in the Western Interior Seaway. By the way, the only confirmated mosasaur from freshwater is Pannoniasaurus.--Rextron (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tylosaurus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tylosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "KC11": From Plioplatecarpinae:  From Latoplatecarpus:  From List of mosasaur genera:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tylosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053322/http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings to http://worldtreasures.org/worldtreasures.php?name=New%20Exhibit%20Openings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

New Temporal
tylosaurus lived up to 66 or to some countries 65 MYA acording to fossilworks.Here the source
 * It's 66 mya: sources that continue to use 65 mya are outdated. We've told you this before.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hainosaurus
Since there is a paper dated 2016 that considers Hainosaurus a synonym of Tylosaurus should we merge the Hainosaurus article with this article? -User:1morey June 6, 2020 3:18 AM (EST)
 * A quich search on Google Scholar reveals several post-2016 papers that still use Hainosaurus; it shouldn't be merged on the basis of a single paper but we can discuss the prospect of synonymization in both articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I've proposed a merger for Hainosaurus and Tylosaurus, as it seems that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your source for that? I don't seem to see that a synonymy has been widely accepted. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that a handful of authors have continued to use the name Hainosaurus in literature published after the lump was proposed in 2015, T. bernardi has been consistently recovered as nesting deep within the genus Tylosaurus in recent mosasaur phylogenies (meaning that not including "Hainosaurus" within Tylosaurus would make the latter genus paraphyletic, the same reason that Wikipedia now recognizes the species formerly referred to Carcharocles as Otodus), such as Jiménez-Huidobro et al. 2018, Jiménez-Huidobro and Caldwell 2019, Madzia and Cau 2017, Otero et al. 2017, Simões et al. 2017, and Strong et al. 2020, and most mosasaur researchers now accept it as a species of Tylosaurus. Accordingly there is ample cause to merge the Hainosaurus article into Tylosaurus. Pryftan213 (User talk:Pryftan213) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay. If the taxonomy fits, then I see no problem with a merge. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Tylosaurus size estimate
Hi. Paul's field guide has now been officially published (I think you'd also know this). For the most part, I think his mosasaur estimates are generally accurate and is within the consensus. His estimates are: T. proriger at 13 m long and 6.7 tonnes; T. nepaeolicus at 8.5 m and 1.8 tonnes; T. saskatchewanensis at 9 m and 2 tonnes; T. pembinensis and T. bernardi at 12 m and 5 tonnes. Since you're a mosasaur enthusiast, I think it would be better for you to consider whether these estimates are good enough and could be included in the article (like with Mosasaurus estimate last time). Also, I know it's not been a subject of debate yet, but is it OK to put an estimate of 15.8 m from an abstract which is still not part of an official study (despite the fact that it is from Mike Everhart)? Junsik1223 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also this is a bit unrelated, but KUVP 1001 belongs to Platecarpus right? Or is this currently assigned to as something else? Junsik1223 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why using Paul's estimate for Mosasaurus was okay was because it's a suitable fix for a unique issue about the fact that an updated estimate that incorporates the current paleontological opinion for a very fragmentary species hasn't been done yet, but Tylosaurus is different because we know a lot more thanks to numerous complete skeletons.


 * Almost all of Paul's estimates are in agreement or similar to existing size estimates for typical individuals of each species, so I don't see why it would be necessary to incorporate the source beyond additional citation tags and the mass estimates, especially when it (probably because of the guide's condensed nature) doesn't discuss the observation of Cope's Rule in some species and how their max sizes has changed over geologic time. I noticed that I never added the size estimates for the other species from scientific literature in the article; T. bernardi is robustly estimated at 12.2 m per Lindgren (2005) based on a mostly complete skeleton, and T. saskatchewanensis was reconstructed by the holotype's museum at 9.75 m, so I guess 9-9.75m can work for that. I'm personally skeptical of the estimate for T. pembinensis because the existing literature has measurements of the original skull fragments and I doubt that it they would yield a skull big enough to reach an animal up to 12m unless there's a new specimen I'm not aware of, not to mention a big confusion about that species' proportions because the famous Bruce skeleton seems to be inaccurate and was constructed before the species was found to be reconstructed with way too much extra vertebrae.


 * For the 15.8m estimate, I don't mind removing it if others give a consensus for such, but all because it's an abstract it doesn't mean it's credibility is automatically suspect. There's a ton of published papers that cite conference abstracts, but I suppose it's a case-by-case basis. Here, I also think it's a good way to showing how the foremost experts could be seeing what an upper-end estimate is like, but is also balanced by how the article also discusses what the max size for typical members of the species would be.


 * KUVP 1001 is still Platecarpus according to the museum's catalog. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  19:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But again, in general I really caution against citing Paul except for really weird cases like Mosasaurus as it seems that a lot of the paleontological community seems to find a ton of errors in his field guide including even allegations of plagiarism for some reconstructions. Not to mention that he's technically not an expert on marine reptiles and has pushing a lot of claims that are criticized as poorly researched lately. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Based on your suggestion, I've included mass estimates for the most part and I may have to search more about T. pembinensis. Also the reason why I was confused about the 15.8 m estimate is because the Oceans of Kansas book by Everhart claims that Tylosaurus was able to reach 13-14 m by early Campanian based on Bunker, while the abstract says 15.8 m based on specimens like Bunker. Junsik1223 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Caution with new species
A new species Hainosaurus boubker (=Tylosaurus boubker) was described earlier today. The publisher is the predatory journal Scientific Research Publishing, so I caution against using the source out of reliability and ethical concerns unless there's an agreement that an exception is okay here. Macrophyseter &#124; talk  02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Angry Edits
Hi. I'm not sure who user: Hainosaurus_Boubker is, but please don't curse at people. THRempert (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Article's introduction problem
Hello everyone, I am posting this recommendation because I have a real problem with the introduction of this article. I know, this article isn't featured yet, but to see the introduction of such a well-known prehistoric animal as Tylosaurus reduced to two lines, I find it particularly ridiculous, especially compared to everything the article details. So, while waiting for the finalized version of the article, I hope that someone (notably ) can solve this problem. Without wanting to brag, even I try to expand introductions on articles about lesser known prehistoric animals, such as Nochnitsa, Inostrancevia or Taniwhasaurus. Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)