Template talk:Ichthyosauromorpha

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Amphibians and Reptiles Template:Ichthyosauromorpha is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles

What about the following dubious taxa: Actiosaurus, Pachygonosaurus and all the species of Pessosaurus. Where do you suggest to put them? Rnnsh (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pessosaurus has been classified as a shastasaurid before, so I'd put it under Shastasauridae with a question mark. Most species claimed to be shastasaurids are probably just basal merriamosaurs, but as far as I know Pessosaurus hasn't been included in any phylogenetic analyses. The others could be put under a new row called "incertae sedis", but then we need to know whether or not each one is a parvipelvian. Pachygonosaurus comes from the Triassic according to Shikama et al. (1978) so it's probably non-parvipelvian. Do you know anything about Actiosaurus? Smokeybjb (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should call the raw "nomina dubia" or somthing and put it "at the base" of Ichthyosauria - Pessosaurus was not assigned to any particular group of ichthyosaurs since Maisch & Matzke (2000) (both "schemes" support the view that it is dubious...). And about Actiosaurus - is it even an ichthyosaur? There is a nice post on him at the Theropod Database Blog since it was originally thought to be a theropod... Rnnsh (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As for Actiosaurus, if it's probably not an ichthyosaur at all, it's probably not worth putting on this template. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]