User talk:Greygirlbeast~specieswiki

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Open2universe 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

Hi Nebari lady, Please use standard formatting for taxa: Latin taxon names, no triple quotes for bold, only one taxon level at a time, etc... See Recentchanges for guidance. Thanks -- Lycaon 16:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thanks.--Greygirlbeast 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plotosaurini[edit]

Hi again, What references/sources are you using? I found my info amongst others, on this site. Lycaon 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You're right. I don't know why I'd forgotten that Bell (1997) sank Mosasaurini into Plotosaurini (as the former was paraphyletic), but I had. There you go. :-)--Greygirlbeast 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that sure anymore that I'm 'right'. Check out http://www.yale.edu/peabody/scipubs/abstracts/abs_b23.html. And that's 2005. Talking about taxonomy in a state of flux.... ??? ;-) -- Lycaon 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops wrong again: Russell's original publication dates from 1967. :-(. Lycaon 20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy of the Mosasauroidea is in a major state of flux these days. Things almost seem to change month to month, especially with basal taxa. Anyway, as defined by Russell (1967; the link you gave), Mosasaurini is paraphyletic. Bell (1997) tried to correct this by sinking the Mosasaurini into the Plotosaurini (I think he should have done it the other way around, but there you go). Some workers are following this change, some are not. Confusion abounds. I'd say stick with Plotosaurini. I'm not sure where Leidontini fits into all this, as Lingham-Soliar removed taxa from the old Mosasaurini (sensu Russell) to erect the tribe. There are a number of problems with Leiodontini. For one, Lingham-Soliar was unaware that the name Leiodon was preoccupied and replaced with Liodon. Hence, the taxa should have been established as Liodontini. Worse still, the generic type for his tribe in likely indeterminate.--Greygirlbeast 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

08:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

11:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)