Talk:Archosauriformes

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archosauriformes. 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/20050409174045/http://www.palaeos.com:80/vertebrates/Units/270Archosauromorpha/270.400.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/270Archosauromorpha/270.400.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archosauriformes. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palaeos.com/vertebrates/Units/270Archosauromorpha/270.400.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310170659/http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauriformes.htm to http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/users/haaramo/Metazoa/Deuterostoma/Chordata/Reptilia/Archosauromorpha/Archosauriformes.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Scleromochlus

Regarding the inclusion of Scleromochlus which 38.73.227.227 and Fanboyphilosopher have made competing edits regarding: there's precedent for taxa which are of uncertain position within a clade to be included within the taxobox for whatever clade certainly contains them—see Archosauria's taxobox, for instance. It seems to me that including Scleromochlidae in the taxobox, either with a question mark or in a section captioned "incertae sedis" or something, is appropriate. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I should note that I've heard a variety of informal criticisms from paleontologists (including those I know personally) about Bennett (2020)'s paper. This has led me to reject the phylogenetic and anatomical conclusions of the report. I should note that Bennett has also published papers arguing that pterosaurs are basal archosauriforms. Should we list them in the taxobox as well? Perhaps we should wait a while, to see whether Bennett's unorthodox interpretations are refuted or supported by other publications. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Informal criticism online is not a reliable source; we can't just dismiss Bennett's assessment of Scleromochlus out of hand because a few paleontologists on social media expressed skepticism. The issue with pterosaurs is somewhat a different matter, as published research has definitely explicitly disagreed with Bennett's conclusion that pterosaurs are stem-archosaurs, and the position of pterosaurs has been much more thoroughly studied than that of Scleromochlus. We don't know how long "a while" will be, so I think it's better to at least acknowledge Bennett's research. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing discussion of Bennett's assessment, I simply disagree with its conclusion based on arguments outlined by paleontologists both online and in-person. I have been told that Bennett is not the only person working on Scleromochlus right now, so his unorthodox interpretation is far from the last word on the matter. The perspective I'm getting is that Bennett's Scleromochlus interpretation is equally as fringe as his hypotheses on pterosaurs. The only reason there have not been papers published against it is that it's been out for barely over a week. I'm not suggesting that we start citing twitter posts, as Wikipedia does not consider twitter a reliable source (and for good reason). I am simply trying to judge the developing scientific consensus on the paper, which seems to be quite critical. And I'm trying to do my best as an editor to correspond to the scientific consensus. Scleromochlus has been considered to be in the vicinity of dinosaurs for over a century, and Bennett's methodologies are simply not robust enough to overturn that consensus. I'm fine with it being acknowledged as an alternative to the consensus on Scleromochlus's artice, but we should not start rewriting taxoboxes based on it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not include mammals?

Include mammals. They have so much in common: the heart, the ankle, stable temperature. And so on and so on. 84.30.54.101 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)