Talk:Megalosauroidea

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?[edit]

Move back to Megalosauroidea? J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? J. Spencer (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going by which the ICZN says is valid, or which the literature treats as valid? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it all comes down to Megalosaurus. If Meg is in, then it's Megalosauroidea and Megalosauridae. If Meg is indeterminate, then it's Spinosauroidea and Torovosauridae. Right now, it seems like Meg is in. J. Spencer (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, IIRC, the reason this page was switched to Spinosauroidea initially (I was fighting for Megalosauroidea) is that a lot of editors were pointing out that in the actual lit, even when Meg was in, authors were still using Spinosauroidea, rules of priority be damned. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benson's using it now, FWIW (both in the Cruxicheiros description and the Megalosaurus redescription). J. Spencer (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't even have this page on my watchlist. Are we just talking the two papers here and here? A quick search of the Paleobiology database indicates Holtz (1995) was among the last authors to use Megalosauroidea, while Spinosauroidea caught on from '95 (at the naming) to fairly recent papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Sciurumimus[edit]

Neither the article about Sciurumimus nor this article account for its position in the phylogeny. This animal's feathers make it of particular import. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.252.226 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note[edit]

I'm following what the article on Sciurumimus says and removing it from the taxobox here for now, should it be recovered as a megalosauroid for good then feel free to re-instate it into the taxobox. For now, though, I guess we should follow current sources unless they've been debunked, in which case the next most recent reliable source could be used. Also, the recent edits under "38.112.87.6" on Commons were me, just so we all know. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]