Talk:Scleromochlus

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ornithodira[edit]

See said article, where the Pterosaur ancestry theory is presented as fact. We should present all theories that are part of current scientific debate, whatever our own opinions, and not exclude one theory at the expense of another. I have put the same comment in the Discussion page for Ornithodira. Jayen 466 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosauria[edit]

Just out of curiosity, what features do dinosaurs have, that this animal lacks (or vice versa)?71.63.17.46 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs were generally much more derived than Scleromochlus. Benton (99) concludes that Scleromochlus "shares no unique features with either Pterosauria and Dinosauromorpha", for example its ankle was much more primitive than dinosaurs'. Darth Ag.Ent (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals[edit]

In this edit, the plural of Scleromochlus has been changed; this isn't really consistent with the way it's been done in other articles, and the guideline on the project page says the plural form is the same as the singular. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it mentions on the guidelines page, nobody uses the correct pluralizations because you need to be a Latin scholar to figure them out on a case by case basis. If the pros don't use them, we shouldn't either. But for curiosity, see an article on pluralization of Latin words here: [1] I'm guessing the plural of Scleromochlus would be scleromochli (not scleromochlii), but the root could be one of many exceptions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

The article said, "Scleromochlus taylori was about 186 mm (about 4.3 inches) long". 186 mm is not 4.3 inches. I replaced it with the Benton 1999 figure of 181 mm (about 7.1 inches) - while the difference of 5 mm is insignificant, the 2.8 inch difference isn't. Vultur (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Species[edit]

The type species is S. taylori. I feel that the article needs to mention who this is named after. I'm willing to bet Mike Taylor. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been incredibly prescient for a scientist in 1907! ;) (seriously though, I don't know who the name honors... would be good to have in there). MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The species is named after William Taylor who discovered the holotype, and some other fossils of Scleromochlus (see also history of Scleromochlus written by Taylor himself). Ag.Ent talk 23:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification[edit]

Accepting that the classification of scleromochlus is unclear, is there any research more recent than Benton that challenges his phylogenic positioning of scleromochlus. In which case should we not use his classification? p.s. the Benton classification is used in the taxonomicon (I have no idea how authoritive that is) CptPugwash (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]