Talk:Prosauropoda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Taxonomic Ranking
"Archosauria" isn't a class, and shouldn't be represented as such.
See vertebrate taxonomic hierarchy according to Benton 2004
Benton, M. J. (2004), Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed. Blackwell Science Ltd
This is a well-respected text-book (I have the 2nd edition, which has a similar but less upto date taxonomic hierarchy), and should be used as a guidline. In it, Sauropsida is the Class, Archosauria has an intermediate informal rank of Division
Is it possible to add the option of taxonomic rank: Division to the taxobox?
M Alan Kazlev 00:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not presently, and I'm not sure it should be added. It seems like adding any more ranks would just make for overly long and complicated taxoboxes (remember the purely cladistic, page-long boxes a few folks tried last year?). In my opinion Class, Subclass, Infraclass, Superorder, Order, Suborder, Infraorder, Superfamily, Famly, Subfamily is way more than enough. If a link to Archosauria in the taxobox is really necessary, such as on a page discussin an order-level taxon, unranked_ordo can be used. Or, use Infraclass Archosauromorpha instead, which is actually more useful now that Archosauria is no longer considered a Superorder like its counterpart Lepidosauria.Dinoguy2 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Technical Diagnosis
re "cleaning up" the Technical diagnosis, in plaeontological literature you always find stuff like this. Ok i guess it can be rewritten and expanded out so every technical term gets its own phrase or sentence, but that would really make it a very long and rather dull essay. Maybe it can be converted to a point list? Anyway i'm not well up on this sort of thing; i find the technical diagnoses pretty boring, although theya re necessary in the paleontological science M Alan Kazlev 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)