Talk:Crocodilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Crocodilia is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Extinct Suborders

Need to add extinct suborders etc to chart Andrewa 02:27 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done! Andrewa 23:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The popular culture article needs to be expanded, as it is not very precise. --DeadGuy 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

"Eusuchia, a modern clade which includes the crown group Crocodylia, first appeared in the Lower Cretaceous of Europe. Isisfordia duncani lived approximately 95 to 98 million years ago, during the Cenomanian epoch of the Upper Cretaceous. Isisfordia is the second oldest known eusuchian, and the earliest crocodilomorph yet found in Australia."

I cant find evidence that Eusuchia first appeared in Europe, furthermore if Isisfordia duncani is the second oldest known eusuchian, whats the oldest? Counter to this I found this article stating that crocodilians first appeared in Australia. http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=9853

Mloren 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hylaeochampsa vectiana is the oldest known eusuchian. It was found on the Isle of Wight in the Vectis Formation. This makes it more than 110 millions years ago, and thusly making it the oldest known eusuchian. However, the study by Salisbury et al, finds Isisfordia to be more basal than Hylaeochampsa. They thereby infer that Eusuchia evolved in Gondwana, rather than on any of the northern continents. Which may be the case, or Isisfordia could have migrated to Gondwana. More basal eusuchians need to be found until we "know" were they originated. Mark t young 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source Format

I just added a really good general source on shunting in reptiles, as I corrected some inaccuracies in the "Internal Organs" section. I listed it as a journal source, and I haven't been able to successfully add a link to the author's webpage, where a PDF of the article is available. (When I try to do it with the template, I only get the last name, not the first.) Anyway, Jim Hick's website is here [[1]]. I admit that my first attempt at re-writing the paragraph resulted in some sub-standard prose. I strongly suggest that people read that article before editing on shuts, though, because it's really easy to read and is a good review. Enuja 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead mention of Crocodylomorpha

There is already a link of Crocodylomorpha in the taxo-box; isn't that enough? I'd like to reserve notes at the top of the page for things that people will find useful when they arrive at the page; almost no-one, I think, would be looking for Crocodylomorpha, and if there were, they would be able to find it in the taxo-box. Am I missing an important reason to put it up top? Enuja 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree--that can be explained in the classification section it doesn't need a disambig. Dinoguy2 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm removing it. Enuja 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulocetidae

I don't really know what these two sentences are doing in this article.

Mammals, too, have adapted to this body plan at least once in history. One ancestral whale family, the Ambulocetidae, were aquatic predators living in rivers and lakes, and they filled an ecological niche similar to the crocodilians.

Anybody think that belongs? If so, could you edit it to flow more smoothly and flow more smoothly from the previous sentence? If not, I'll just delete it, but I didn't want to delete a link to another article if others think that it is relevant. Enuja 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty relevant to me, as the preceding sentence was discussing the body plan.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiation with alligators

[edit] Differentiation

The section on the differences between alligators and crocodiles needs to be much improved. To say that they are as different as humans are to gorillas is saying nothing. They are of the same family, right? So, tell me how they are different. They look alike, they walk alike, so please explain their differences. JJ 23:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't understand your question. I don't see anything in the article about the differences between alligators and crocodiles, and I certainly don't see anything about humans and gorillas. Are you talking about a different article?Enuja 03:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I figured it out! You are talking about a new section on the Crocodile page. Please discuss that on the Talk:Crocodile page. Enuja 04:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling and moving the article

The section on spelling is entirely original research, and should be removed. The correct spelling is in fact Crocodylia, with a -y-. This was discussed by Harold Dundee in 1989 (Dundee, H.A. 1989. Higher category name usage for amphibians and reptiles. Systematic Zoology 38 (4): 398-406), who demonstrated that the -y- not -i- spelling is in fact the correct one. The article itself should be moved to Crocodylia. Mark t young (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)