Talk:Ichthyosaur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Ichthyosaur is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
Ichthyosaur 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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
I don't know where exactly the Mixosauridae belongs on the ichthyosaur family tree, but even I know it shouldn't appear three times in different locations on said family tree. Someone with a little more knowledge on ichthyosaurs should fix that at some point. 75.209.106.105 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
re "Ichythyosaur" stubby article merger, as well as being a mis-spelling it contains incorrect information (ichthyosaurs were reptiles, not mammals). But I'll incorporate the more factual information of that stub. M Alan Kazlev 00:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Re Dr. Nicholls: the '92 find on 27 Sept '00 earned her the US$75K Rolex Award, making her just 2d Canadian ever to win it. Trekphiler 
17.51, 24 December 2005
Contents |
[edit] Popular Culture
Why is the reference to They Might be Giants in popular culture being repeatedly removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.161.42 (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Skeleton reconstruction and tail-fin
According to my references, the reconstruction of the skeleton from 1863 is wrong. There was a large dorsal fine, but it did not have a bony support and, therefore, was at one time not known to have existed and so it is not shown in the old reconstructions. There was a large asymmetrical tail-fin, in the vertical plane, which was stiffened by a downward bend of the vertebral column (a reversed heterocercal-type fin stiffened by the posterior caudal vertebrae). --Dysmachus 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC) cf. Source
- ...and the "broken" tail has been miscorrected, according to a Stephen Jay Gould article. This illustration would be a good base for a history subsection, though. --Wetman 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The flippers
In the early ichthyosaurs, all their limbs seems to be of similar size. But in some of the later species, the hind flippers appears to be much smaller than the front flippers. Could this reduction of the reduced hindlimbs be a beginning trend among these reptiles? In that case, maybe they would have disappeared completley with time if they hadn't become extinct.
- It's possible, and it seems to have happened in whales, which evolved pretty convergantly with ichthyosaurs. But we'll never know for sure.Dinoguy2 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Order or suborder?
The Ichthyopterygia article says that group is a superorder and Ichthyosauria is an order, but here it says Ichthyopterygia is an order and Ichthyosauria is a suborder. The Paleobiology Database[1], which is edited by university professors, favors the former, but I'm still not sure. What should it be? Jerkov 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Have a look at Handbook of Paleoherpetology, Part 8: Ichthyopterygia This is a serious and up to date scientific monograph. In the classification they give, Ichthyopterygia is a superorder and Ichthyosauria is an order. I suggest we use this work as our reference for ichthyosaur classification. M Alan Kazlev 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, I'll standardise to this if I come across anything that needs to be.Dinoguy2 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- What does it say about what subclass? The Ichthyopterygia article says subclass Diapsida, but this article saus subclass Euyapsida. Things should be harmonized, but which way? Bytor 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phrasing
Scientists who believe in the Evolution theory suggest that the ichthyosaurs lived during a large part of the Mesozoic... This was in the introduction, I dont think it is appropriate for the article based on scientific evidence. Enlil Ninlil 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, it certainly is not appropriate. Good catch, his seems to have been a fairly recent addition that was missed. Dinoguy2 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Behavior/Intelligence?
What were their brain/body ratios? What areas of the brain were largest/the most interesting? I'm guessing the optical lobes were proportionately large, but it would be nice to see what scientists currently think about what these animals thought. Were they rather dim like lizards, or was their demanding, competitive environment pushing them into producing bigger brains over the millions of years they developed? What do we know? Noxic 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eye rings
Any idea what purpose the bony eye rings served? Other creatures seem to get along fine without them. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sclerotic rings are actually present in a lot of things, like dinosaurs and birds, but not crocs and mammals. I don't think there's an accepted answer yet for their function beyond generally supporting the eye, but I imagine that would useful for an ichthyosaur, living underwater with gigantic eyes. J. Spencer (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
