Talk:Zanclodon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Change of category

The category was changed from dinosaur to archosaur, possibly because of the confusion regarding the genus. However, the general consensus, as the article says, is that Zanclodon is specifically a dinosaur,even though the genus may be invalid. It is in list of dinosaurs, so I am revertng the edit.--Gazzster 07:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of Zanclodon species list

The species list needs clarification. The type species of Zanclodon is Zanclodon laevis (Plieninger, 1846) [originally "Smilodon"], with the holotype being SMNS 6045 and Z. plieningeri E. Fraas, 1896 as a junior synonym. The other species of Zanclodon are Z. crenatus (Plieninger, 1846) [originally "Smilodon"], Z. bavaricus E. Fraas vide Sandberger, 1894, Z. arenaceus E. Fraas, 1896, Z. schutzii E. Fraas, 1900, Z. silesiacus Jaekel, 1910, Z. subcylindrodon Huene, 1905, and Z. quenstedti Koken, 1900. Zanclodon was originally named "Smilodon" but had its name changed when its describer found Smilodon to pre-occupied by a saber-toothed cat (Smilodon Lund, 1842). Those seeking further details should look through sources [1] and [2]. Z. bavaricus and Z. quenstadti have been considered possible synonyms of Plateosaurus, but they are based on poor material, and therefore nomina dubia. Remove "Zanclodon" cambrensis from this page once it is assigned to a new genus.

[1] http://www.paleofile.com/Demo/Mainpage/Taxalist/Archosauromorphs.htm

[2] http://www.paleofile.com/Demo/Mainpage/Taxalist/Sauropods.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

DinoData lists both Z. plieningeri and Z. laevis as junior synonyms of Plateosaurus engelhardti, for what it's worth. Dinoguy2 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article infers. I think the species list is specific enough.But editors are free to add references or clarifications if they believe it enhances the article.--Gazzster 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-dinosaurian status of Zanclodon

This article should be clarified, due to the non-dinosaurian status of Zanclodon. Benton (1986) and Galton (2001) have shown that Zanclodon represents a non-dinosaurian archosaur, and therefore lacks any characters to place it within Plateosaurus. Hungerbűhler (2001) re-evaluated the hypothesis that Zanclodon arenaceus is the oldest phytosaur by conducting a cladistic analysis that supported (weakly) the placement of Z. arenaceus in Phytosauria. He offered an alternate hypothesis that Z. arenaceus is outside of Phytosauria instead. Galton (2001) went further a concluded that Z. bavaricus is a nomen dubium and Z. quenstedti is a nomen nudum. He also showed Z. plieningeri to be based on the type material of Z. laevis.

Benton, M.J. 1986. The late Triassic reptile Teratosaurus - a rauisuchian, not a dinosaur. Palaeontology 29:293-301.

Hungerbühler, A., 2001, The status and phylogenetic relationships "Zanclodon" arenaceus: the earliest known phytosaur? Palaontologische Zeitschrift, v. 75, n. 1, p. 97-112.

P. M. Galton. 2001. The prosauropod dinosaur Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha; Upper Triassic). II. Notes on the referred species. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève 20(2):435-502. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

As the article says very clearly, some think the remains of Zanclodon are non-dinosaurian. However, as the article also states very clearly, several species of Zanclodon have been identified as dinosaurian.The authorities you cite, eminent as they undoubtedly are, do not represent the entire palaeontological community. So I cannot edit the article simply to suit their interpretation. As I've said before, you are welcome to enhance the article by adding references to Benton, Galton and Hungerbuhler's works, but I suggest you add them as references, not as definitive interpretations of Zanclodon. Everyone is welcome to edit anyone's work, but yes, as the last comment suggests, please sign your comments. It is only courteous. And if you have difficulty with Zanclodon being categorised as a dinosaur, you need to go to list of dinosaurs to dispute that.--Gazzster 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)