Talk:Xenoposeidon

message: I actually created seperate articles for the genus Xenoposeidon and the species Xenoposeidon proneneukus, but then I redirected the species article to the genus article, becuase that seems to be the normal wikipedia policy. I love starting new articles, and I have always been especially eager to start one on a newly discovered species of dinosaur! Grundle2600 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: see immediately above. Not sure about the spelling, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is proneneukos, not proneneukus.--MWAK (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: genus and species

message: The "new family" claim is based on a misunderstanding. Taylor and Naish intended this in an informal way and within a geographical context, showing you can never be too careful when dealing with journalists :o). The genus has not been ascribed to any family, conforming to modern enlightened practice--MWAK 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 09:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that "family" simply means that all members within the "family" have a common ancestor, and that the "family" branched off from all other "families" that are in the same order (or suborder). And it's nice to see you posting on this talk page! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to be fair, "family" has just as much biological meaning as "genus"... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the word "group" as used in the paper. Their words'.......or, more likely, the first representative of a previously unknown group.'. Does "group" have as much biological meaning?Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Group" works fine, and isn't as loaded a term. I haven't read the paper (wonky internet access at the moment won't let me download big pdfs), is the term 'family' used in the text? If so, I don't think it's a problem to use family, as an indicator of diversity. But I'm a notorious Linneaus fan I guess, so if you guys feel some other term is more appropriate, that's fine too ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, even saying that it belongs to a "group" of its own would not adequately reflect the intention of the describers, which then apparently would be to emphasize its "morphological distance" from other known "lineages". After all, as direct ancestor relations are difficult to prove, almost all genera should be considered separate groups. If the fossil had not shown signs of this special xenoposeidontic grade, the claim would not have been made. On the other hand, perhaps this wasn't a sufficient condition: if the cladistic analysis would have shown the type was firmly placed within e.g. the clade Brachiosauridae, presumably it wouldn't have been made either. The paper indeed speaks of a new <<'family'>>; at least of those quotes it should be explained in the article why they are so scary ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tryed to takle this issue, but it may be abit too close to the authors words in places. I feel it needs to be in there, it's what makes the vertebra special. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xenoposeidon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071222090536/http://scienceblogs.com:80/tetrapodzoology/2007/11/the_worlds_most_amazing_saurop.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/11/the_worlds_most_amazing_saurop.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified