Talk:False gharial

message: English version of the False Gavial is indicating it is a gavialidae..
French version is indicating it is a Crocodylidae (including in the Taxon box)..
Neither are siting sources for this information... I have therefore added a 'CN' tag for the line describing the False Gavial to be a gavialidae.
--Ivan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Scott Warren (talk • contribs) 11:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sited.--Mr Fink 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ! (unfortunatelly, the cite doesn't point to anywhere !) Ivan Scott Warren 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Tried to fix it, but can't get it to work.. Not very at that.. sorry. Ivan Scott Warren 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And (not meaning to be a party pooper..) but access to that article requires a subscription! (the abstract itself only hints at the actual contents)..Ivan Scott Warren 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the only one I could find at the moment.  I remember hearing about an immuno-assay being done that was the basis for it.  This may be that paper, but, we should look again on Scholar.google again later.--Mr Fink 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is apparently another paper that is referenced by the reptile database on T. Schlegelii : Willis, Ray E.; L. Rex McAliley, Erika D. Neeley and Llewellyn D. Densmore III 2007. Evidence for placing the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii) into the family Gavialidae: Inferences from nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43 (3): 787-794. I have not read the paper nor found any online copy of it (and there is 99.8% chance I wouldn't understand it ANYWAY since I am neither a zoologist, biochemist nor a herpetologist). But (from the title) that would seem to be a definite source. (PS : L. D. Densmore III seem to have contributed to both papers). Ivan Scott Warren 14:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read ALOT about false gharials, all said they were crocs. -Sneaky Oviraptor18talk edits tribute 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Not as far as I know.  Croc taxonomy and phylogeny is pretty nightmarish in a lot of ways, and based on conversations I've had with folks about it, I'm glad not to be working in that area.  Honestly, most of it won't be resolved until we invent a time machine. HCA (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, your typical "snake pit" taxon, yes?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple, the morphological and molecular analyses disagree with one another. Morphological analyses put Tomistoma in with crocodylids, so paleontologists tend to place them within Crocodylidae.  Molecular analyses pair Tomistoma with Gavialis, so extant biologists put them in Gavialidae.  They are most certainly crocodylians (members of Crocodylia, the crown group), but whether they're crocodylids depends on which dataset you believe.  See Brochu 2003 for more detail. Troodon311 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  crocodylidae or gavialidae ? 

message: It's not a bad picture. Why was it removed from the article?
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.137.62 (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexplained image removal 

message: Is this species considered to belong to a monotypic genus is it the only *living* member of this genus, but has some known cogeneric members from fossils?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.93.64.238 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotypic genus or not? 

message: ~ Little is known about this species' size other than they may very well reach around to 20 feet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebirdop (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest false gharial skull (and longest modern crocodilian skull) is actually 84cm or 33.1 inches long. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on False gharial. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090428150539/http://icb.oxfordjournals.org:80/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/831 to http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/831
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What sources are there that use or state that "Tomistoma" is a common name of the false gharial?  It would be helpful of the people claiming this could, you know, provide reliable sources for this claim.  PPS, , there is actually an appreciable difference between being a monotypic genus and the sole surviving species in a genus filled with extinct and fossil species, of which the false gharial falls in the latter.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A name is common when it has been commonly used by various authors for a looong time, e.g. for several decades. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but, my question is who has been using "Tomistoma" #sic as a common name for several decades?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

text: , can you find scientific articles, rather than zoos, that use "Tomistoma" as a common name?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree that scientific articles are far better sources than websites, see WP:RS !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who uses "''Tomistoma''" as an alternative common name?