The contents of the Cosmopolitodus hastalis page were merged into Cosmopolitodus on 8 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Been relisted twice without a clear consensus being developed. No prejudice against another RM in the near future if better sourcing can be found that would alter the discussion. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Isurus hastalis → Carcharodon hastalis – the new name for the species. I could not put in the requested moves place because it kept on causing a error message Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan ( talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No monotypic genus should ever have a separate species article. The two should be merged to the genus level, per palaeo project guidelines. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In the moment when this article gets cleaned up some time, we need to tackle the issue regarding what scientific name we are exactly going to give C. hastalis for this article in its title and elsewhere. Currently, this article uses Cosmopolitodus, but in reality there isn't a consensus in the scientific community on whether the genus should be that or Carcharodon, although the GWS-ancestry concept remains settled. I would be guessing that usually the genus that is used the most in literature would be the one preferred for the title of this article, but a majority agreement isn't really clear here.
However, I believe that the general issue causing the dispute boils down to a recognition of cladistics and paraphyly; usually the Carcharodon proponents are based on recognition of classification rules in cladistics (of which the given genus is correct under a cladistical definition; Cosmopolitodus would be incorrect due to paraphyly), while the Cosmopolitodus proponents appear to regard less on cladistical rules for a more traditional way of taxonomy (of which this genus would also be correct under such rules; paraphyly is allowed here). It seems to be that scientists in general might be leaning closer on adopting cladistics-based classification (i.e. preference of Otodus over Carcharocles regarding the genus of Megalodon), but I am not exactly sure on that. Given this, would it be better to abide by the cladistical rules and rename this article to Carcharodon hastalis or just keep with the status quo?
This goes the same with other shark taxa, which are given distinct genera but should be merged with existing ones under a cladistical definition if their evolutionary hypotheses are true (i.e. all species such as Macrorhizodus within the lineage that split from the Isurus lineage around 60-40 mya and culminating into the GWS being reassigned to Carcharodon as would be prescribed under cladistical rules)
Alternatively, we could avoid the scientific name dispute altogether and use a vernacular name. It appears that the most used common name for the shark is the broad-toothed mako or a variation, but almost all mentions use it informally.
TLDR: If a scientific name is disputed on cladistics vs traditional lines, should the title prefer the cladistical name; and should any scientific name generally be represented on an article by its cladistical name regardless of if a scientific name that does not respect cladistical rules is more widely used due to wider attention by respective publishers? Macrophyseter | talk 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The contents of the Cosmopolitodus hastalis page were merged into Cosmopolitodus on 8 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Been relisted twice without a clear consensus being developed. No prejudice against another RM in the near future if better sourcing can be found that would alter the discussion. ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Isurus hastalis → Carcharodon hastalis – the new name for the species. I could not put in the requested moves place because it kept on causing a error message Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan ( talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No monotypic genus should ever have a separate species article. The two should be merged to the genus level, per palaeo project guidelines. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In the moment when this article gets cleaned up some time, we need to tackle the issue regarding what scientific name we are exactly going to give C. hastalis for this article in its title and elsewhere. Currently, this article uses Cosmopolitodus, but in reality there isn't a consensus in the scientific community on whether the genus should be that or Carcharodon, although the GWS-ancestry concept remains settled. I would be guessing that usually the genus that is used the most in literature would be the one preferred for the title of this article, but a majority agreement isn't really clear here.
However, I believe that the general issue causing the dispute boils down to a recognition of cladistics and paraphyly; usually the Carcharodon proponents are based on recognition of classification rules in cladistics (of which the given genus is correct under a cladistical definition; Cosmopolitodus would be incorrect due to paraphyly), while the Cosmopolitodus proponents appear to regard less on cladistical rules for a more traditional way of taxonomy (of which this genus would also be correct under such rules; paraphyly is allowed here). It seems to be that scientists in general might be leaning closer on adopting cladistics-based classification (i.e. preference of Otodus over Carcharocles regarding the genus of Megalodon), but I am not exactly sure on that. Given this, would it be better to abide by the cladistical rules and rename this article to Carcharodon hastalis or just keep with the status quo?
This goes the same with other shark taxa, which are given distinct genera but should be merged with existing ones under a cladistical definition if their evolutionary hypotheses are true (i.e. all species such as Macrorhizodus within the lineage that split from the Isurus lineage around 60-40 mya and culminating into the GWS being reassigned to Carcharodon as would be prescribed under cladistical rules)
Alternatively, we could avoid the scientific name dispute altogether and use a vernacular name. It appears that the most used common name for the shark is the broad-toothed mako or a variation, but almost all mentions use it informally.
TLDR: If a scientific name is disputed on cladistics vs traditional lines, should the title prefer the cladistical name; and should any scientific name generally be represented on an article by its cladistical name regardless of if a scientific name that does not respect cladistical rules is more widely used due to wider attention by respective publishers? Macrophyseter | talk 01:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)