This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

With the Gomphotherium page, since we seem to be fixing the gomphotheres TheDarkMaster2 ( talk) 12:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

If it's a synonym, yes. But is it? Pinging Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TheDarkMaster2: do you have a recent source on this you can cite? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This paper (2016) considers it "probably" part of Gomphotherium, although this one (2019) suggests that it's close to Choerolophodon. This analysis (2010) rejects the proposed synonymy, although they are phylogenetically proximal. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply