![]() | A fact from Sebecus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 December 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we really have all this info, yet not a single mention of size, either estimated whole-organism or just skull length? Mokele ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the paper here [1] tell me if the restoration has become outdated? FunkMonk ( talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If this genus only has one single Eocene species, we shouldn't have to put such a huge range in the taxobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
is an unnecessary nomenclatorial change and we regard Zulmasuchus querejazus and Langstonia huilensis as junior synonyms.
This is what has said on the paper of Sebecus ayrampu from last year, but S.huilensis and S.querejazus were transferred to other genera. But there is still some taxonomists still regard the original classification, similar to how some taxonomists still regard Tarbosaurus as Tyrannosaurus bataar.In my point of view, it's not a major consensus so we can still regard Langstonia and Zulmasuchus as seperate genera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Sebecus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 December 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we really have all this info, yet not a single mention of size, either estimated whole-organism or just skull length? Mokele ( talk) 21:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the paper here [1] tell me if the restoration has become outdated? FunkMonk ( talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If this genus only has one single Eocene species, we shouldn't have to put such a huge range in the taxobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
is an unnecessary nomenclatorial change and we regard Zulmasuchus querejazus and Langstonia huilensis as junior synonyms.
This is what has said on the paper of Sebecus ayrampu from last year, but S.huilensis and S.querejazus were transferred to other genera. But there is still some taxonomists still regard the original classification, similar to how some taxonomists still regard Tarbosaurus as Tyrannosaurus bataar.In my point of view, it's not a major consensus so we can still regard Langstonia and Zulmasuchus as seperate genera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)