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

Palaeontology Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sharks Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the separate 'Xenacanthus' box a length is given. As the box covers a genus, and not a particular species, surely length is not appropriate (unless all the species were the same length). GrahamBould ( talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The information on this page seems invalid. I'm no expert, but I have seen full skeletons of Xenacanthus, indicating that it is not a shark. Also, Xenacanthus lives in the Cretaceous, not the Devonian! Can someone please make sure that this information is really, well, real? Paleo Kid ( talk) 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah, and Xenacanthus was not three feet long, because it was much longer than I am tall, and I'm at least 3 and a half feet tall. Also, the picture even says that it's from a synonym. We need some major cleanup on this page. Paleo Kid ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, shoot, I mistakes Xenacanthus for Xiphactinus. Whoops! Sorry. But the picture is still invalid. Paleo Kid ( talk) 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The diagram shows a synonym of Xenacanthus, so what's the problem? FunkMonk ( talk)

18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Don'tcha think that the picture should be of the animal, not just a synonym? Paleo Kid ( talk) 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed that there are overlapping species between this genera and Orthacanthus, namely

• X. (O.) compressus
• X. (O.) gibbosus
• X. (O.) gracillis

Could someone get to the bottom of this? Weshawitz ( talk) 00:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply