Talk:Necrolestes

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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

	Paleontology portal 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.

status as lazarus taxon

Why is this creature categorized as a Lazarus taxon, "a taxon that disappears from one or more periods of the fossil record, only to appear again later"? Is the taxon in question supposed to be Meridiolestida, a branch of the order Dryolestida, which are otherwise only known from the Cretaceous (or, in the case of Peligrotherium, a tad later, in the Early Paleocene)? Shouldn't it then be Meridiolestida in the Lazarus category, rather than the specific genus Necrolestes? Art Carlson (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, a Lazarus taxon is usually a single member of a group that was thought to have gone extinct much earlier. Basically a "living fossil", except that it doesn't have to be extant, or be similar in form to the rest of the group. If Necrolestes is a member of Meridiolestida, then it is a Lazarus taxon, but Meridiolestida just has a long ghost lineage. I guess you could argue that the group that the more recent taxon belongs to would also be a Lazarus taxon, but it's usually used to refer to genera and species. Dgrootmyers (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that's how the term is commonly used, that's good enough for me, but then maybe the definition in the Lazarus taxon article should be tweaked. Necrolestes patagonensis did not "disappear from one or more periods of the fossil record". Actually I have the impression that the term is often used in ways that are inconsistent and a bit muddled. Art Carlson (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the argument I was making was also made at Talk:Lazarus_taxon#Does_the_Coelacanth_belong_here.3F:

The species Latimeria Chalumnae is not a Lazarus taxon, because it was never known as a fossil before the extant population was found. However, its existence makes various higher taxa that it belongs to, such as the Coelacanthiformes, Lazarus taxa because these were known as fossils before a living representative was found. Orcoteuthis (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Carlson (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably best to remove that category then. Dgrootmyers (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]