Talk:Orthacanthus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orthacanthus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal 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.

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.

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Self-Contradictory

This article contradicts itself. It says the genus originated in the Carboniferous, and also says the genus originated in the Devonian. Please fix this error. 2601:441:467F:9E00:874:2C02:3499:5BB (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is also claiming it was a freshwater-shark, but that it was marine. So which one is it? --Ornitholestes (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Range

What sources, other than the internet garbage scow that is Fossilworks, are there that state that Orthacanthus ranges from the Emsian to the Triassic? I removed the source Aselee provided because, upon reading it, I noticed that the paper said nothing about the fossil range of Orthacanthus, nor even mentioned the words "Emsian" or "Triassic." That, and the source about "Diplodus problematicus" is unclear about whether or not it's in or outside of Orthacanthus--Mr Fink (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apokryltaros: Friendly reminder to stay respectful and objective. Please clarify the reference used for the fossil range of Orthacanthus. Regarding Diplodus problematicus, the source linked explains that Orthacanthus and Diplodus are synonymous under the tab "Taxonomic History." I have not made any changes to the page so that can come to a mutual agreement instead of trying to start an edit-war. Thanks. Aselee (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the source given for Diplodus and Orthacanthus being synonymous, PaleoDatabase, also confusingly states that Diplodus is a synonym of Doliodus, and neither Google, nor Scholar.Google bring up "Orthacanthus problematicus," or any other Emsian species of Orthacanthus, in any literature. "Hampe, O. "On the Dentition of Orthacanthus (Chondrichthyes, Xencanthida) Upper Carboniferous-Lower Permian." Palaont Z 62.3-4 (1988)" on the other hand, states the genus is restricted from the Upper Carboniferous to the Lower Permian, and all of the literature on Scholar.Google I've found always refer to Orthacanthus as being either Carboniferous or Permian, never Devonian, nor Triassic.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]