Talk:Oudenodon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oudenodon 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

Animals Low‑importance

Oudenodon is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

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

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

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.

Factual Accuracy

The reasons given for a factual inaccuracy can be found when presiing the edit button. For non-editing purposes I am listing the reasons here (for making it easier to view), I am not the editor who added the factual inaccuracy just making it easier for others to view: the author data makes no sense. 1. what was the species placed here by Bain in 1856 (a genus cannot be empty when established)? 2. If greyii and prognathus are invalid (PaleoDB says otherwise), why do they not have priority over bainii?

In response to this: 1. a genus when being described can be empty in some circumstances (I have found empty genera before they mostly are because a species hasn't been described or placed in them yet and are notated [Genus name] sp. when I have seen them and normally last a couple of years after the first description).
Onto number 2; nowhere in the article does it mention that O. greyii and O. prognathus are invalid if you mean that why aren't either of them the type species instead of O. bainii then that could be due to the fact that O. prognathus was not described until the same paper or after O. bainii and O. greyii could have been reclassified as a species of Oudenodon after O. bainii's description or it could be an exceptional circumstance where the type species is not the first species named due to O. bainii being better preserved or a better representative of the genus (this rarely happens but it can and does happen).