Talk:Shastasaurus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shastasaurus 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

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Shastasaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shastasaurus not a suction feeder

I removed references to suction feeding, per this post by Brian Switek: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/13/ichthyosaurs-didnt-slurp-squid-after-all/

Not being a paleontologist I didn't want to add anything and get the specifics wrong but removed the information to avoid providing false/debatable information.

Huxley75 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it should be mentioned that it was once proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the line back to the Description with a link to the new PLoS ONE paper. Huxley75 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guanlingsaurus

I've noticed that a lot of the description section of this article is about S. liangae. However, we have a separate article for this species, as it is often classified within its own genus, Guanlingsaurus. G. liangae was sunk into Shastasaurus by Sander et al. (2011) but reinstated as distinct by Ji et al. (2013), and opinion among ichthyosaur workers seems to be divided. Bindellini et al. (2021), Lomax et al. (2018), Ji et al. (2016), Druckenmiller et al. (2014), Huang et al. (2019), and Stubbs & Benton (2016) among others, retaining Guanlingsaurus while Sander et al. (2021), Moon (2017), Sander et al. (2022), Dick & Maxwell (2015), Scheyer et al. (2014), and Lomax et al. (2017) considering the two genera synonymous. I'm wondering if the information on G. liangae in this article should be relocated to Guanlingsaurus, as the "separate genera" hypothesis seems to be slightly more favored nowadays. If the Guanlingsaurus stuff is moved; that raises a question: should the writing on S. sikkaniensis be relocated to Shonisaurus; or could it warrant an article of its own? (S. popularis has been extensively researched and could easily fill up an article on its own; the rather controversial nature of S. sikkaniensis' taxonomy also would make its own article a potentially more stable alternative here.) --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]