Talk:Tsylmosuchus

A fact from Tsylmosuchus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the rauisuchian Tsylmosuchus is known from strata in Russia that are early Olenekian in age, making it one of the earliest archosaurs?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/July.

Wikipedia

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.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Tsylmosuchus 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.

Rauisuchians

"...genus of rauisuchian that may be a member of the family Rauisuchidae..." The average Wikipedia reader may well ask, "But, aren't all rauisuchians by definition members of the family Rauisuchidae?" At least, I do.--Wetman (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rauisuchians belong to the (probably paraphyletic) order Rauisuchia. Rauisuchia traditionally includes the families Rauisuchidae, Prestosuchidae, Poposauridae, and Ctenosauriscidae, although more recent phylogenetic studies have shown some different groupings. So just because something's a rauisuchian doesn't mean that it's a rauisuchid. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of that could be in a footnote perhaps. Wikipedia is meant for the moderately well-prepared but non-specialist reader.--Wetman (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, it does sound a bit confusing. How about "... genus of archosaur that may be a member of the family Rauisuchidae. However, it may be a more basal member of the order Rauisuchia that is not within the family Rauisuchidae..."? Maybe we could go into more detail in a "Classification" section, but I can't find much more information than this. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]