Talk:Ophthalmosaurus

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance Ophthalmosaurus 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have a remark. About the birth... They found a fossil, and that's why they know they gave birth with the tail first. But who says that simply wasn't the cause for the Ophthalmosaurus to die? If someone replies to this, please send me a note ;)Thunderhawk89 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "Ophthalmosaurus" (as here) or "Opthalmosaurus" as in much of the literature? I may be missing something. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since they derive from the same word, see Ophthalmology. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we can have alternative spellings (and pronunciations) of a taxon? That's news to me, but I'm always learning. Wilson44691 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the original spelling is indeed with the "oph": Seeley, H.G. 1874. On the pectoral arch and fore limb of Ophthalmosaurs, a new ichthyosaurian genus from the Oxford Clay. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 30:696-707. Curious why that "h" is left out so often in the professional literature. Wilson44691 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Baptanodon should be split from here, according to the new Malawania cladogram? On the othe rhand, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the paper itself?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name Baptanodon is not used in the article or the data supplement; although in the cladograms O. natans appears as more closely related to Acamptonectes than O. icenicus. Is likely that Baptanodon could be valid, but until some official confirmation I prefer mantain it in Ophthalmosaurus.--Rextron (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems like the cladogram on Wikipedia should be changed then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]