Talk:Atractosteus africanus

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 19 June 2014 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

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: Lobe-Fins 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.
	This article is supported by the Lobe-Fins task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Redirect edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

LauritzT, it is standard practice in the paleontology project to not have pages for nomina dubia, i.e. species of dubious taxonomic validity. This page is the unilateral creation of Bubblesorg. By his own admission, Grande et al. (2010) recognize this species as a nomen dubium, and he has not provided any evidence that it has been recognized as valid since then (and indeed I cannot find any in a search of the literature). 128.189.216.55 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I think it would be a good idea to wait, and let Bubblesorg (and/or other editors) weigh in first. You effectively deleted the page, which generally requires community consensus. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I said it was regarded as a nomen dubium by Grande in (2010). But that WAS the case, its no more one LauritzT not really anything else. I never admitted it was Unvalid. Also even if it is still considered invalid why can we still have this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon. We can have nomina dubia we just need to mention that. --Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Troodon is a taxon of historical significance. This is not. And can you point me to a quote in the form of "A. africanus is a diagnostic species, here are the diagnostic characters"? 128.189.216.55 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lionel_Cavin--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic