Talk:Choristodera

Lead

I wish this excellent article began with a brief paragraph telling what a Choristoderan was on a simplistic Discovery Channel level, simply to orient the reader before take-off. --Wetman 00:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

"Champsosauridae is the most common family of the Choristodera and typifies the group."

Makes no sense. I can't modify it though, because I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Help anyone? John.Conway 08:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it means either champsosaurids are the most abundant choristodere fossils, or the most commonly known family. Don't know enough about the group to tell if wither of those are correct... and whether or not they typify the group is subjective. This article looks like it may have been (incopletely) renovated at some point from a more exclusive article on champsosaurs. Dinoguy2 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no, it is not so bad, The Champsosauridae are the family of Choristoderans that are the most abundant in the fossil record, have the most species in the order and were possibly the longest surviving family within the order, surviving in some regions of North America into the Eocene I believe. They are also the most easily recognizable Choristederans and arguably the largest.( Shawn Doran, Vertebrate Palaeontology department,ROM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.195.31 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choristodera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dtksepka/Dan%20Ksepka%20/Choristoderes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418031008/http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/ghost.html to http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/ghost.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hyphalosaurus picture as a representative taxon

I propose this, since the Champsosaurus restoration is severely outdated and my Simoedosaurus one is controversial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs)

@Falconfly:, I don't want to see you blocked for constant edit warring, but, would it be at all possible if you could try to make an effort to get consensus, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The image of Hyphalosaurus is uncontroversial in terms of accuracy, so I see no problem with it. Since it'd be an easy fix to the controversy over things, I don't see why not to use it, personally. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We could always go review it at: WP:PALEOART. I'm going to place it there right now. ----Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)