Talk:Helicoprion

Untitled

I cleaned this article up a little while adding the taxobox/paleoboxs but this article still need major work Kevmin 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of this thing? It has a very interesting appearance. Komodo 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Carnegie Museum has an exhibit called: "Bizarre Beasts: Past and Present" running February 19 – June 3, 2007. A picture is currently available at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [1] DDHME 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Major expansion needed!

I'm busy at the moment working on an off-wiki project that led me to this page and this page. The latter is a site at a sort of Fossil Wiki...it's several tens of times longer and much more informative. I don't like how it's written, but it proves that this stub needs expansion. If someone has time, would they mind taking a look at an expansion on this stub? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Old illustration

I just came across an illustration of Helicoprion from 1906. I'm not sure whether it would be useful to the article, but it's probably in public domain, or at least its copyright has expired. It appears to depict the animal as something other than a shark. Here it is: [2] Gary (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuity Error

The body of the page says this species existed from 280 mya to 225 mya, but the box on the right lists it from 310 mya to 199.6 mya. BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• There aren't any known eugeneodontiform sharks from after the earliest Triassic. See Mutter and Newman 2008 "New eugeneodontid sharks from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of Western Canada". However, I can't find any good references for the last known occurence of Helicoprion. I would guess P-T boundary, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.126.157 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

New information and updated artwork

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/21589719 The mouth is way different looking than what is on this page. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many concepts of what helicoprion looked like. After all, we only have the teeth to work from. If you find any free images of the other concepts, please upload them.Kurzon (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

While there area many outdated concepts, the newest fossil described for the genus, and fossils on related families, do have cartilage preservation present.--Kevmin § 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

More recent fossils

I've heard rumors that scientists have found Helicoprion fossils with bits of fossilized cartilage. Can anyone link to any photos?Kurzon (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Those fossils are the Idaho (incomplete) skulls in the 2013 paper.--Mr Fink 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

This is just a quick question. Are the question marks next to the species name meaning that they are dubious species.--VaderRaptor 11:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a question mark next to a species means that their validity as a distinct species is questioned for some reason or reasons, i.e., too similar to another species, holotype poorly defined or not designated, etc.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!--VaderRaptor 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Paleobiology paper

Eating with a Saw for a Jaw: Functional Morphology of the Jaws and Tooth-Whorl in Helicoprion davisi. A reminder to myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)