Talk:Otodus

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are two confirmed species for the genus with another possible listed in the Paleobiology Database, this page should be moved to the genus page and this species redirected there.--Kevmin (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I know, there is only one species of Otodus. There is a possible nomen dubium(spelling?), Otodus subserratus, that is now believed to be Carcharocles aksuaticus instead. There is a weakly serrated (morpho)species, Otodus/Carcharocles. aksuaticus, but that is a transitional species. Furthermore, there was an Otodus appendiculata, but that was renamed into Cretalamna appendiculata.Spotty11222 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of ''Otodus/Carcharocles. aksuaticus alone seems like reason to have a genus page(Though as an interesting sidenote Im not actually finding any refrence to a C./O. aksuaticus in the taxonomic lit. only C. auriculatus). Looking through article on Jstor shows that Otodus has a large and complex taxonomy which should be reflected somewhere even if O. obliquus is the only remaining species in the genus. Ihave found breif mention of a Otodus minor now Otodus obliquus var minor and a 1945 mention of a Otodus levis Gibbes 1849, not sure what happened to it.--Kevmin (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the only other reference i can find of O levis

Meeting for Business, Sept. 28, 1847; On the Fossil Horse of America; Description of New Species of Squalides from the Tertiary Beds of South Carolina

Author(s): Joseph Leidy and Robert W. Gibbes

Source: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 3, No. 11 (Sep. - Oct., 1847), pp. 262-269

• Support This discussion establishes that there is more than enough taxonomic history to merit an article on the genus, and the genus already is addressed in the species article, so moving the article and its edit history is appropriate. --Una Smith (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral/Opposed But whether or not that Taxonomic history is indeed valid s questionable. There is really only one species to this genera, Otodus obliquus. I did find some nomen dubium in the Paleodatabase, and all except for O. obliquus were named, but subsequently not accepted or deemed a junior synonym of another species. The only references to it on the web are the Paleobiology database, and that does not even list whether the species are valid or not. I just don't see why an article should have a genus page, if it is the only member of a species. However, if this is Wikipedia policy, please tell me, and then I would have no objection to moving it. Spotty11222 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spotty11222. It isn't covered by any policy, but in the case of fossil taxa and extant plant taxa (likely other groups too) it is common practice to have an article for each genus. What Kevmin proposes is within normal limits and does not preclude creating species pages later, if needed. --Una Smith (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I have no objection to moving the page. -- Spotty11222 (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.