Talk:Kronosaurus

Kronosaurus (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 28 September 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Kronosaurus 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Kronosaurus

How do we know it was more "fierce" than other pliosaurs? And, how did it's "underwater sniffing" work--being am air-breathing reptile, it couldn't inhale underwater.65.102.39.177 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your first point, the article says that pliosaurs in general, were fiercer than plesiosaurs, primarily because plesiosaurs were designed to capture and eat fish, whereas pliosaurs were designed to eat a large variety of animals, including other plesiosaurs. For your second point, the fossil skulls of pliosaurs show that the nostrils opened up into the mouth, rather than connect with the nasopharynx, so that water would flow through the nostrils, and into the mouth, thereby giving the pliosaurs the ability to smell without having to inhale.--Mr Fink 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krono in Texas

I know a lot of older books say that Kronosaurus has been found in Texas, but I haven't seen this information in very many newer sources. Whatever happened to the Texas pliosaur? 75.212.138.219 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same with Mosasaurus in Kansas, Allosaurus in Portugal, and Brachiosaurus in Africa. I honestly don't know why none of the newer sources list these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.163 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The African Brachiosaurus has been renamed Giraffatitan. The remaining African species are probably not Brachiosaurus either and scientists are currently studying them to figure out what exactly they are. Same for the Portugese Allosaurus.MMartyniuk (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etymology

Just wondering what was wrong with the etymology I provided-- "governing lizard". Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's named after Cronus, father of Zeus [1] Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that. I'll update the article then. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

Uh, guys? Sneed B. Collard III's book Reign of the Sea Dragons states that the elasmosaur attacked by Kronosaurus was Woolungasaurus, not Tuarangisaurus. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference says otherwise. Can you do better?74.195.104.118 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Muysccubun

@Rextron: "Could you explain why this Cretaceous animal is related to the Muisca people, besides the geographical provenance?)"

With all pleasure Rextron, my main arguments are:

As we, who build, edit and maintain fossil articles are accustomed to; the name is usually defined as "Genus", and not as with the living biota done usual "Genus species". This makes that "we" Colombian contributors and Australian contributors "share" an article about two most probably at that Cretaceous inland sea paleo-environment time two different and probably only vaguely related species that -because of the fragmentation of our fossil record- are described only on the basis of partial finds and grouped into one lemma
This makes that the Muysccubun background of the article is not immediately clear to those coming from the Australian side, but imagine the Kronosaurus queenslandicus would not have been named after the British Empire ruling English Queen, but after an indigenous term in let's say Maori or other Aborigin language. Then, if the category for that language justifiably exists, it would fit in there too and would be welcomed to add; showing via proper categorisation how the articles are connected. That is by type, locality, topic, history, taxonomy or... etymology. In that, the category "Muysccubun" is justified as I have done with the other flora and fauna. Idem for the situation that a category "Named after Krono (not Kronos)" category would exist, there this nice lemma deserves a spot in there as well
So the shared species Kronosaurus boyacensis justifies the category; named after the Muysccubun language, used in the present-day department of Boyacá. If there's one for "Queenslandicus", would be good too. The biological lemmas are on Wikipedia one of the best areas, but sometimes isolated within the safe and well-organised biological and paleontological sections of Wikipedia. My work aims to integrate our well and hard working environments even more.

See the other species, where due to our naming <Genus> and not <Genus species> for fossil taxa the same "problem" happens (Etayoa is not a Muysccubun term, but Etaoya bacatensis is...), although the species name is indeed rooted in the Muysccubun cat added; Bacatensis, Sumapazensis, Choconta and [Kronosaurus] boyacensis... See List of flora and fauna named after the Muisca for more examples. I try to build the topic as complete as possible and that includes navigation ease and correct categorisation.

Good you guard the article! Let me know what you think, cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem is that the name of species of Kronosaurus boyacensis is due to the geographic location, of one department of the modern-day Republic of Colombia; the etimology of the name was not dedicated in any moment to the Muisca people as far I known, regardless that the etimology of Boyacá have roots in the languague of such indigenous people. Must be Kronosaurus also included in a category about UK monarchs due to the etimology of Queensland? I think that the connection is very, very subtle. I appreciate your effort make this categorization, since that is a remarkable scientific finding for Boyacá and Colombia (I'm Colombian, by the way), but I feel that the recognition of a link between a paleontological article and certain culture must be highlighted if the author(s) of a scientific description stated explicity such recognition in the published work (as the recent case of Muiscasaurus). So, I think that maybe is better left it in the category of Fossils of Colombia and check if the Hampe's description of K. boyacensis actually have any dedication to link it with the Muysccubun. Well, I hope to known if you have additional points to consider here. Cheers! --Rextron (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A general question on terminology

This is not to provoke argument or ask for a change, but "The posterior flippers were larger than the anterior", would it do any harm to say instead "The back flippers were larger than the front"? It's clearer to the layperson. Just curious. Thanks 92.29.237.9 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should use common terms, but I guess it depends on the writer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eiectus

I tried to make an Eiectus page yet it got deleted for no reason at all. IT'S EVEN IN THE SAUROPTERYGIA CLASSIFICATION TEMPLATE. If it's dubious or something, then WHY ISN'T THERE ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE FRICKING KRONOSAURUS PAGE. Savage Almond (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently says "In 2021, a revision of K. boyacensis also transferred all the Harvard remains to a new genus and species, Eiectus longmani", so there is something about it. Anyhow, I think the reasoning is that since the article that names it is still just a preprint, it doesn't count as a valid name yet. Also, it seems every palaeontologist who has commented on the situation hates the name and want a Kronosaurus neotype instead to keep the name, so it's possible this new name will never be published. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't there any information of it being a preprint? WHY? It's just gonna confuse more people ya know?🤦‍♂️ Savage Almond (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]