Talk:Mesosaurus

Untitled

I would like to add an external link <http://www.Mesosaurus-tenuidens.com> The article has been researched and has an 'Acknowledgement and Further Reading' link to an accrediations page on the Namibia-1on1 site showing sources of reference along with ISBN numbers where available. Are there any objections or suggestions?

Keith Irwin 14:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, and has some interesting pictures. Dinoguy2 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

teeth: straining vs. biting

this wikipedia article references old theories that are contested by the most recent publications. The teeth are now thought to bite, not strain food. See SEAN PATRICK MODESTO (2006) The cranial skeleton of the Early Permian aquatic reptile Mesosaurus tenuidens: implications for relationships and palaeobiology Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 146 (3), 345–368. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00205.x

feel free to delete the abstract after deciding on the edit. abstract: The cranial osteology of the aquatic reptile Mesosaurus tenuidens is redescribed on the basis of new and previously examined materials from the Lower Permian of both southern Africa and South America. Mesosaurus is distinguished from other mesosaurs in exhibiting an absolutely larger skull and possessing relatively longer marginal teeth. The teeth gradually angle outwards as one progresses anteriorly in the tooth row and become conspicuously procumbent at the tip of the snout. The suggestion that mesosaurs used their conspicuous dental apparatus as a straining device for filter feeding is based upon erroneous reconstruction of a high number of teeth in this mesosaur. Reinterpretation of the morphology and the organization of the marginal teeth of Mesosaurus suggests that they were used to capture individually small, nektonic prey. General morphological aspects of the skull support the idea that Mesosaurus was an aquatic predator and that the skull was well adapted for feeding in an aqueous environment. The anatomical review permits critical reappraisal of several cranial characters that have appeared in recent phylogenetic analyses of early amniotes. Emendation of problematic characters and reanalysis of amniote phylogeny using a slightly modified data matrix from the literature strengthens the hypothesis that mesosaurs form a clade with millerettids, procolophonoids and pareiasaurs within Reptilia. © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 146, 345–368. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A532reptof (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

So, what's with the IPs?

This article seems to attract a disproportionate amount of IP vandalism. Is it schoolkids doing classwork on continental drift and plate tectonics? J. Spencer (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bit late for an answer, but probably. If the vandalism continues might need a brief semi-protect. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Factual Error

"As Mesosaurus was a coastal animal, and therefore could not have crossed the Atlantic Ocean, this distribution indicated that the two continents used to be joined together."

I don't know if this is backed up with evidence, iirc salt water crocodiles are coastal animals, but they can cross large bodies of water too. I fully realise this doesn't undermine plate tectonics, but I'm not sure it's strong evidence for it either, the strongest evidence is backed up with other facts, therefore I'm nore sure this statement helps or is warranted in it's current form ( maybe it could be changed to something along the lines it suggests plate tectonics is a valid theory? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.91.231 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Map says Mesosaurus was a "freshwater reptile" as do many textbooks.

However, article says Mesosaurus was a "coastal marine reptile" and "Uruguay fossils indicate a hypersaline habitat".

Some inconsistency here that should be straightened out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.6 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recent literature within the last few years seems to generally agree that there is only one valid mesosaur genus, Mesosaurus , and that the other two genera are just synonyms of it, representing differing ontogenetic stages or fragmentary specimens. As such there now only needs to be a single article dedicated to mesosaurs. I am happy to take on the burden of rewriting the single combined Mesosaurus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on Discord, and yes, if that is indeed the consensus, all the info should be collected in the genus article. We also need to redirect the Commons categories. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Support per nomination - this seems consistent with the general agreement among researchers. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hemiauchenia, pinging you after closing the discussion since you expressed interest in merging the articles yourself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)