Talk:Prestosuchus

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

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

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

Closest relatives

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

How is it possible that Postosuchus is its closest relative if Postosuchus is clearly not a prestosuchid. 85.122.30.8 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Birds are the closest relatives currently to dinosaurs. Birds are not in the same family as Dinosaurs. Hope this helps. Cryolophosaurus Ellioti5858 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is objectively wrong. Birds ARE dinosaurs. In relation to Prestosuchus, Postosuchus is not its closest relative, as is noted by the OP 177.51.69.61 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is my bad. Have a good day. 173.186.12.201 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Karamuru vorax

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps there should be a mention about the fact that Karamuru was erected to genus level by Kischlat from remains that had been previously assigned to Prestosuchus. 85.122.30.8 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the authority for Prestosuchus

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Recently, the ICZN nomenclatural note published by Rubi Pêgas et al. (2025) argued that Krebs (1976) should be the authority, suggesting that Kuhn (1961) fails to conform to ICZN article 13.1: "Kuhn (1961) published the name Prestosuchus (fulfilling Arts. 10 and 11), fixed a type species (fulfilling Art. 13.3) and provided references to purported descriptions of the genus in Huene (1942) and Hofstetter (1955), leading McDavid (2025) to tentatively interpret these as fulfilling Art. 13.1 as well. However, the works that these bibliographic references point to actually lack any sort of unambiguous statement of “characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon”, therefore failing to fulfill Art. 13.1. As a consequence, “Prestosuchus Kuhn, 1961” must also be considered a nomen nudum."

@Skye McDavid, may I ask whether the article should be updated for now by shifting the authority for Prestosuchus to Krebs (1976) instead of Kuhn (1961), or wait for your response if you're preparing one? Alternatively, we could leave Kuhn (1961), with a "but see Munich specimens section" inserted next to it, but I think hearing your opinion first would be the most appropriate. Junsik1223 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! After some discussion with Rubi Pêgas I now agree with her that it's more appropriate to attribute the authorship to Krebs rather than Kuhn. Although Kuhn does cite von Huene's description which includes plenty of information about the taxon, there is no unambiguous diagnosis for the genus Prestosuchus, only general descriptions of it and diagnoses for both nominal species. As pointed out by Pêgas et al. (and incidentally by myself) Krebs makes the name unambiguously available. There are other errors in that section of the text, which I can enumerate if requested but I don't want to edit the article myself because of wp:coi. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response! I'll be updating this per your recommendation. Junsik1223 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply