Talk:Sigilmassasaurus

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Merge with Spinosaurus?

It seems they have been synonymised? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up the tag proposing the merger of Sigilmassasaurus with Spinosaurus for the following reasons:

1. Ibrahim et al (2014) noted that the supposed diagnostic features of Sigilmassasaurus are also found in Baryonyx and Suchomimus (very low and broad centrum, strong opisthocoely, small pleurocoels, a prominent ventral keel, strong transverse processes, and broad zygapophyseal facets with very low epipophyses).

2. The skeleton FSAC-KK 11888 (described by Ibrahim et al. 2014) is used by the authors as the basis for referring Sigilmassaurus and Spinosaurus B to Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.

Since Ibrahim et al. provided enough morphological and stratigraphic evidence for sinking Sigilmassasaurus as a junior synonym of Spinosaurus, the merger is necessary.Extrapolaris (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

I agree. The question is how we integrate this text into the Spinosaurus article... FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know! We can make a section in the Spinosaurus article for this text! Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume from the locality it was found it's the same specimen originally reffered to as Spinosaurus marrocanus, right? If that's the case, according to fossilworks both specimens of S. marrocanusare from the Albian/upper Albian, not Cenomanian. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second merger proposal

Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are of the same taxa. If I am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself.

Please get this clarified - PNSMurthy (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated elsewhere, there are two competing views on this, so we shouldn't take sides, just explain what the views are. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's too early to merge. Unlike with Nanotyrannus, there is no overwhelming consensus on whether Sigilmassasaurus is valid or not. It was declared a synonym of Carcharodontosaurus by Sereno et al. in 1998, then valid by McFeeters et al. in 2013, then it was synonymised with Spinosaurus by Ibrahim et al. in 2014, then considered valid again in 2015 by Evers et al., then considered valid by a few other papers in 2019, then synonymised again again this year by Smyth et al. - In short, this looks like it'll probably keep going back and forth until further North-African spinosaurine material is found. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little suspicious. Its like us, humans. We all look different, but we aren't different taxa. But I guess its okay for now.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same about every taxon. It's all subjective where you draw the line, what matters is consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, true.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]