This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Mid‑importance 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. Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Geosaurus 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.

According to this paper, coauthored by our own Mark t young (or formerly our own) it seems so: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/zoj/2009/00000157/00000003/art00005 Or would rather seem Dakosaurus is sunk?FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's waaaay more complicated than one being sunk into the other. I've been updating some of these articles based on Mark's paper yesterday. Basically, remember that each of these genera has traditionally included upwards of five species. Mark and de Andrede actually (shock, horror) ran a large phylo analysis to see if these genera were monophyletic. They were not, not even paraphyletic, more like quintuple polyphyletic. Species from various metriorhynchid "genera" were scattered across the tree with little regard for traditional generic groupings. Young & de Andrede re-classified them all based on their proximity to the type species of each genera. Some species of Dakosurus ended up in Geosaurus, but not all. Almost all species of Geosaurus except the type ended up in Cricosaurus. None of the genera were sunk (in fact Rhacheosaurus was resurrected), but most of the metriorhynchid species were reshuffled into different genera. This paper delt mainly with the geosaurines. A paper examining the tangle of Metriorhynchus itself is apparently forthcoming. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad Mark left the project, he would be perfect to sort it out. Think he left due to disagreement over a Primaeval article or similar. Maybe we should invite him over again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603232400/http://www.svpca.org/general/pages/abstractPage.php?i=1378&r=talksAndPosters.php&y=2008 to http://www.svpca.org/general/pages/abstractPage.php?i=1378&r=talksAndPosters.php&y=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]