Talk:Alwalkeria

Alwalkeria's phylogenetic position

Paul Sereno, in the 1990s, showed the herrarasaurids to be basal saurischians. Therefore change the classification to show that Alwalkeria is in the Herrarasauridae but is outside the Theropoda.

Alwalkeria isn't a herrerasaurid. And in any case, Sereno thinks they are theropods. More recent studies have suggested they may be basal saurischians. Read the text of the article, there is a short explanation. Sheep81 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alwalkeria, a chimera

Remes and Rauhut (2005) demonstrated that Alwalkeria is a chimera. While the dinosaurian remains represent a basal saurischian and belong to Alwalkeria, the non-dinosaurian remains belong to an unnamed crocodylomorph. Therefore, update the Alwalkeria page.

Remes, K. and Rauhut, O. W. M. 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian; p. 218 in Kellner, A. W . A., Henriques, D .D. R. and Rodrigues, T. (eds.), II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologie de Vertebrados. Boletim de Resumos. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Which animal is the name attatched to in cases like this?Dinoguy2 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A lectotype must be chosen, otherwise the name is just a nomen vanum.--MWAK (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Alickmeron into this article

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.

---

The taxonomy surrounding these remains is complicated enough that we should ideally have just have a single article dedicated to them, rather than just splitting out the new genus article for the sake of it because it has been named. Informally, there has been suggestions that this taxonomic renaming is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding it's less of a rename more of a split. The femora are Alickmeron. The astragalus is Saurischia indet. making Alwalkeria a nomen dubium. If I remember correctly when the chimeric status was determined a lectotype was not made. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

"Alickmeron" is a genus for the exact same species, though. It's an objective junior synonym with zero ambiguity. The only issue is it's too soon to have an actual source for this. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

But there is no lectotype for Alwalkeria' thus with the holotype being split Alwalkeria becomes a nomen vanum with no valid type making Alickmeron not a junior synonym. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Cancel this merge! The article around Alickmeron is newly created. It's way too soon to make this decision. 174.91.37.170 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I tentatively support a merge on the condition that the discussion by reputable authors and sources on the DML are acceptable as references. Otherwise, I would oppose at this time due to lack of sources. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

But Alwalkeria is a nomen vanum as the holotype was split and no lectotype was made. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how it works (and what the authors presumably got wrong) because Alwalkeria and Alickmeron are both tied to the same species, maleriensis, so whatever restrictions are made to the holotype of Alickmeron maleriensis also apply to Alwalkeria maleriensis as they are the same species under different genus names. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really, To be considered a valid species a valid type specimen is required. The type for Alickmeron is the femora, whereas Alwalkeria has no type specimen anymore (its type was the entire material including the skull and vertebrae which have since been split) making it a nomen vanum. Similar could have happened with "Archaeoraptor" except Archaeoraptor was never formally described and Czerkas & Xu decided to go with a different epithet for the bird remains when describing the remains as a new species Archaeovolans repatriatus. Now it could be argued that they should have designated a lectotype to Alwalkeria rather than split the diagnostic remains out, but that is not a necessary requirement if the initial chimeric status identifier missed that step. Heck I personally would have preferred them making the femora a lectotype, but they did not. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

They're names for the same species though. The paper explicitly declares Alickmeron malieriensis a new combination, not a new species. maleriensis cannot simultaneously be a nomen vanum with no type specimen and also a valid species. The genus is just a container. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

When they moved it they made ISIR306b (the distal right femur) the (new) holotype, whereas before the holotype was the entire thing (Skull, vertebrae and limbs), thus with the chimeric status the holotype was split and no lectotype was made making Alwalkeria a nomen vanum. Now its annoying and they probably should have just made ISIR306b the lectotype under Alwalkeria but for whatever reason they decided not to, now others may decide to reverse the move and make ISIR306b the lectotype, but until then Alwalkeria has no valid type and is (technically) a nomen vanum. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Per article 73.1.5, all that Sen and Ray did was restrict the holotype of A. maleriensis to ISI R 306b. The type of A. maleriensis is the same regardless of whether you are referring to the genus Alwalkeria or the genus Alickmeron because there is only one species. You cannot remove a holotype from a taxon, you can only limit it to be part of its original content. Either way, if you don't believe the current sources and discussion from the likes of Mortimer, Headden, Greenfield, or others are sufficient to justify it, there will probably be a short response soon given the stir it has caused. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This merge is not necessary! Please don't do this!!! 174.91.37.170 (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the merger is not necessary at the moment, and is likely to do more harm than good with the taxon. I would recommend at the very least waiting for the rebuttal (which is currently in the works). Basically, Alickmeron doesn't follow ICZN nomenclature, which means it is an objective junior synonym of Alwalkeria. Until the response comes out, please do nothing. --Montanoceratops (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying! Thank you. 174.91.37.170 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2025 (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.