Talk:Belemnotheutis

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 5 April 2008 by reviewer Acer (talk · contribs).

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.

Cephalopods (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

A fact from Belemnotheutis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 150-million-year-old ink of the extinct, squid-like Belemnotheutis (artist's rendition pictured) was used to draw a picture that paleontologists called "the ultimate self portrait"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/February.

Wikipedia

Merger proposal

Proposing the merge of Belemnoteuthis into Belemnotheutis.

Everyone knows it should have been -teuthis (for 'Squid'), but it was coined by an amateur paleontologist, hence the misspelling. Already attempted to be corrected before but eventually it was decided that the original name stands as it is. The correct accepted name is Belemnotheutis, not Belemnoteuthis.

A short description of the full story is here. Anyway will begin merging soon. It's not as if there are a lot to merge anyway :3 They're both stubs. I'm probably even just talking to myself here and the next person who stumbles into this talk page will post a reply years from now. :D

Will also try to expand later once they have been merged.

- Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what d'ya know, I'm here and that sounds sensible. It's probably best to wait a short while, just to make sure that someone who know's more about these things can comment, before merging. (a 5x expansion would be awesome, as the finding of the 150 million year old ink would make a cool DYK hook). SmartSE (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well, I researched further and found what seems to be minutiae of a proposal and the ruling on it in 1999 by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Full text is here (just hit Ctrl-F in Firefox and search for the word 'Belemnotheutis'). The results seem to be 19 affirmatives to 1 negative; and 17 affirmatives, 1 negative, 2 abstaining.

To quote, the ruling pertaining to Belemnotheutis/Belemnoteuthis was:

...snip...
( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) the generic names;

(i) Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836;

(ii) Atramentahus Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838;

(b) the specific name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the binomen Orthoceras belemnitoeides.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (gender; feminine), type species by original designation Belopeltis simplex Voltz, 1840;

(b) Geoteuthis Miinster, 1843 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Biilow-Trummer (1920) Loligo bollensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832;

(c) Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 (gender; feminine), type species by original designation Teudopsis agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835;

(d) Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Regteren Altena (1949) Loligo aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832;

(e) Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921 (gender; feminine), type species by monotypy Geoteuthis flexuosa, Miinster, 1843;

(0 Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (gender; feminine), type species by original designation and monotypy Geoteuthis sagittata Miinster, 1843;

(g) Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842 (gender; feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy by Pearce (1847) Belemnoteuthis (sic) antiqua Pearce, 1847.

...snip...

The naming controversy, including the part about Richard Owen stealing a genus from Pearce - we all know Owen wasn't exactly a very nice guy haha - is also one of the main subjects of this 1992 journal which was mentioned in the previous ruling: The Type Material of The Jurassic Cephalopod Belemnotheutis by D.T. Donovan and M.D. Crane.

Plenty of material here for a full fledged article... if only I understood belemnite-talk. LOL.

But yeah. This is actually a very interesting genus as it was the reason why Owen was voted off the councils of the Zoological Society and the Royal Society.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning Expansion

Ok since Mgiganteus1 has merged them already (since they're both stubs), I'll go ahead and expand.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

This is wonderful. Congratulations to everybody concerned for all their hard work. 86.134.49.161 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article itself

This article, titled "Belemnotheuts" is on one hand quite comprehensive but on the other somewhat haphazard in its order with incidental historical background inserted within paleontological discussion. Description should probably come first, as it does, but Fossil Ink , along with other descriptive elements should be a subheading. Taxonomy should follow Description, unless made first, with Species as a subsection. Distribution and range should come next. History and controversy are background material, of secondary importance to the paleontology, and should come last, just ahead of References. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling, redirect

The spelling of the name, Belemnotheuts may be technically correct, based on the rules of nomenclature, but virtually all references give it as Belemnoteuthis, which is how it is most likely to be queried, although D.T Donovan and M.D. Crane, 1992, do spell it Belemnotheutis in The Type Material of the Jurassic Cephalopod Belemnotheutis. So was the redirect really necessary, or was it a response to some bother. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THe redirect was correct as this IS the correct spelling. Most commonly searched for does not supplant correct naming for articles.--Kev min § 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belemnotheutis. 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/20110716060051/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2035/Pages%20273-296.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2035/Pages%20273-296.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://royalsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=3311

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belemnotheutis. 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:

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) 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]