Talk:Sauria

Lacertilia in infoboxes

There are a number of pages concerning genera and species which should be in suborder Lacertilia that are still using Sauria in their infobox. If you come across any, please correct them. ImmortalWombat 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

The fiction section is perhaps not very encyclopedic, but I only put it in to replace the broken link disambiguation notes someone stuck at the top of the article. A minor planet in a video game and an apparently self-published book don't require articles of their own, but if someone is looking for them they should know that there aren't any. 212.179.71.70 (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They'll know when they can't find any. :-) - ∅ (∅), 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuatara

The photo for the page is of a tuatara which is not a saurian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.129.45 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This article uses the phylogenetic definition of saurian, not the (rather outdated in my understanding) use as a synonym for Lepidosauria. As the intro says "Sauria is a clade of reptiles that includes all living diapsids, as well as their common ancestor and all its extinct descendants." This makes all modern reptiles, as well as birds saurians except for the turtles if they're non-diapsid. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not very commonly used, is it? I tried googling it, and found more hits for the older definitions (actually, I almost only found Wikipedia and derivatives for the crown-group definition). Should Sauria be in the auto-taxobox tree at all, or should it be an article about a proposed-but-contested group with a manual or no taxobox? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

True, Scholar search shows it is in use almost exclusively for a clade of lizards synonymous with Lacertilia. Should redirected. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Having deliberately searched this Wiki and elsewhere for information on what Clade would encompasses birds and crocodiles and snakes and lizards, it is utterly dismaying to finally find a link to oft-seen Sauria only to be redirected to lizards of all things, and not even an explanation! While there may be an (un-cited) source that claims some final authority on which phylogenic researchers get to use this label, in the meantime this redirect is an affront to the mission of sharing knowledge and information. Before last November, there were multiple references and some good explanation, even if it was incomplete. And some of that information has since been incorporated, wholesale, and incongruously, into the Lizard page, (the Biology section,) contradicting other information on the page. The Diapsid page still makes reference to Sauria as a large and ancient clade, with citations, as does Archosauromorpha. I'm not saying that the Sauria label being synonymous with "Lizard" is technically incorrect. But if it's in dispute, and commonly used in another way, to encompass ArchoSAUROmorpha and LepidoSAUROmorpha, the only Diapsids to survive the The Great Dying (University of Maryland), the page at least deserves an explanation. Furthermore, if the word is used exclusively as an exact synonym for Lacertilia, then as a taxonomic label it serves no purpose. I see that DinoGuy2/MMartyniuk is deeply invested in the phylogeny of this area and has made numerous well-received contributions, which is the only thing holding me back from reverting the redirect edit of Nov. 28, 2013. Why can't this be a disambiguation page?? It seems fairly ambiguous from here. Can someone please give a good reason to not have more information restored back on this Sauria page? -:-  AlpinWolf   -:- 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE REDIRECT TO THE LIZARD ARTICLE?

The clade Sauria includes lizards and all other extant reptiles, why the redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwilso (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this should really be made a separate page, with a line at the top redirecting anyone who searches for the Squamate group to Lacertilia. A lot of articles link to Sauria in reference to the Diapsid grouping, and it's a commonly used classification. 92.236.117.6 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Birds' status as reptiles

From the article: "As such Sauria can be seen as a crowned-group of all modern reptiles (including birds)..." It should be clarified that birds are only considered reptiles according to the phylogenetic system. I would make the edit myself, but I don't want to mess anything up. Quizzical Waffle Ninja (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede, and history of the term

The history of this taxon isn't explained, except a confusingly-worded sentence in the lede: "The clade Sauria was traditionally a suborder for lizards which, before 1800, were crocodilians". I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say: my first interpretation was that "Before 1800, Sauria was a synonym for lizards, which were classed as a type of crocodilian". Going by Lizard#Phylogeny, this is incorrect, and I can't see any reading of this sentence that matches the history given there (Sauria/Sauriens being defined as lizards + crocodiles). I would suggest removing that line from the lede altogether, and adding a "history" section to explain how the term has been used and changed meaning over time. I could do this myself, but it will probably take me a while to get round to it, so if anyone more expert wants to beat me to it, feel free. Iapetus (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)