Talk:Onchopristis

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes 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.

Category addition[edit]

It should be added to the "Prehistoric fish of Africa" category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.57.247 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

There's no suggestion of size in this article. The rostral is typically 1m in length so overall length is probably less than 4m. I would hope that some one with real data could update the article. 80.2.105.208 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiphactinus88 added 8 m-long estimation from book, but of course, it is likely to be overestimation. Still there are no reference to show its actual size estimation, how should the size estimation be done, @Carnoferox? For the time being Villalobos-Segura et al. (2021) have better size estimation than 8 m one, even through that is likely to be overestimation as well... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 4.25 meter estimate from Villalobos-Segura et al. (2021). As you said, it is an overestimate based on a small specimen. However, it is still close to the maximum size of O. numida and is ultimately the best published estimate. Carnoferox (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]