The result was merge to eurypterid . MBisanz talk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is already severely outdated. An updated classification and a list of currently valid genera is already present in the article on Eurypterid and the two systems currently conflict with each other. I would have just migrated the former to the latter, but the updated system fits in with the Eurypterid article as it is, negating the need to split. This article has some additional info (e.g. fossil range, location, synonyms, a full list of species, etc.) but they can't easily be rechecked against Dunlop et al., you'd quite literally have to rewrite the article entirely. I think it's better to delete this for the moment, until an updated version can be written, that is. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]