Talk:Diplocaulus

	Diplocaulus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile 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.

Information from recent edit that needs integrating with existing text - removed from article

'From Black Hills Industries

Diplocaulus was an aquatic amphibian that grew up to 3 feet in length. Unlike most of the other reptiles and amphibians of the time, Diplocaulus was completely adapted to a water environment. They had tiny legs of little use, a boomerang shaped head and a long slender body. They also possessed a long, powerful tail that propelled them through the water, while the broad, flat head may have acted to guide the animal. The location of the eyes and nostrils on the surface of the skull suggest that this animal may have quietly laid on the bottom of pools or rivers waiting for food to get close. Diplocaulus probably fed on crustaceans, insects, and possibly carrion.'

I don't know what the source for this is, but assuming it's reliable, this text needs to be integrated into the existing article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin webs on head?

Darren Naish says: "However, fossils show that these ‘horned’ nectrideans actually had skin webs connecting the tips of their ‘horns’ to their bodies."[1] Any papers about this? Seems our restorations are wrong, then. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to the resting traces informally raised on Twitter. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I cropped out the model which shows the skin flaps in the taxobox, since it is of questionable copyright anyway (the US does not have freedom of panorama for 3D art). FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand some of Pardo's uncertainty with the skin flaps, I wouldn't call his interpretation definitive. His main points are that a) the source is obscure and b) diplocaulids are not known from Europe. Here would be a good place to note that keraterpetonids/diplocaulids are known from Europe (Keraterpeton and Batrachiderpeton spring to mind). Plus, Pardo isn't the only early tetrapod paleontologist with opinions on the matter. Jenny Clack seems to support the skin flaps, since the skin flap skeletal diagram in the twitter post is from her book. Angela Milner, Richard Butler, and Ivan Sansom all support it, as they themselves have found their own set of Hermundurichnus-like resting traces in the UK, which they also attribute to diplocaulids (source:[2]). Spencer Lucas is also fine with the interpretation [[3]]. So it seems to be that Pardo is one informal dissenter among a general consensus among Paleozoic amphibian researchers. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the current taxobox image is inaccurate anyway? Also, there is still the US copyright issue with the model. Maybe the model could be removed from the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get rid of flapless imagery until more easily accessible studies come out about the subject, even if it's looking like skin flaps are the way to go for future art. Also, I thought that the model which needed to be removed was from the other Diplocaulus skeleton image (this one: [4]), or does that just apply to models in general. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly those in US museums (if they are not owned by the government, as that would make them public domain). The US has some pretty strict freedom of panorama laws. But many other countries don't have that problem. Perhaps Mariomassone could update the file without background? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Mariomassone (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air sacs

Deleted a silly line about [Diplocaulus] having air sacs. This is an idea lifted from the video game 'ARK.' 129.62.56.138 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Hoax

There's been a bout of people saying the Diplocaulus is still alive. It's too late for me to work on this tonight, but the refutation can be found here: http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2015/10/deeply-dippy-over-diplocaulus.html. I don't know if blogs are considered OK for wiki, but the author is a published Zoologist with a doctorate, so a little digging could get better sources. May work on this later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.56.111 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]