Talk:Eurycephalella

	Eurycephalella 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.

classification

Possibly some confusion regarding the classification of Eurycephalella. (It might just be my own confusion...)

This is the taxo box as it currently exists on the page:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Anura
Suborder: Neobatrachia
Superfamily: Hyloidea

[1] This site says Eurycephalella alcinae n. gen., n. sp. Baez et al. 2009 is under Amphibia - Temnospondyli. Another page on this site, [2] expands on this a little. Also, these quotes from the site seem to confirm Anura as the suborder, but Hyloidea is called a sister taxa.

'Eurycephalella alcinae belongs to Eurycephalella' according to A. M. Baez et al. 2009
'Eurycephalella belongs to Neobatrachia' according to A. M. Baez et al. 2009
'Neobatrachia was reranked as a unranked clade and belongs to Anura' according to A. M. Baez et al. 2009 ([3]).

So, it's the order, suborder, superfamily that seems a little unclear. Hopefully someone can clarify, if that's possible at this time. Nihola (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading, I've decided to remove Hyloidea as the superfamily for now, because I find no reference to it in the citations. The other ones seem ok. Nihola (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What with: "Our analysis consistently place A. placidoi and E. alcinae in nested positions among hyloid taxa" (from the original description, A. M. Baez et al. 2009) ? Rnnsh (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure that means the same thing. I'm not. Nihola (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure. Paleodb is only the summery of this article, and sometimes it has misleading contents. Currently, the original description is the only formal paper that had published and it's better to use it as ref. Rnnsh (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Nihola (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]