Talk:Longisquama

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Longisquama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Palaeontology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Longisquama 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

is really "plume" the appropriated term for that structure?

"Plume" isn't a sort of feather? What longisquama had is thought by many to have been a sort of sail back, so I think that plume is somewhat inappropriate.--Extremophile 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "plumes" may have been feathers (or proto-feathers), although there are certainly those who disagree. Which word would you suggest? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe pared scales?(m_ _m) lol -!!Walkingwith08 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be suggesting terms not used in the lit. Also, whether or not they were paired or a single row is controversial. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It's currently pointing towards either long scales or feathers/protofeathers. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles that could be considered

Voigt et al. (2008): Feather-like development of Triassic diapsid skin appendages. Naturwissenschaften (in press, online version)

--139.20.22.212 (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buchwitz and Voigt (2012): The dorsal appendages of the Triassic reptile Longisquama insignis: reconsideration of a controversial integument type. (SpringerLink: Paläontologische Zeitschrift) DOI: 10.1007/s12542-012-0135-3 --Ernsts (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]