Talk:Osteostraci

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Osteostraci 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.

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.

redirect to Cephalaspidomorphi?

While this Osteostraci article was just a stub, I think it's better to leave it than to redirect to Cephalaspidomorphi. Osteostracans are just one order of cephalaspidomorphs, and in time users will likely add enough information to justify a stand-alone article for Osteostraci. Cephal-odd 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cephalaspida is an order of Osteostraci, not the other way around.--Mr Fink 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of January 2009, The Paleobiology Database lists Osteostraci as a disused name. --Kevmin (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I disagree with the Paleobiology Database. The number of workers on this group is low, so there were never many papers using either Osteostraci or Cephalaspidomorphi, but in my library, which is certainly not exhaustive on this, I have three papers from the last five years that mention "Osteostraci" in the title, the last one being:

SANSOM, R. S. 2009. Phylogeny, classification and character polarity of the Osteostraci (Vertebrata). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 7 (1): 95–115.

By comparison, the last one that I have and that uses "Cephalaspidomorph" (with any ending after this, if any) dates from 1975, so I think that the Paleobiology Database is misleading here.Michel Laurin (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Osteostraci is considered a distinct class, and Cephalaspidomorphi (I think that's how you spell it) is its containing taxon.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]