Talk:Panderichthys

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panderichthys 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

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

Palaeontology: Lobe-Fins Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lobe-Fins task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

More info

More information would be appreciated...especially on physiology, which would require a person familiar with palaetology and anatomy. There is also some new evidence on the formation of the middle ear in tetrapods.

Information on where the fossil was found would be nice, too. 71.217.98.158 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the location. ArthurWeasley 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5030941/digital-evolution-early-fish-primitive-fingers-says-study/ Anyone know of a better source for this? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger is playing with this article

OTRS received an email pointing out that a blogger was talking about playing with this article. The edit in question is apparently this one. Just wanted to let people know in case anything not verifiable is introduced. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit uncharitable to say he's playing with it. The edit was not unreasonable, though it suffers from lifting text, unquoted, straight out of the abstract. Evercat (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's "uncharitable" is semantics. This was merely a notification so people would be aware of it. Do with it what you will, but don't shoot the messenger. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :) Evercat (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 397m years ago vs approx 400 m years ago "force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record." ??, and ""whose date does not reflect the transition"" seems vague. Cheers Craigmac41 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood something. Species like Tiktaalik represent a transition between fish and tetrapods, but Tiktaalik is about 375 million years old. Panderichthys is a more fish-like species from about 380 mya. But now we have what seem to be 400 million year old tetrapod tracks, which means these species are not as close to the actual transition as we thought.

Anyway, the words "force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record" are straight out of the abstract of the relevant paper. As for "whose date does not reflect the transition", I wrote that bit. It means we have a transitional form from 380 mya even though the transition itself had to happen by 400 mya. Evercat (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined expression

My parser got this exception.

For a layman huge parts of the article is unintelligible, as the names of bones(?) have no explanation.

I understand that no one offered solution, as I also feel unable to help here. Sorry.

2001:4C4E:200A:BC00:7DD1:71EC:B986:801A (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]