Talk:Pohlsepia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

Palaeontology 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.

age

The article gives an age of 296 m.y., along with a complaint about verification lacking, which is probably in the ball park. I looked for online references and found no specific dates but I did find from some Indiana and USGS websites that the Mazon Creek fauna is Middle Pennsylvanian , Desmoinsean or in European terms, Moscovian in age which puts it at approx 306 m.y.(by ICS dating) to 310 m.y. (according to COSUNA). If the 296 m.y. age is firmly documented somewhere it should stick. Otherwise unless Pohlsepia is shown to be younger than Desmoinsean, i.e. lower Missourian, the 306-310 M.Y. age should be adapted.

JM —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Taxobox Picture

Until the day before yesterday, the taxobox picture featured a photograph and line diagram of the type specimen. Now it's a restoration as an octopus... What happened to it? I removed the picture because the article plainly states Pohlsepia is now not believed to be a cephalopod. Mr Fink (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image was a wiki-only fair use image that was recently deleted and then a new image was uploaded with the exact same file name to commons, which seems to have obliterated the log of the deletion. The original image visible in this archive. The image was questionably fair use regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that answers that question, thank you. Now what do we do next for the image of something that wasn't an octopus?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea would be to somehow create an image that merely illustrates the fossil without trying to interpret it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]