Talk:Raeticodactylus

	Raeticodactylus 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.

Rhamphorhynchoid?

Why is Raeticodactylus here classified as a rhamphorhynchoid, while the describer explicitly abstains from such a classification in a paraphyletic group and merely indicates the form as "non-pterodactyloid"?--MWAK (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm a lazy, lazy man. Seriously, it's because for whatever reason we're still using some paraphyletic groups on WP. Personally, I never got why grade names had to be eliminated like they were bourgeoisie and this was early Soviet Russia, as I find prosauropod, hypsilophodont, and rhamphorhynchoid to be easier to grasp, easier to write, and more useful than basal sauropodomorph, basal ornithopod (or, more accurately, small bipedal ornithischian that's not something else), and non-pterodactyloid pterosaur, respectively. I'll take it out, though. J. Spencer (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We'll put it back again once the first cladistic analysis is out ;o).--MWAK (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]