Template:Did you know nominations/Praenuculinae

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Praenuculinae

(

)

... that the extinct bivalve subfamily Praenuculinae has lost two genera that were placed in it?

Reviewed: Pollicipes polymerus
Comment: Eritropis moved in 2000 and Deceptrix 1997 move now accepted

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is long enough, and appears to be new enough (there is some similarity with the older article Praenuculidae, but not enough to concern us here, I think). I see no copyright concerns. The problem, for me, lies in the hook. Genera are regularly reassigned between families, more so for subfamilies, and for fossils, it's very frequent indeed because of our generally patchy knowledge. I don't see the change of circumscription that resulted in the loss of two of thirteen genera as being particularly noteworthy. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who works with and edits extinct taxa articles, I have to say I thought it was interesting. How about alt1?

alt1 ... that the extinct bivalve subfamily Praenuculinae can be told apart from its sister subfamily by looking at teeth? --Kev min § 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That certainly seems more interesting, but I can't see it in the article, nor is there a reference for it in the family article, although it is at least mentioned there. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize I forgot to put the tooth structure information into the article. I have added it with reference.--Kev min § 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Aah, that's much better, and fortunately the necessary information is on the first page of the reference, so I don't even have to AGF. ALT1 is good to go. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)