Talk:Ausktribosphenidae

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ausktribosphenidae/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

in other words, it may be just a fiction, unless someone finds a fossil which can sensibly be described as a "basal australosphenid" I would be surprised if "just a fiction" is a scientifically-accepted term and not just combative hyperbole, but I don't know what to replace it with. Ideas? Something like "corresponding to an actual clade"? Joshua McGee (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ausktribosphenidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

I have removed references to this animal being a "therian". There is some debate whether it was therian or a monotreme relative, so it would make sense to include a section explaining the uncertainty. But the article can't just call it a therian and a monotreme relative at the same time without explanation. 2601:441:467F:9E00:0:0:0:96A8 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]