Talk:Panderichthys

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)