Talk:Tetrapodomorpha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tetrapodomorpha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology: Lobe-Fins 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.
	This article is supported by the Lobe-Fins task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Fishapod redirects here, so the term should be included somewhere in the article. Either that, or fishapod should redirect elsewhere or have its own article if it's not the same thing.--Sonjaaa 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have been sorted, so I've removed the tag. .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume all the members of this group are extinct/fossil. Shouldn't this be made clear? Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is downright bizarre. Tetrapods are included in this group, but you get a bit of balderdash most people don't understand before it states that they are. And why on earth is this classed under the Linnaean system? It simply cannot be a subclass. As for this being a clade of almost-tetrapods: how preposterous. It is like a "clade" containing Australopithecus and neanderthals to the exclusion of Homo sapiens. Innotata 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Well, the taxonomy was loosly based on Benton, 2004, though it deviated a lot. Benton lists Tetrapodomorpha as an infraclass of subclass Sarcopterygii, and lists Superclass Tetrapoda as a sub-group. Not that it's less bizarre, but that's evolutionary taxonomy for ya, and at least it's now verifiable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A valid taxon ?

Hi! Recently, a new taxon was created: Dipnotetrapodomorpha. Used especially by TPBD, should a separate article for this taxonomic rank or a simple redirect to Tetrapomorpha? --92.142.49.232 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dipnotetrapodomorpha is a junior synomym for Rhipidistia. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]