This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
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
For now, you could try to add something from
the original description. At least the specific name is mentioned.
Ha! I can see now why his description of it has been seen as inadequate. I added in the specific name and that he thought it lived on land.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
07:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
In Tetlie's thesis of 2004 (
link in case you don't have access to it), there's a cladogram mentioning Vernonopterus, but it doesn't even show its hibbertopterid affinities (in fact it's something... strange in general), so you are free to want to include it or not.
I can't seem to access EthOS. If the cladogram doesn't support the current idea of its classification then I'm not sure it would be necessary to include.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
07:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Strange, I neither can now. I don't remember how I got the thesis, it was months ago. The cladogram was not very good either, so nothing happens.
"that almost morph into a three ridges" should be "that almost morph into three ridges".
"to give strength to and preserve the very fragile fossil" I guess this "to" is should be removed?
I think the "to" should stay, it's "give strengh to the very fragile fossil" and "preserve the very fragile fossil" merged into one sentence.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Why does the link cover the generic name but not the specific name of these fishes? And when a genus is mentioned for the first time, you should abbreviate it in the remaining mentions.
It's a bit of an odd choice, yeah, but I figured that since the articles are on the genera I might as well just link those. I know they should be abbreviated, but some of the genera start with the same letter so I wanted to avoid that.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
15:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think there will be confusion as long as all the species of a genus are mentioned after the first mention of the genus (I should start using a synonym for "mention"), it is understood that they belong to that genus and not to another.
SuperΨDro17:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
In this paper the ornamentation of Vernonopterus is described in detail, and its phylogenetic position is also discussed. I think you can add something from there.
Some links could be added. I suggest genus, fossil,
deposits, species, abdomen, family,
ornamentation, exoskeleton,
environment, holotype, fossil hunter, geologist, suborder,
segment, Eurypterus, Leif Størmer, superfamily, ventral,
spines,
scales, phylogenetic, brackish, fresh water, Stylonurina, Hibbertopterus and junior synonym. I'm sorry if I'm looking very fussy with the links...
Ha! It's fine, I'm not sure the rules of linking everything are as strict on GA:s as on FA:s but making sure everything that should be linked is linked can only improve the article :) Linked most of these.
Ichthyovenator (
talk)
07:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply