Phylogenetic classification The ranked taxonomy of amniotes taken from Benton is not really phylogenetic At best it is a hybrid of the traditional system and a phylogenetic classificiation I don not believe that it is very widely used The or a real phylogenetic classification is the one given in the cladogram in phylogenetics a cladogram and a classification are one in the same As written the article also gives the impression that the traditional system still is in widespread use It is not although it persists in some textbooks You ll find Bentons hybrid system all over Wikipedia If you wish to argue against it s use I m personally not too fond of it either Wikipedia WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles Paleontological references is the place to speak your mind on this matter As for the old system it is very common once you get outside of specialist literature As such is merit mention I don t object to it being mentioned just to the implication that it is accepted among people working in the field In the same way a history of chemistry would be incomplete without discussion of the four ancient elements but would be inaccurate if it suggested that modern chemists still spoke in terms of earth and fire The same with Benton s system I m not saying take it down I just object to calling it phylogenetic It is not As for specialist literature that s pretty much all there is when it comes to amniotes It s not a traditional group like birds and fish but a category that never has been widely used outside of specialist literature and textbooks The problem is so few people actively work on amniotes as amniotes that textbook accounts rarely change to accommodate new discoveries and interpretations Amniote egg and terrestrial reproduction The amniote egg traditionally has been considered a major evolutionary advance that permitted vertebrates to reproduce on dry land freeing them of the need to return to standing water I intend to revise this article with references to reflect recent challenges to this view and in particular to point out that 1 we have no direct evidence and essentially no indirect evidence of how the first amniotes or their ancestors reproduced There is no reason to assume that the reproductive mode of modern amphibians is primitive or that the amniote egg evolved from anything resembling a frog egg Some of the features of amniote eggs that have been interpreted as adaptations to terrestrial reproduction may in fact be primitive 2 Amniote eggs provide no more protection from dehydration than amphbian eggs even modern amphibian eggs Eggs buried in underground nests need no such protection as the water potential of soil in such nests is higher than the physiological water potential of vertebrate eggs 3 buildup of nitrogenous waste in terrestrial eggs is not the serious problem it often is assumed to be 4 Terrestrial eggs need no special adaptations for gas exchange It may be best to create a separate section dealing with the amniote egg I m new here and wanted to give a heads up before I make a lot of changes As long as you can back up your statements with credible sources I can t see any problems It might be a good idea to make a separate article on the amniote egg as you suggested the two can be merged later if we want to Thanks for the suggestion that probably is what I will do Stem amniote In the lede the first amniotes are described as The first amniotes referred to as basal amniotes or stem amniotes This is misleading as it indicates the stem group amniotes are limited to to the proper egg laying animals While basal amniotes is not a very precise term stem amniota denotes a very wide assemblage including most of if not all of the groups traditionally assigned to Reptiliomorpha including Seymouria Eogyrinus and Archeria not to mention quite a few fossil tadpoles The labyrinthodont tree is not well understood and the actual content of stem amniota is a matter of some dispute and may even contain some groups traditionally assigned to Temnospondyli As such the term stem amniotes is useless and I have remov