Talk:Ichthyostega

message: The illustration is definitely out of date.  Jenny Clack (Cambridge) and Henning Blom (Uppsala) have done significant work on Ichthyostega over the past few years, substantially altering ideas about it.  See Jenny's web site at http://www.theclacks.org.uk/jac.
The manus is still unknown, but most of Jarvik's work has been extensively revised.
I'm brand new to Wikipedia so mostly don't know how to do things, for instance, updating the picture.
Rob Clack 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent work (2005) 

message: Oops! In the edit summary field for the article I really meant 'avoid redirect', not disambig of course. Andrewa 18:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: This article appears to disagree with itself on whether the Ichthyostega walked on land or not. At the start of the article, it says that the Ichtyostega probably didnt 'walk' with its limbs at all, but the rest of the article acts as if it did. I suppose there is disagreement regarding this, but the article should probably mention that rather than just being confusing. Is there anyone who actually knows anything about Ichthyostega who could clear this up? Oscar Evans 22:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land or swamps? 

message: I doubt the illustration used in this article is correct. It gives the impression that the animal had well developed feet adapted for actual walking. Since newer evidence tells that Ichthyostega never looked like that, the illustration is probably a little too old.
I have added a more accurate image today. But I did not replace the one in the taxobox, below is the image: 
Ichthyostega would probably slide on wet surfaces (i.e. mud) rather than walk. The image correctly shows that Ichthyostega's hind limbs were poorly developed. Giant Blue Anteater 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The illustration

message: The old image in the template box was indeed outdated, based on a faulty sketch from the 60s. I re-drew it, based on  reconstruction in 2005.
I also deleted Giant Blue Anteater's image, as it looked pretty unprofessional and cartoonish.
--Meneitherfabio 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to both of you for improving on the accuracy of the illustration. As a professional involved in illustration, though not a professional illustrator, I'd point out that personal style is a matter of taste and very difficult to eliminate. The newer illustration is more in line with the "house style" of uncoloured line drawings used for most of these beasts, but the line weight of the outline appears too fine on my set up, and it would look more professional if thickened a bit. I'll incorporate the revised image into the fishapods illustration to the right, but having recently swapped over Eusthenopteron  and Panderichthys on finding that the former was pelagic rather than air-breathing in the shallows as thought previously, I'd appreciate any comments on the sequence so that any necessary alterations can be made at the same time. ..dave souza, talk 08:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images Update

message: I am going to add a picture of what I presume a tadpole of Ichthyostega would look like. However, I am asking you guys wether I should add it. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you using as a reference? If there's no evidence of what a tadpole from an Ichthyostega  would have looked like, and no published speculation, I'm not sure it's appropriate to simply make something up. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I primarily based it on salamander tadpoles, but also used lungfish fry as a template. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but what source says Ichthyostega tadpoles looked like that? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much is discussed about the larval forms of basal tetrapods. So, I can conclude that I made it up. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and that's fine--I've done images of creatures known from poor remains that are almost entirely educated speculation (like Unenlagia]. But it's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Speculation about the appearance of an animal based on scrappy remains is one thing, but this is an animal (well, life stage) known from no remains at all! Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image to Be Added 

message: Someone that knows how, get the "BITCH" taxon off the page.  I can't get it to show up in any of the editors. -- User:76.6.217.213
: The what? Evercat (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandilism that I Can't Get Rid Of 

message: In the Description section it says: The posterior margin of the skull formed an operculum covering the gills. It's my understanding that the gill-covering bones disappeared in the Elpistostegalians (the most tetrapod-like of the tetrapodomorph fishes) some time after Panderichthys. These bones are missing in Elpistostege and Tiktaalik. They are not present in any early tetrapods. There is an explanation of this in the tetrapod article, in the Tetrapod#Neck section. However, there would have been a flap of "skin" called the operculum. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operculum