Talk:Gnathostomata

message: I've added lines to indicate evolutionary relationships in this section - I may have made a mistake, please check.HappyVR 19:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: section taxonomy and phylogeny

message: Something's not right here. The acanthodians were the very first gnathostomes, and the placoderms came later. Why are the very first gnathostomes (the acanthodians) grouped in an advanced group of gnathostome (Teleostomi, in Eugnathostomata) when the placoderms (not being to first gnathostomes) not being grouped in "Eugnathostomata" (which I don't believe exists). Giant Blue Anteater 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what I said is old an absurd. There could be a possible common ancestor between the placoderms and the teleostomes. Giant Blue Anteater 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: None that I'm aware of, nor am I aware of evidence which doesn't fit into the current theory. HCA (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy and Phylogeny

message: This section should be included at some points Ayersmm (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: section Morphology and Characteristics

message: The main picture on the right corner is from an Orcinus orca skull although the "Subgroups" only list fish Classes in it.
Maybe the "Subgroups" should be called "Classes" and another division added to include clade or other unranked classifications.
Of course, after reading the text, I can find the Teleostomi clade reason for the orca picture ;-) but another division and more information on the right corner would make this page even more helpful.
187.89.228.165 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture x subgroups 

message: One of the external links is broken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoulikan (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Sources 16 and 17 in this article do not appear to be working properly. The link for 17 (Clack 2012) only links to the article and not an actual source, and source 16 leads to a broken National Geographic page. It would be good to find and add these original sources and fix these links. --Blfaubion (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The image that shows many different gnathostomes at the top of this page has an atrociously outdated reconstruction of Dunkleosteus. It doesn't have nearly enough facial integument to cover its skull, its dorsal fin is much too small based on its ecological niche and known evidence of ceratotrichia in Dunkleosteus fossils, and its tail is far too anguilliform to suit a large pelagic apex predator like Dunkleosteus.
I think replacing it with a more recent reconstruction would be beneficial to the quality of this article, or replacing it with a different early gnathostome entirely. Maybe Entelognathus would be more appropriate, as it is one of the earliest known gnathostomes and possibly representative of a polyphyletic lineage that includes all other gnathostomes. Either way, the current Dunkleosteus image in this article is in dire need of replacement. Entelognathus (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated ''Dunkleosteus'' reconstruction in header image