Talk:Hesperornithes

message: Is it really correct to call Hesperornithes birds? They went extinct with the KT event, surely this makes them dinosaurs; They do not fly, they don't nest, they have nothing that birds have and dinosaurs do not.. At worst we should acknowledge that the "boundary" between dinosaur and avian is arbitrary and artificial. Wayne Hardman (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is arbitrary to draw a line and say one side are dinos and the other birds, Hesperornithes were evolutionary speaking definitely birds. That they didn't fly is irrelevant, ostriches and kiwis don't fly either. The K/T event wiped out lots of thiongs besides dinos too. Not all birds have nests either. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Birds?

message: Either this is a dinosaur or a bird, it cant be both. Enlil Ninlil 06:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the cladistic sense birds are a subgroup of dinosaurs, but I can see how this is unclear and confusing as it is in the text. I'll try to clarify.Dinoguy2 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify

message: Hesperornithiformes → Hesperornithes – monotypic subclass as far as Linnean taxonomy goes and also considered valid in phylogenetic nomenclature. Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this provided that Hesperornithiformes remains in the taxobox under Order.Dinoguy2 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should! WP should not take a stand on phylogenetic vs Linnean systematics, but rather attempt to reconcile the systems to the best effort. As conflicting names for a taxonomic unit are unlikely to occur courtesy of the thoughful application of phylo-clature e.g. by Clarke in her Ichthyornis review, WP can easily take the best as proposed by both approaches to achieve a convenient synthesis which might not please all specialists involved in the debate, but will give laypersons good and solid knowledge. The approach for Hesperornithes would parallel this layout, but on a higher taxonomic level. It is really a special case, unlike Ichthyornis, because as opposed to this (and Bornean Bristlehead as it currently stands, and so on), the genus-/species-level taxonomy of the hesperornithids is not monotypic and thus the page name cannot be, as would otherwise be done as per SOP, the genus name or vernacular name. It is really a quite unique case, but the approach proposed emulated the SOP already in place for the taxonomic category system, where lower-level monotypic taxa are only referred to in the text and should not be created as cascardes of one-item categories. I think mammal and dinosaur folks use this approach too, and it agrees with the Project guidelines of "working down" the systematic tree. Dysmorodrepanis 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to Hesperornithes

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per arguments. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Proposed move. As it seems now, phylogenetic nomenclature has finally done away with Marsh's ill-defined Odontolcae. To keep in line with the other -ornithes (which would be defined as this-and-this clade in phylogenetic nomenclature, and subclasses under the Linnean system which is altogether fair and square and correctly represents relationships as we currently know), I propose this page be moved to Hesperornithes. Note that Hesperornithiformes is not considered valid by phylo-clature... this should not be seen as endorsement or rejection of one system or the other, but underlines the need to move. Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this provided that Hesperornithiformes remains in the taxobox under Order.Dinoguy2 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should! WP should not take a stand on phylogenetic vs Linnean systematics, but rather attempt to reconcile the systems to the best effort. As conflicting names for a taxonomic unit are unlikely to occur courtesy of the thoughful application of phylo-clature e.g. by Clarke in her Ichthyornis review, WP can easily take the best as proposed by both approaches to achieve a convenient synthesis which might not please all specialists involved in the debate, but will give laypersons good and solid knowledge. The approach for Hesperornithes would parallel this layout, but on a higher taxonomic level. It is really a special case, unlike Ichthyornis, because as opposed to this (and Bornean Bristlehead as it currently stands, and so on), the genus-/species-level taxonomy of the hesperornithids is not monotypic and thus the page name cannot be, as would otherwise be done as per SOP, the genus name or vernacular name. It is really a quite unique case, but the approach proposed emulated the SOP already in place for the taxonomic category system, where lower-level monotypic taxa are only referred to in the text and should not be created as cascardes of one-item categories. I think mammal and dinosaur folks use this approach too, and it agrees with the Project guidelines of "working down" the systematic tree. Dysmorodrepanis 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hesperornithes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111195520/http://paleofile.com/ to http://www.paleofile.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111195520/http://paleofile.com/ to http://www.paleofile.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified