Talk:Reptiliomorpha

message: "More recently Reptiliomorpha has been adopted as the term for the largest clade that includes Homo sapiens but not Ascaphus truei ( a primitive frog)" That sounds like nonsense to me. Homo sapiens (Human) is not a reptiliomorph (obviously). Giant Blue Anteater 07:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cladistically speaking H. sapiens is.  Read up the page on cladistics for more.  This is a very different way of classifying and understanding organisms to the old Linnaean taxonomy M Alan Kazlev 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I get it. Just because an animal evolved from a non-amniotic reptiliomorph dosen't mean it's not a reptiliomorph anymore. Giant Blue Anteater 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo sapiens 

message: Some other articles say that Cotylosauria is no longer recognized (although a lot still use it as an ordo) - maybe it has become time to update the taxonomy? Shinobu (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotylosauria? 

message: This article puts Reptiliomorpha as a superorder within the class Amphibia.  The Tree Of Life webpage, however, has both Reptiliomorpha and Amphibia as distinct classes within the superclass Tetrapoda: http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.20.148 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wrong, just two different systems. The ToL page does not recognize any ranks such as class or superclass. They're also using different definitions of the word Amphibia. Ours is apparently sensu lato (in a paraphyletic sense, all non-reptilian tetrapods are "amphibians"), theirs is sensu stricto (Amphibia as a monophyletic clade including only frogs, salamanders, and their extinct relatives). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sesu lato means "in the wider sense", to indicate we are not dealing with any of the modern groups. The TOL-page on these critters is written by Michel Laurin, who also happen to be the chair of the 2004 PhyloCode committee, thus the strict non-Linnaean approach. Laurin is a proponent of the crown group concept, where all systematic units should be nose based, anchored in living species. Thus his amphibia is equal to Lissamphibia. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification wrong? 

message: Thank you Smokeybjb for the cladogram, they are a bugbear to make! One thing though, most of it detail the phylogeny of the lepospondyls. Would it be an idea to collapse the lepospondyl section a bit? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I put this same cladogram in the lepospondyl article, but seeing as this is an article on reptiliomorphs, all the different leposnondyls aren't really necessary here and we could just condense Lepospondyli into a single branch. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say thanks for the cladogram once again, it's really nice work (I hate to make those). It's nice to have Westlothiania showing, it's one of those fully groups showing up in strange places in all phylogenetic works. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us find cladogram construction fun. Chacun à son goût. All the same, if a cladogram is included in an article, the title of the article should normally appear as a label. Peter Brown (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cladogram

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reptiliomorpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050409172438/http://www.palaeos.com:80/vertebrates/Units/190Reptilomorpha/190.000.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/190Reptilomorpha/190.000.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A simple statement like this should be easy to source.  Was it 2001 or 2004? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. And there are inline citations to both sources. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  defined as largest clade etc