Talk:Temnospondyli

message: Both types are mentioned, but only rhachitomous vertebrae get a defining description. The corresponding description for stereospondylous vertebrae has been inadvertently omitted.--Wetman (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are described in the sentence, "In stereospondylous vertebrae the pleurocentra have been lost entirely, with the intercentra enlarged as the main body of the vertebrae." If you want, I can add more information. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereospondylous and rhachitomous vertebrae 

message: Isn't the taxobox image wrong in that it shows Eryops with five instead of four fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, you're right, I never noticed that. Is that skeleton a cast? The hands must have been reconstructed, since I don't think any Eryops specimens preserve them completely. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just a cast, I saw it in Paris once. We have more pictures of it on Commons, and other casts have the same problem. So they should perhaps not be used? FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only good skeleton that seems to show four fingers is this one, which I put in the taxobox. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that in the Eryops article some time back as well. Includes the tadpole, which is kind of neat, heh... FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eryops fingers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Temnospondyli. 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/20120324051815/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2034/Pages%20561-573.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2034/Pages%20561-573.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719145945/http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ResearchDocs/Dinosaur_burrows_2009.pdf to http://www.envs.emory.edu/faculty/MARTIN/ResearchDocs/Dinosaur_burrows_2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055808/http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2023/Pages%20125-141.pdf to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2023/Pages%20125-141.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.burkemuseum.org/pub/Sidor_et_al_2005.pdfPermian
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155140/http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/988.pdf to http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/988.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726153331/http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/ to http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2008/12/28/the-flip-up-skull-of-gerrothorax/
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) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article as it stands now reads "Using fossil evidence, there are three main theories for the origin of modern amphibians."
I wonder if the right word would be "hypothesis", not "theory". my understanding is that theories are broader and more thoroughly evidenced than hypotheses, the latter often described as tentative. The simple fact that there are currently three "theories" about the origin of amphibians implies that the subject has not yet been studied to the point that we have a single, widely accepteed explanation.
http://www.fmschools.org/highschool.cfm?subpage=3765
https://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200
https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/
However, I'm unwilling to change the article on Wikipedia just on the basis of a few web pages and my own understanding.
Floozybackloves (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory or hypothesis???