Talk:Sarcopterygii

message: Crossopterygian redirects here, but does not appear in the article. Can someone explain? Thanks. — Epastore 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossopterygian 

message: There's a picture of a coelacanth on the page, with the caption "Coelacanths are the only sarcopterygians that live in the ocean"
Since whales live in the ocean, whales are mammals, mammals are tetrapods, and tetrapods are sarcopterygians, isn't this statement untrue? 75.165.1.80 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocean-dwellers 

message: If sarcopterygians developed in the ocean, what's the understanding on why their caracteristic "stalked" fins evolved? Bottom dwellers that could use the ability to better navigate around objects? Pelagic but with better fine-motor fin control skills? Something else entirely? --Tropylium (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of fin morphology 

message: Please, take a look at this proposal for creating a :Category:Sarcopterygii stubs. Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcopterygii stubs 

message: The cladogram featured in the article is based on data from 1995. Is this current? Some of the contained taxa have much more recent coverage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cladogram up to date? 

message: Alligator_gar
2605:A601:46C:4101:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do these relate to Alligator Gars? 

message: Elpistostegalia needs to be removed from its current position in the cladogram, as this is neither supported by the reference (Tree of Life Web Project) nor does it fit with any of the cladograms I've seen in any serious literature. It's a side-branch, the nearest one to Stegocephalia in the sense used here, i.e., tetrapod by the apomorphy-based definition of "four legs bearing digits."
On a different topic, saying that Crossopterygii is sometimes used as a synonym is a little dated. If we're going to mention Crossopterygii we should mention that is currently used as the name of one of the two major clades of Sarcopterygii, the one represent by living coelacanths. The other one is Rhipidistia (in the current sense, not the older parphyletic sense) which contains two major clades: Dipnomorpha and Tetrapodamorpha.
In taxonomy, it's not uncommon for old taxon names to become obsolete, usually through the discovery that they are paraphyletic, only to be recycled with new definitions. That's what happened to "dinosaur" and "ape." The same thing happened with Crossopterygii, Stegocephalia, and Rhipidistia. We're going to confuse readers if we first tell them what taxon names used to mean, and then further down in the article tell them what they mean now.  Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elpistostegalia not an ancestor of Tetrapoda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sarcopterygii. 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/20110803041504/http://www.fishing-worldrecords.com/lung%20fishes/Protopterus%20aethiopicus.html to http://fishing-worldrecords.com/lung%20fishes/Protopterus%20aethiopicus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309223251/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/guiyu_oneiros.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/guiyu_oneiros.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512040709/http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/03/27/critical_transitions_in_fish_evolution_l to http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/03/27/critical_transitions_in_fish_evolution_l
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) 05:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article presently contains a number of inconsistencies related to the inclusion of tetrapods, such as the ambiguous use of the term "lobe-finned fish" for both the group Sarcopterygii as a whole and for the non-tetrapod members of the group, or the outright and unstated exclusion of tetrapods when talking about the group. Case in point: a statement in the article that, "The largest known lobe-finned fish was Rhizodus hibberti," is only true if tetrapods are excluded, as Balaenoptera musculus (the blue whale) is far and away the largest member of the Sarcopterygii if tetrapods aren't specifically excluded. As such, for complete accuracy, I propose that the article either include specific reference whenever tetrapods are excluded from a statement, or else be rewritten to not exclude tetrapods. MourningSilver (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just in general, the language in this article is really convoluted. It almost feels like it was written to be confusing on purpose. Maybe I'm just tired, but I am having, quite frankly, a horrible time reading it, and the intro especially could be rewritten to be clearer. I don't know if a casual reader would consider the article helpful at all. Zpicey (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I definitely was just tired. The article's style still isn't great but it's not nearly as bad as I make it sound in my first comment. I bet it'll improve even more once I get some sleep! Zpicey (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing Language Related to Tetrapoda