Talk:Gerobatrachus

A fact from Gerobatrachus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,943 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Gerobatrachus is considered to be a missing link that supports the hypothesis offered by cladistics, that frogs and salamanders had a common ancestor?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Gerobatrachus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maybe reverse the merge?[edit]

I think merging a species article into a genus article would be more appropriate than merging a genus article into a species article. Comments? The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.--Wloveral (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to family in taxobox?--Wloveral (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the polyphyly of Lissamphibia?[edit]

In the May 22, 2008 paper, a new phylogenetic study considering Gerobatrachus places salamanders and frogs in Temnospondyli but places caecilians in Lepospondyli. Thus Lissamphibia is not monophyletic, but rather polyphyletic. Should this be mentioned? Maybe it is more appropriate on the caecilian article.192.52.218.45 (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.--Wloveral (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is copyright protected, permission would need to be obtained from the artist to be used here.[edit]

Suggest removing it.--70.75.34.237 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

290 mya is technically U. Carb. so perhaps using the range Late Carb to Early Perm. would be more accurate. Also, good skeletal photos are now available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.227.32 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--290 MA is Early Permian, according to the most recent (2004) International Geologic Time Scale.--136.159.150.31 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]