Talk:Materpiscis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
[edit] Pictures
What no picture? Only one specimen and I cant look at it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick 196.205.173.86 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've re-added the pictures which were uploaded by a director of Museum Victoria. I'm in e-mail correspondence with him now to ensure they really are applying these licenses. If they pass, great, if not they'll have to be removed later.--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Good Work. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the images again for now, because the museum hasn't talked to the creators of the images yet. There should be an update on this soon. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nice, I was just worried earlier that I could never see this fossil, the pictures are great good work... Patrick (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Size
There is a picture on the Museum page link. The creature was a LOT smaller than the 25-30cm quoted in the article. Carl 41.208.50.176 (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the picture of the the paleontologist holding the fossil in his hand? Be aware that most fossils are actually incomplete. I've checked out the size numbers, and they are correct (extrapolated from the size of what they have, presumably).--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Technically, the photo at http://museumvictoria.com.au/About/MV-News/2008/Mother-fish/ doesn't even specify that he is holding a specimen of Materpiscis. In situations like this, photographers just want to get a shot that seems to show "the person doing their job" -- could be anything. If I had to guess, I'd guess that he's holding a skull (only) of Materpiscis or of some other placoderm, so a roughly 8-10 cm skull to a 25-30 cm fish seems pretty reasonable. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I examined the specimen while it was being prepared and as I was doing the painting for the Nature paper. The complete fish would have less than 25cm long although it still has not been fully described so I wouldn't give an exact size estimate yet. The big nodule that John is holding at the MV website interview contains a much larger arthrodire placoderm and isn't Materpiscis. The model on display at MV is depicted larger than life. Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Shark-like": Need to clarify.
"An armour-plated shark-like fish with no modern relatives, Materpiscis would have been about 25 to 30 cm long ..." -- IMHO we do need to clarify this. Materpiscis may have been of shark-like appearance or habits, but it certainly wasn't in the Chondrichthyes ("shark family"). -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the meaning is that placoderms in general are indeed closely related to the shark family (see Placodermi#History of study).--Pharos (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
