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
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