Talk:Sharovipteryx
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sharovipteryx article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Ankles edit
I'm just wondering: were the ankles of Sharovipteryx crurotarsal, or mesotarsal? Because if they were mesotarsal, then wouldn't that point towards them having evolved into pterosaurs?71.63.17.46 (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
i don't know what defines a mesotarsal or a crurotarsal, but if Sharovipteryx is missing link in between Pterosaurs and more basal Archosaurs, why are its wings on its back legs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.213.207 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Jet Rex edit
F22 Raptor had Variable wing vector, and was a powerful strike fighter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.91 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
that is nice to know, but how is that related to a gliding lizard?--50.138.213.207 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Link okay? edit
Would the following link fit within WP guidelines as an External link -- or would it be too "original research"?
- The Aerodynamics of Sharovipteryx – the Hind Wing Glider - pterosaurheresies at WordPress; March 12, 2012
~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
i personally do not think that is okay, the Pterosaur heresies is owned by David Peters and he seems to defy common consensus because its funny or something. David Peters had faked evidence and depicts pterosaurs as Bipeds, which was simply Not possible for them to do that.--50.138.213.207 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Biased in favor of Peters? edit
It might be just me. But it seems like the article is written with a strong bias towards David Peters' hypotheses and not a more balanced "consensus" view of Sharovipteryx mirabilis. Does anybody else see this? 65.96.242.22 (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that not much has been published on this species, so Peters' stuff makes up a lot of the literature and isn't therefore a "minority" opinion. I've tried to balance it out a little by better organizing the sections. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Dimensions edit
Not specified anywhere 147.235.213.191 (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)