Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Discussion: Sources - Haeckel, Lovejoy, ... |
||
Line 110:
::A few "'Citation needed" tags have been added. What needs to be sourced is self evident in most cases, but there's a couple of points which are not entirely clear:
::* ''After On the Origin of Species, the idea of "lower animals" representing earlier stages in evolution lingered, as demonstrated in Ernst Haeckel's figure of the human pedigree''. This sentence has two pieces of information: The lingering view of "lower animals", and that it can be seen in Haeckels work. There is a figure from Haeckel that illustrate this point, but it's not a source per se. Ideas?
:::: [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2PTIErbazx8C&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93 Haeckel] published on the subject himself. The idea of the "[[Great chain of being]]" is much older, before people thought of evolution (you'll find some sources there... including Lovejoy's book of that name, I read it at uni.) and more on the web under that heading.[[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
::* ''At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link", helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like Archaeopteryx.'' Again, there's two pieces of information: 1) "Missing links" is primarily used for the animal.human transition, and 2) it is also sometimes used for other transitionals. Which one of them is it that needs a source? [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 09:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: Could the ideal answer be "both"? [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
===Additional Notes===
| |||