Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: a relevant and reputable 2ndry ref |
→Discussion: Another one? |
||
Line 149:
I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's [http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/tetrapoda/amphibians.html Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics] from [[Palaeos]] website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos ''is'' considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:: It's clearly relevant and reputable; Palaeos is a well-informed and long-established secondary source reporting the key ideas in this field, which is ideal for this purpose here. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:::What about [http://urhomology.blogspot.com/2009/06/paraphyly-watch-3-transitional-fossils.html this one]? It is a blog, but the writes are serious scientists, and both seems hard core phylogenetic nomenclaturists (and downright hostile to the concept of "tranbsition"). Is it useable? [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 07:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
===Additional Notes===
| |||