User talk:Kevmin

Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Paleoart Review

Hello! What is the procedure for paleoart review? AraucariaHeterophylla (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can post any art you create at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review where you will get feed back from the group on accuracy uncertainties and other aspects.--Kev min § 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterfeld amber

I vaguely rememeber us having a discussion about Bitterfeld amber and its relationship to Baltic amber several years ago. Given that most recent sources have considered it distinct from Baltic amber, I've decided to convert the redirect to a stub. Just thought I'd let you know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Sounds like a good plan. Its being treated as a distinct group at the moment for sure, and its history and suggested sources warrant a deeper treatment anyways, similar to Danish Amber and its placement as a unique grouping.--Kev min § 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salix fragilis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm pretty sure traditional Pelecaniformes is polyphyletic

Not only does the inclusion of tropicbirds in traditional Pelecaniformes mean that all members of Phaethoquornithes must have evolved from traditional Pelecaniformes in order for it to be paraphyletic, but even (Pelecanidae + Suliformes) are quite clearly a polyphyletic group. If IOC is right about the internal phylogeny of current Pelecaniformes, it strongly suggests that it was traditional Ciconiiformes (without flamingos) that was paraphyletic, meaning that Pelecanidae + Suliformes must be polyphyletic, which means traditional Pelecaniformes must be polyphyletic. Grey Clownfish (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have papers that make that assertion, all you have is WP:OR, and no OR is allowed in any part of an Article. Provide a citation that asserts polyphyly or do not make the assertion on Wiki.--Kev min § 15:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]