Talk:Materpiscis

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pictures[edit]

What no picture? Only one specimen and I cant look at it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick 196.205.173.86 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree a picture is needed.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-added the pictures which were uploaded by a director of Museum Victoria. I'm in e-mail correspondence with him now to ensure they really are applying these licenses. If they pass, great, if not they'll have to be removed later.--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images again for now, because the museum hasn't talked to the creators of the images yet. There should be an update on this soon. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they've confirmed it. The images will stay.--Pharos (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good. Articles with images are colourful :). --SkyWalker (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I was just worried earlier that I could never see this fossil, the pictures are great good work... Patrick (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

There is a picture on the Museum page link. The creature was a LOT smaller than the 25-30cm quoted in the article. Carl 41.208.50.176 (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the picture of the the paleontologist holding the fossil in his hand? Be aware that most fossils are actually incomplete. I've checked out the size numbers, and they are correct (extrapolated from the size of what they have, presumably).--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the photo at http://museumvictoria.com.au/About/MV-News/2008/Mother-fish/ doesn't even specify that he is holding a specimen of Materpiscis. In situations like this, photographers just want to get a shot that seems to show "the person doing their job" -- could be anything. If I had to guess, I'd guess that he's holding a skull (only) of Materpiscis or of some other placoderm, so a roughly 8-10 cm skull to a 25-30 cm fish seems pretty reasonable. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the specimen while it was being prepared and as I was doing the painting for the Nature paper. The complete fish would have less than 25cm long although it still has not been fully described so I wouldn't give an exact size estimate yet. The big nodule that John is holding at the MV website interview contains a much larger arthrodire placoderm and isn't Materpiscis. The model on display at MV is depicted larger than life. Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shark-like": Need to clarify.[edit]

"An armour-plated shark-like fish with no modern relatives, Materpiscis would have been about 25 to 30 cm long ..." -- IMHO we do need to clarify this. Materpiscis may have been of shark-like appearance or habits, but it certainly wasn't in the Chondrichthyes ("shark family"). -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning is that placoderms in general are indeed closely related to the shark family (see Placodermi#History of study).--Pharos (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a close placoderm-chondrichthyan relationship has been almost universally rejected [[1]] Ozraptor4 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it may simply mean that it had a shark-like appearance.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Materpiscis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822152802/http://museumvictoria.com.au/About/MV-News/2008/Mother-fish/ to http://museumvictoria.com.au/About/MV-News/2008/Mother-fish/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Considering that there is only one species within the genus Materpiscis, and the entire article as well as taxonomic key refers to the species Materpiscis attenboroughi and not just the genus Materpiscis I think that the article should be retitled and edited to reflect that it is not about just the genus, but more specifically that it is about the species. I tried to move the article myself but there is already a redirect from Materpiscis attenboroughi to this article so I was unable to do so. Hail KingdoK (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered policy to name monotypic genus articles at the genus-level in the off-chance that additional species are eventually named, which does happen. Mr Fink (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]