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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.
Just a quick question for ObsidianSoul, are you thinking of covering the species in separate articles, or covering them in this article? --Kevmin§ 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No idea really. I just randomly came across this article and thought I could probably improve it relatively quickly, heh. :P I'll have to see what sources I can dig up tomorrow though. From preliminary searching I did earlier though, it looks like P. spiegeli is barely mentioned anywhere. Most of the literature available focus on P. tupaiodon and/or speaks about the genus in general. Both also come from the Messel Pit, from the same time range, with the same authorities. Splitting them off might result in too much repeated content and/or too little info on P. spiegeli and too much on P. tupaiodon.
I think it would be better to just discuss them here and redirect the member species? But what do you think? -- Obsidi♠nSoul 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. feel free to pitch in. You probably have better access to academic journals. :) -- Obsidi♠nSoul 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, life and all that. I was going to say I usually go for the "cover at the genus" method unless its an extinct species in a extant genus, but it looks like you decided to go that route anyways! I wish I did have access, but my uni access has expired for the summer. :-( The expansion is looking great though. :-) --Kevmin§ 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm beginning to see why the "cover at genus" approach is preferable. Species tend to be arbitrarily moved around a lot in paleontology and most genera seem to be monotypic. Anyway no worries, still trying to find other sources on this one. Strange it has so little info online given that it was at one time the oldest known bat fossil. They're all probably in print media. Meh. :[ Anyway cheers.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)