Talk:Archaeamphora

GA
Awarded GA status. Article is comprehensive and well-cited. --NoahElhardt 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the current distribution of Sarraceniaceae exclusively in the Americas and their comparatively young phylogenetic age it seems unlikely that the plants seen in these fossils are close relatives of Sarraceniaceae. There are several plants with tubular (ascidiate) leaves and it seems more likely in this case that the leaves are similar due to convergence of form rather than due to close relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.179.229 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right; the article doesn't disagree with you. The article states, correctly, that the descriptive paper noted similarities to the family. The taxobox suggests the family as a possible parent to the species, but indicates that this placement is tentative.--NoahElhardt (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeamphora. 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/20110719103627/http://ephedra.hip.uni-heidelberg.de/lehre/ZV-Literatur.pdf to http://ephedra.hip.uni-heidelberg.de/lehre/ZV-Literatur.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)