Talk:Eonessa

wording
This sentence - In his paper, Wetmore erected and the Anatidae subfamily Eonessinae placing Eonessa as the oldest Anatidae genus in the fossil record. - doesn't make sense. Is a verb missing from the beginning bit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I want to say was along the lines of the placement of Eonessa in to Anatidae and the age of the specimen (~46 mya) resulted in it being the oldest described Anadidae taxon.--Kevmin (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, it needs a reword which I will attempt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: What is missing is any idea or information on what the bird looks like. Is any of that covered in sources? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted Eonessa was described from a single specimen of a partial articulated wing, part of the humerus to the tip is all that is known, and those bones are referred to in the 1980 paper as being badly crushed.--Kevmin (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even a size estimate of a bird? given this little is known, some comment along the lines of "little is known about the appearance..." if possible - remember, this is for laypeople as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the length of the wing from the type description. I have never been good at "dumbing down" my words as I prefer accuracy, thus why I want others to read and wordsmith. --Kevmin (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)