Talk:List of transitional fossils

Short list
Is it just me or does this list seem very short? They've found more transitions than this, right? -StarManta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.76.214 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see transitional fossils that make up a complete species. Seems a far reach taking fossils and building a case as a transitional fossil when in fact it is not the complete species. Briboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.114.37 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This page has 2 references and hand drawn pictures, this is not even close to scientific. ...I realize, and am sympathetic, to the ideals of Wikipedia. But this is too far. "but the real reason we do not have those (pictures) is because we need people to take pictures of the fossils." Which people? What labs? This is not anti-evolution polemic. My background is biology and this opinion is less about the content and more about the presentation. I'll look, when I can, for references. But there should be about 100 "citations needed" and an explantatory banner. {ah, there is a banner of sorts, awfully small relative to some others I've seen here.}

Complete Revamping
This page is in great need of additions and reformatting to make it a lot nicer looking. I have come with a proposal for a complete revamping of this page.


 * 1) Cut out the limit to vertebrate evolutionary chains.
 * 2) Open the content range to include all evolutionary series at any taxonomic level.
 * 3) Use of tables to display the series.

Crappy hypothetical chart:

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-human apes to modern humans section
Should Paranthropus be listed here as well? Though sometimes we put them under Australopithecus I think that there is enough debate to add them to the list separately.--Woland (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No.Paranthropus is an evolutionary dead end. sahelanthropus should though.142.22.115.59 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we Consider new article name?
"Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception." Yup. Basically there's no such thing as a "transitional fossil" Also, all fossils are of complete organic systems perfect (in a manner of speaking) in thier individual moment. Also aside from simmiltude of appearance what proof is there that links one to the other in all the species listed? Are they each well documented and cited? --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong on this and the phrase "transitional fossil" is whats used in the scientific community, then just ignore me. :) --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I spent about five hours today reading a collection of technical papers, and the term "transitional" sensu "evolutionary intermediate" came up multiple times. Also, most of the species in the article are extremely well known transitions. If more editors would help fill in the table, the "transitionalness" of the species would be a lot more obvious. :) Abyssal (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ma = Millions of Years ago / Megaannum
Could some one please add an explanation in the article of the "Ma" used for the years? I assume it means one of the two things in my heading here, but not 100% sure, and the article doesn't explain it. Don't want to edit the article and put the wrong defintion. Thanks Jimaginator (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

—Concur. I assumed it meant "millions of years ago", but that's just a guess from context. Can a knowledgeable user please define the term? Thanks. Sue D. Nymme (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It means a million years, and yes it's Megaannum.

File:100_1887.JPG may be deleted
I have tagged File:100_1887.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Images
The images for this page should really be of the fossils themselves, rather than the reconstructions. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed, though the reconstruction is often easier for the layman to visualize, but the real reason we do not have those is because we need people to take pictures of the fossils, upload and release them into the public domain. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

stuff
Shouldn't Hylonomus be listed here as the earliest confirmed reptile and Westlothiana should also be mentioned. Please add this, as tables are too cumbersome and weird for me to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.209.34 (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange columns?
What's the function of the "Status" column? Why would we include any 'disputed' fossils on this article, and if they were disputed yet relevant why couldn't we note that under "Description"? For that matter, why can't we note "Relationship" under "Description" too? The excess of columns has had the negative result of cluttering the chart with blank columns that would otherwise be very easy to fill, but are now a huge (and largely unnecessary) project. Also, why do we have an "Appearance" column which, rather than showing the animal's appearance, lists the date of the fossil? Why not change "Appearance" to "Fossil range" and note when fossils have been discovered?

Similarly, I notice we're inconsistent in our image use: sometimes we include a photograph of the fossil itself, and at other times we include an artist's depiction of what the species might have looked like at the time. Once we've consolidated the other columns, why not make two image columns? We can have one column depicting the fossil, and another depicting what the animal might have looked like if we could see it in action. If we don't do this, I'm afraid we'll have to abandon the very useful and fascinating artists' depictions altogether, since after all this article is called "List of transitional fossils" and since the fossil images are vastly more verifiable and indisputable than any depiction could be. Even if we don't make two formal columns for those two sorts of images, it would be wise to informally start using two images (fossil photo + drawing) side-by-side in the one column, as a general practice to maximize informational value. Otherwise we either make the images useless to skeletal non-experts, or we make them too abstract and imaginative to be encyclopedic. -Silence (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we Please change the name of the article?
I agree with the above article. What is needed is the deletion of the drawings until actual photos are taken of the fossils. It is better to leave out any information until that information is clarified. Also, we should have more than one photo of the fossils. Maybe side shots too?


 * As for having more than one photo for each fossil, that would just clutter up the page and make it look really ugly. One picture for each creature listed is ideal.  And why delete the drawings?  We have fossils of all of these creatures and a simple google search should provide you with many many photographs of these fossils.  But in some cases, the fossil does not indicate very well to the layman what a creature looked like.  For those we use an artist's concept sketch, which is a very common thing to do.  For example, Tiktaalik - to my knowledge, thus far only the front half of it has been found.  If we show only that much, and large parts of what has been found still encased on rock, the layman, who has no evolutionary expertise and might not even be able to tell the difference between fossil and plain rock.  How are they supposed to get anything more than an extremely crude idea of what this animal looked like?  The artists sketches are based upon the fossils found and are the best estimates we have for what these creatures looked like.  They could, of course be wrong, being only artist sketches, which is why many dinosaurs used to be depicted as leathery skinned until we uncovered feather imprints, and now a lot of them are depicted with feathers.  I really don't see the problem with using sketches.  It's not like we use them because we don't actually have the fossil evidence.  Far from it.Farsight001 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Gawis cranium
This is/was in the main article on transitional fossils. I guess it should go here somewhere in the human evolution section, but I'm not confident to place it myself. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible external link
I'm creating my own website on this subject, at http://transitionalfossils.com - and I was thinking it might fit in to the external links. However, I don't want to be the one to add it, since obviously I'm biased... (some Wikipedia images were used with permission of the original artist, since you ask. :) Strange Glue (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Images of fossils
For most of these species drawings are being used. Where can one find photos of some of the fossils themselves which can be used in addition to the drawings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwinius masillae
I've removed Darwinius masillae from the Human evolution section of this article. The claim is just too controversial.


 * "Touted as "the missing link" between humans and early primates, a 47-million-year-old fossil appears to be an ancestor to lemurs instead..." http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/ancient-primate-fossil-roils-scientific-community/19383401


 * "'Missing Link' Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302131719.htm


 * "Adapiforms are commonly referred to as the 'lemur-like' primates of the Eocene epoch, and recent phylogenetic analyses have placed adapiforms as stem members of Strepsirrhini2, 3, 4, a primate suborder whose crown clade includes lemurs, lorises and galagos. An alternative view is that adapiforms are stem anthropoids5. This debate has recently been rekindled by the description of a largely complete skeleton of the adapiform Darwinius 6, from the middle Eocene of Europe, which has been widely publicised as an important 'link' in the early evolution of Anthropoidea7. Here we describe the complete dentition and jaw of a large-bodied adapiform (Afradapis gen. nov.) from the earliest late Eocene of Egypt (approx37 Myr ago) that exhibits a striking series of derived dental and gnathic features that also occur in younger anthropoid primates—notably the earliest catarrhine ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes. Phylogenetic analysis of 360 morphological features scored across 117 living and extinct primates (including all candidate stem anthropoids) does not place adapiforms as haplorhines (that is, members of a Tarsius–Anthropoidea clade) or as stem anthropoids, but rather as sister taxa of crown Strepsirrhini; Afradapis and Darwinius are placed in a geographically widespread clade of caenopithecine adapiforms that left no known descendants. The specialized morphological features that these adapiforms share with anthropoids are therefore most parsimoniously interpreted as evolutionary convergences."   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08429.html

--Yopienso (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A thousand pardons. I saw the creationist polemic line "Ida's not my grandmother!" and jumped to conclusions.  It did not occur to me that it was said in jest.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! And thanks.  Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Koalas
Louys et al 2009 have accessed material for the basil genera Litokoala kutjamarpensis and Nimiokoala greystanesi, and have concluded that there are minor anatomical differences in cranial morphology for both genera. For the genus Litokoala contains superficial messateric process while Nimiokoala has "more marked basiooccipital-basisphenoid flexion and a more extensive posterior attachment of the pterygoid. And that they exibit a lot of common in basiocranial anatomy with modern Phascolarcos, but other features are more in line with the extant Trichosurus. This would be in line with a transitional fossil where these two genera are derived from a previous genus as yet unknown, that diverged to form the Vombatiformes and Phalangeriformes where feature on one or more fossil exibit features that are in current taxa, so providing a link between the two. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pisanosaurus>Thecodontosaurus>Huayangosaurus>Stenopelix>Yinlong>Guanlong>Falcarius>Scieldosaurus>Probactrosaurus>Pelecanomimus?
This article was created to go from one stage to another, not list early species of groups. Cephalopods, Insects, Spiders, Chondoricthyes, Bony Fish, Amphibians, Turtles, Snakes, Lizards, Dinosaurs, Birds, & Mammals just list the basal species of the clades within them, not the transition from their anscestors to them, and should be split up.

This article, therefore, might imply that Monotremes evolved into Metatherians, which evolved into Marsupials, which evolved into Eutherians, which evolved into Elephants, which evolved into Carnivores, which evolved into Deer, which evolved into Cows, which evolved into Camels, which evolved into Ceratomorphs, which evolved into Tapirs, which evolved into Dogs, which evolved into Rabbits, which evolved into Bats, which evolved into Pandas, which evolved into Primates, which evolved into Orangutans, which evolved into Hippos. Did Hippos really evolve from Orangutans? -98.185.23.232 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quite right, basal is not necessarily the same as transitional. I am for deleting quit a few of those sections, or at least reworking them to show actual transitions. As for the Amphibians section, it doe shows transitions, but those are transitions from labyrinthodonts to lissamphibians. Thus what is wrong it is not as much the content, rather it being badly labelled. Petter Bøckman (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A note on names (from - to)
The idea of a transitional fossil is an essentially Linnaean/evolutionary taxonomic concept. For any critter (actually any organism) to be transitional, there need to be two identified groups where one has given rise to the other (dinosaurs - birds being the typical example, with poor old aunty archy falling in between). This naturally need the "parent taxon" to be defined in a paraphyletic manner, or the idea of something being transitional between the two groups disappears. In phylogenetic nomenclature there is no paraphyletic taxa, and thus no such thing as a transitional fossil. This means that for the list to make any sense, we will need to use accepted paraphyletic groups. There is for instance no such thing as an "Archosaur to dinosaur transition", as Archosauria is cladisticallly defined, and dinosaurs are perfect archosaurs. For this transition to be meaningfull, it will have to be "basal archosaur to dinosaur" or "Thecodont (Archosauria as a grade) to dinosaurs".

This also goes for the wording in the list- A beautifully transitional critter like Tiktaalik can not be said to combine fishlike gills and fins with a tetrapod-like skull, because tetrapods include you and me and aardvarks, rats, birds, snakes and frogs, non of which have have skulls that looks even remotely like Tiktaaliks. We'll have to say that it has a skull resembling that of a known tetrapod (like Ichthyostega), that the skull resemble that of early/basal/primitive (take your pick) tetrapods, or compare it to some of the well defined paraphyletic taxons which it actually resembles, like the Ichthyostegalia. Even using Labyrinthodontia is streching it a bit as it was a fairly diverse group, and Amphibia is right out of the question (the skull of Tiktaalik looks nothing like that of a frog). Since the article itself hangs on a evolutionary taxonomic concept, we should be honest enough to admit so in the lede, and use terms accordingly.

Just thought I should mention it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-transitional fossils
It seems that this list contains some fossils which are not transitional. The first section, "Nautiloids to Ammonoids," includes not only Bactritida, the transitional species, but also Nautiloids and Ammonoids, the start- and end-points of the series of which Bactritida is part. Would it not be more accurate to list only the transitional species? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think start and endpoints do help putting the whole thing in perspective. See the "Fish to tetrapods" for a fairly good example. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I don't think a broad perspective is necessary here. Much of the material in "Fish to tetrapods" would be most appropriate in either Tetrapod or a new article, Evolution of tetrapods.  Including non-transitional fossils in a list of transitional fossils just seems odd to me.   --Cerebellum (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Living transitional organisms?
Is there a comparable article for the still-extant organisms that are transitional between established taxa? Monado (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but there's one on living fossils, which fairly much covers the same thing. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Numerous typos in the fish section- should be proofed.
Numerous typos in the fish section- should be proofed.

Xiaotingia
Shouldn't the recently discovered Xiaotingia replace Archaeopteryx as the earliest bird in the fossil record. After all, it predates its relative by ten million years and shares similar and derived traits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.0.10 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on how you define birds I suppose. The common definitions seem to use old Aunty Archy as the cut-off point. I must admit Xiaotingia is new to me, but if it shows similar traits, it definitely belongs in the article! Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Per my comment above about the removal of non-transitional fossils, here are a few entries that I would like to remove, taken from the "Amphibians to Amniotes" section.
 * Hylonomus - seems to be definitively a reptile, with few amphibian features.
 * Paleothyris - lacks fenestrae, but otherwise reptilian
 * Tseajaia - no indication of having scales, no claws on foot; not very transitional

What do you all think? If there is no disagreement I will remove these in a few days and then start looking at the other sections. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The two reptiles are there to provide the end-poits of the transition. Hylonomus is most likely a non-sauropsid reptile, while Paleothyri is a proper sauropsid. These are minor points, but from a phylogenetic nomenclature point of view, only the latter is a "real" reptile, Hylonomus is predating Sauropsida (which according to the phylogenetic nomenclatural logic are the only "real" reptiles). If we all were using traditional classification, Hylonomus would be enough as an end-point, but if we are to be on the safe side and cater to all, Paleothyris should be there.


 * Tseajaia is one of several small taxa that has been proposed as the ancestors of amniotes. The problem is that there's really no consensus on the exact phylogeny of anything. Tseajaia may be a key genus or it may be well of the evolutionary line to amniotes, we really do not know, despite this being a transition that has seen a lot of very good cladistic work. See Labyrinthodontia for a summary. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The two reptiles are there to provide the end-points of the transition. Hmm, I guess we are back where we started: I don't want to include start or end-points in this list. :p I'll leave things as they are until someone else gives their opinion.  --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't ALL fossils transitional?
Evolution is an ongoing process so isn't EVERY fossil transitional between the fossils of its ancestors and the fossils of its descendants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes, all species (and thus all fossils) are points in a transition. However, the term "transitional fossil" is commonly reserved for fossils showing where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group.

the phrase "true transitional fossils" is highly misleading
There's nothing "untrue" about a fossil of a species that left no descendants. The phrase (from the second paragraph in the article head) "this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals" should be erased because it only serves to mislead. The sentiment of the sentence is false: "Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor." If we want to make another list which shows only fossils of "ancestral species from which later groups evolved", that's fine. Putting creationist fodder in the head of this article is terrible; it misleads the public. Flies 1 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of transitional fossils. 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/20050409133626/http://www.palaeos.com/vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html

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) 04:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)