Talk:Osteostraci

redirect to Cephalaspidomorphi?
While this Osteostraci article was just a stub, I think it's better to leave it than to redirect to Cephalaspidomorphi. Osteostracans are just one order of cephalaspidomorphs, and in time users will likely add enough information to justify a stand-alone article for Osteostraci. Cephal-odd 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Cephalaspida is an order of Osteostraci, not the other way around.--Mr Fink 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As of January 2009, The Paleobiology Database lists Osteostraci as a disused name. --Kevmin (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If so, I disagree with the Paleobiology Database. The number of workers on this group is low, so there were never many papers using either Osteostraci or Cephalaspidomorphi, but in my library, which is certainly not exhaustive on this, I have three papers from the last five years that mention "Osteostraci" in the title, the last one being:


 * SANSOM, R. S. 2009. Phylogeny, classification and character polarity of the Osteostraci (Vertebrata). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 7 (1): 95–115.


 * By comparison, the last one that I have and that uses "Cephalaspidomorph" (with any ending after this, if any) dates from 1975, so I think that the Paleobiology Database is misleading here.Michel Laurin (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus, Osteostraci is considered a distinct class, and Cephalaspidomorphi (I think that's how you spell it) is its containing taxon.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)