Talk:Tetrapodomorpha

Untitled
Fishapod redirects here, so the term should be included somewhere in the article. Either that, or fishapod should redirect elsewhere or have its own article if it's not the same thing.--Sonjaaa 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been sorted, so I've removed the tag. .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume all the members of this group are extinct/fossil. Shouldn't this be made clear? Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is downright bizarre. Tetrapods are included in this group, but you get a bit of balderdash most people don't understand before it states that they are. And why on earth is this classed under the Linnaean system? It simply cannot be a subclass. As for this being a clade of almost-tetrapods: how preposterous. It is like a "clade" containing Australopithecus and neanderthals to the exclusion of Homo sapiens. Innotata 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)
 * Well, the taxonomy was loosly based on Benton, 2004, though it deviated a lot. Benton lists Tetrapodomorpha as an infraclass of subclass Sarcopterygii, and lists Superclass Tetrapoda as a sub-group. Not that it's less bizarre, but that's evolutionary taxonomy for ya, and at least it's now verifiable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A valid taxon ?
Hi! Recently, a new taxon was created: Dipnotetrapodomorpha. Used especially by TPBD, should a separate article for this taxonomic rank or a simple redirect to Tetrapomorpha? --92.142.49.232 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dipnotetrapodomorpha is a junior synomym for Rhipidistia. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)