Talk:Rhamphorhynchoidea

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance Rhamphorhynchoidea is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology: Pterosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pterosaurs task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

"Rhamphorhynchoidea" is regarded by virtually all pterosaur workers as ployphyletic and should not be used in pterosaur classification since it basically means any pterosaur that is not a rhamphorhynchoid. Apatomerus 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, polypheltic? i've never heard that. I know it's universally seen as paraphyletic, but this is stated in the text (no doubt you've read the article). Contrary to popular belief, paraphyletic groups are not invalid under all classification schemes, only phylogenetic ones. Note that there are different sections for classifiaction and phylogeny. Dinoguy2 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Paraphyletic rather, I got the two mixed up, but I still feel that it should not be used. The term is becoming abandoned by most workers. Yes, I did read the article, and I feel that it is far too favourable of an outdated scheme, only making a brief mention at the end of the classification used by virtually all pterosaur workers while attributing a classification that uses "rhamphorhynchoidea" to Unwin, who never has used the term as far as I can recall. I suppose it boils down to Linnean vs. cladistics, and I really want to see the Linnean system done away with as it does not reflect evolutionary relations. Apatomerus 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer using both in a complimentary manner. Unwin does use Rhapmhporhynchoidea in his popular book Pterosaurs: From Deep Time, actually. It's a handy, even if informal, term to refer to basal pterosaurs. Dinoguy2 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if one wishes to discuss the these critters, there's really no other way. Strict phylogenetic naming won't let us define them (there's no crown group, and the stem contains everything more related to pterosaurs than to dinos (possibly, the tree isn't entirely clear at this point). Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can be perfectly defined, and this definition produces a perfect name for them: non-pterodactyloid pterosaurs :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]