Talk:Ausktribosphenidae

Australia: Biota Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Ausktribosphenidae is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ausktribosphenidae/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

in other words, it may be just a fiction, unless someone finds a fossil which can sensibly be described as a "basal australosphenid" I would be surprised if "just a fiction" is a scientifically-accepted term and not just combative hyperbole, but I don't know what to replace it with. Ideas? Something like "corresponding to an actual clade"? Joshua McGee (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ausktribosphenidae. 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/20070412123957/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/430Mammalia/430.100.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/430Mammalia/430.100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

I have removed references to this animal being a "therian". There is some debate whether it was therian or a monotreme relative, so it would make sense to include a section explaining the uncertainty. But the article can't just call it a therian and a monotreme relative at the same time without explanation. 2601:441:467F:9E00:0:0:0:96A8 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]