This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This redirect 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
For the record, there cannot be a Family named Tetrapterygidae unless it contains a genus named Tetrapteryx according to the ICZN, which Chatterjee is either unaware of or ignoring. This grouping would work ok if it were defined as an unranked clade. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name Tetrapterygidae is unavailable according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, not being based on a type genus. The main problem here is that using the name on Wikipedia is propagating the error, which can make things worse. SEThorpe (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for us to fix, nor can we ignore the problem. The classification isn't exactly fringe science, Paraves cladistics change with every new fossil study. I've added a Special Note to the text for now. Should this article exist at all? It's speculative. The taxon doesn't appear in cladograms or taxoboxes in any other articles. How about moving it to a section under Averaptora, and redirecting the page to there? In the meantime, I don't think we should be linking to this page (i.e. WP:orphan), because this isn't stable. Sbalfour (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
