Talk:Acanthostega

---

Acanthostega is here referred to as "an extinct tetrapod species". Surely it is a genus, and therefore not "a species" of anything? Is it not better to say "Acanthostega gunnari is an extinct species" or something along those lines? Neale Monks 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Right--I'll fix it.Dinoguy2 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Gills?

"and it also had gills which were internal and covered like those of fish,"

And we know this how, exactly? If there's actual fossil evidence for this, then the article should say so. 71.217.98.158 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a link giving some explanation about the evidence of fish-like gills: http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html

scroll down to fifth paragraph.72.78.175.68 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Devonian period

I saw a documentary saying that acanthostega was proof that the old conception of the devonian period as a blisteringly hot, dry, landscape was not entirely correct. BBC Horizon and NOVA both did documentaries saying that acanthostega suggests a more swamp-like devonian period. I wonder if a discussion of the relevance of acanthostega in the context of this and similar debates should be noted. I would add it, but I don't know much about evolutionary biology.72.78.175.68 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there is abundant evidence of deserts in the Devonian, few people would suppose that the Devonian was arid everywhere all the time. It is, for example, well known for its fossil fish.Orbitalforam (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Devonian lasted about 60 million years. Even in the brief time that Acanthostega lived, the world went through ice ages, with alpine glaciers in the Appalachian mountains, which were in the tropics at the time. The glaciers extended down to sea level, which was 70 meters below normal because of all the ice locked up in the Antarctic polar ice cap.

This does, however, bring up a good point: we could use something about the climate, specifically in the time and place where Acanthostega lived. McGhee's book How the invasion of land failed has some details on this. As we approach Romer's gap, atmospheric oxygen levels are skyrocketing, wildfires are breaking out all over the world (after 38 million years of no wildfires because of low oxygen). CO2 levels are plummeting, causing a reverse greenhouse effect, resulting in icebergs floating in tropical seas (calved off the alpine glaciers in the tropical mountains). Ten million years later, when Acanthostega is extinct, it's nephews and nieces, the Acanthostegids, start washing up on the beach at Blue Beach / Horton Bluff, Nova Scotia. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Legs

Isn't it possible that Acanthostega developed legs not entirely by chance;that the evolved for moving through mud/reeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.191.44 (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that the limbs of Acanthostega evolved "entirely by chance" - as the article (following Professor Clack) indicates, the limbs would have served to help move through dense vegetation. Rapid turning or hunting movements in water might also have been helped by limbs.Orbitalforam (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New paper

Talks about head shape:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118882

Additionally does anyone have a source that says how big these things were?©Geni (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A paper about body size evolution in early limbed vertebrates is:

Laurin, M., 2004. The evolution of body size, Cope's rule and the origin of amniotes. Syst. Biol. 53, 594-622. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stranger forever (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New research indicates

Newer research also indicates that it is possible Acanthostega evolved from an ancestor that had more terrestrial adaptations than itself.[6]

This doesn't look right. On the one hand, the discovery was made by a grad student working under Jennifer Clack. That gives the story a lot of weight. However, it needs to be put into context. Paleontologists have been looking into this question for decades. The latest discovery is just one among hundreds of pieces of evidence (on both sides of the debate). Every tetrapod that isn't 100% terrestrial is considered to have *possibly* had a more terrestrial ancestor, but these are just possibilities unless there is compelling evidence. I think we are sensationalizing in how we reporting this story. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Acanthostega. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070225023805/http://www.sciam.com:80/print_version.cfm?articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000 to http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)