| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cheliderpeton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Misspelling
editNearly all recent publications I have seen concerning the genus seem to spell it Cheliderpeton rather than Chelyderpeton. I do not know which spelling Fritsch originally used when naming the genus in his 1877 paper, however. A study published two years later seems to use the latter spelling (found here). Does anyone know definitively which spelling is correct? Smokeybjb (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im not certain, but it should be noted that the Paleobiology Database uses Cheliderpeton also and google scholar only bring up results for Chelyderpeton. I would say that there is a good case for moving to Cheliderpeton. --Kevmin (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's strange. For me, Google scholar brings up both names, with Cheliderpeton having the most results (nearly seven pages of them). If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move it. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Doh I just noticed that y post was really badly written. I meant to state that G Scholar only brings up 6 references to Chelyderpeton and has ~63 references to Cheliderpeton. my apologies for the confusing and wrong statements! --Kevmin (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. I don't suppose many people can get access to the 1877 paper, so perhaps we should just assume that the current spelling is correct for now. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Doh I just noticed that y post was really badly written. I meant to state that G Scholar only brings up 6 references to Chelyderpeton and has ~63 references to Cheliderpeton. my apologies for the confusing and wrong statements! --Kevmin (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's strange. For me, Google scholar brings up both names, with Cheliderpeton having the most results (nearly seven pages of them). If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move it. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im not certain, but it should be noted that the Paleobiology Database uses Cheliderpeton also and google scholar only bring up results for Chelyderpeton. I would say that there is a good case for moving to Cheliderpeton. --Kevmin (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)