Talk:Aequornithes
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Superorder?
editReally? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also assumes the Metaves are valid, which they are almost certainly not. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This article definitely sounds like OR - or is a misreading of some casual literature where the authors may have made use of the phrase. AfD perhaps? Shyamal (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly should be deleted. I closely monitor the new phylogenies and taxonomies (except when they are published in journals like Science which I can't get at), and I have never even seen anything about strong support for this notional clade. Its mention at the bottom of Darter#Systematics and evolution should be fixed first. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Hackett et al. piece cited here does get fairly good support for this clade. Interestingly, though, almost none of the individual gene partitions give good support the clade. Ucucha 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly should be deleted. I closely monitor the new phylogenies and taxonomies (except when they are published in journals like Science which I can't get at), and I have never even seen anything about strong support for this notional clade. Its mention at the bottom of Darter#Systematics and evolution should be fixed first. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The Hackett articles is considered to be a major taxonomic work that is highly cited in the literature, including in books, in spite of its being published under two years ago. The work is so important there are on-line copies of it. Find one [1] by clicking on one of the PDF links from this list. Here's a book by Mayr that cites this study.[2]
When an article is this well cited, usually a google search will help you find an on-line, free pdf copy. As many secondary sources cite this article, its information should be incorporated somewhere in a wikipedia article on bird taxonomies, preferably from the secondary sources discussing the article. If this article is deleted, rather than renamed, that would be a mistake, though. It's not original research once the article has been well-cited by so many other bird experts. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- See the current discussion at WT:BIRD#Cleanup listing for more on why this page should be deleted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)