Talk:Prehistoric life
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
From the coelacanth article: It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.
Does this not mean that there are no unchanged prehistoric species left?
- Maybe phisically they are similar, like brachiopods and bivalves, but as with many species evolutionary lines are barely known. Many species look similar to each other like beatles, flies, crocodiles etc but the species of the past and current similar species are quiet different. So past coelacanths and the modern species would be different. Also in genetics, addaptions and of an animals genes is quiet common without much physical change. I believe that article only refers to the physical charatoristics and not genetics, behaviour or habitat etc. 04:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Politely Questioning The Purpose Of The Article?
editI don't wish to tread on anyone's toes here and upset anyone so please understand that this question is a genuine one and is not intended to offend in any way.
I'm having an issue seeing the relevance of having a seperate article to define prehistoric life when the Prehistory article could just as easily contain a short paragraph describing the general progression of lifeforms developing in the early part of that period.
The period of prehistory spans a huge period of time and the lifeforms contained within that period are so diverse and the evolutionary changes made so numerous that it would be impossible to give an accurate and in depth account of them in one article. There is also nothing really contained in this article that isn't also contained within another article in this general subject matter.
I'd be interested in other views on this matter-does anyone think they can clean up this article and provide sources to bring it up to wiki standards? Or is it something that should be merged into another related article? Greebo cat (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)