Talk:Eryops

Amphibians and Reptiles C‑class Mid‑importance

	Eryops is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lack citations.

The general origins of Tetrapods should be at that entry, not at this one famous genus. Much work has been done in this area in the last forty years. Wetman 19:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could try to write a single article on Eryops, then we could take the remaining info and decide where it best fits, in ampbibian or tetrapod. --DanielCD 20:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes! Great! Isn't the gist of it already here, if you strain it out? Look at the entry Tetrapod. For instance, could not most of this general early-amphibian "Classification" subsection go there, retaining only a very brief outline sticking close to Eryops and a "For further information..." note? --Wetman 20:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yea, Ill make an article for the genus and move the rest of the info here to the talk page. Then we can "dissect" it. --DanielCD 20:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There it is, edit it to your will. I'm outta time now, but will look at again it in a day or two. --DanielCD 21:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've put all the general material into Tetrapod without (amateur) editing. It makes good sense there, but paleontologist input is needed. --Wetman 23:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When did Eryops stomp the Earth?

How many mya this great beast lived needs to be included in the article.

The date of initial description is 1877, not 1882. Wil someone edit this, as I cannot figure out how to get into the binomial name editing process.

Corrected the description date. As for when it lived, it is already in the text (I moved this info a little higher in the paragraph). Thanks for picking this up. ArthurWeasley 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable, yes.

"(Eryops is) ... a remarkable example of natural engineering'."
-- I'm not aware of any organism that isn't. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) No they smell like nuts[reply]

Predation

"It is taken that Eryops was not very active, thus a predatory lifestyle, while possible, was probably not the norm. It is more likely that it fed on fish either in the water or on those that became stranded at the margins of lakes and swamps. A large supply of terrestrial invertebrates were also abundant at the time, and this may have provided a fairly adequate food supply in itself."
-- Predator says: "A predator is an animal that hunts and kills other organisms, usually for food." So fish and invertebrates don't count as "other organisms"? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carboniferous/Permian

I'm pretty sure it lived in the Carboniferous...-DaAaAaAaAaA (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. What he's saying is that he thinks it lived in the carborniferous. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four or five fingers?

This very old paper says four[1], but it appears to be commonly restored with five. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Direct Descendants

That's a powerful statement. Did all Eryops practice abstinence?