Talk:Cheliderpeton

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Cheliderpeton 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misspelling

Nearly 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]