Talk:Forelimb

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007-02-24 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reliability[edit]

N.B. This page cannot be considered a completely reliable source of information. In its original form (before partial correction), it was a direct copy of an entry in the TutorGig (online) Encyclopedia, thus flouting the Wikipedia rules. Worse still, the source-page – and hence its direct copy – contained several serious typographical errors, suggesting that little care had been taken in writing (and perhaps in researching) the entry. Nevertheless, after correction, the only doubt remaining is the use of the term 'omothoracic', which is to be found nowhere on the Internet other than on this page and on the source-page at Tutorgig.com. The term may well be correct, but given the slipshod nature of the original encyclopedia entry, it should not be relied upon without consultation of secondary sources. Clarification would be welcomed. NOTE: Above is a copy and paste of section mistakenly added to main article by IP 90.147.1.147. • Rabo³ • 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]