Talk:Proetus (trilobite)

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods 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.

Species, range and distribution[edit]

The article lists a source, for which only the abstract is accessible to me. Fossilworks/PaleoDB lists a number of species, fossil range and distributions that may be related to reassigned species to other genera. Googling some didn't give me any results. Maybe an expert could check the full reference from 1994 and rewrite the reassigned species and adjust the time range that indeed seems very large. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lieberman 1994, all species in Proetus other than P. concinnus and P. latifrons do not belong there. I have not read the paper thoroughly to see if all those species outside of P. concinnus and P. latifrons were formally renamed or not, though, but I have read it enough to understand that Proetus sensu stricto is restricted to those two Silurian European species.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot access the full publication. Just bluntly reverting is not the way either. If you've access to the full text, list the species that were reassigned and restrict the range, distribution and cats to that of the specific source. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been trying to do all this damned time, but no one wants to read this paper that I just now tried to give you: instead, everyone wants to go with the blatantly error-filled fossilworks nonsense that's filled with errors and grossly out of date information that the site proprietors don't want to bother to update.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 2012 thesis identifies with Lieberman's taxonomy. So this article should be based on that. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]