Talk:Archaeamphora

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archaeamphora 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

Archaeamphora has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the discovery of Archaeamphora longicervia, the first known carnivorous plant, suggests that flowering plants should have originated much earlier than previously thought?

Current status: Good article

Carnivorous plants: Plants Mid‑importance

	Archaeamphora is within the scope of WikiProject Carnivorous plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to carnivorous plants. For more information, visit the project page.Carnivorous plantsWikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plantsTemplate:WikiProject Carnivorous plantscarnivorous plant
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

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

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA

Awarded GA status. Article is comprehensive and well-cited. --NoahElhardt 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current distribution of Sarraceniaceae exclusively in the Americas and their comparatively young phylogenetic age it seems unlikely that the plants seen in these fossils are close relatives of Sarraceniaceae. There are several plants with tubular (ascidiate) leaves and it seems more likely in this case that the leaves are similar due to convergence of form rather than due to close relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.179.229 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right; the article doesn't disagree with you. The article states, correctly, that the descriptive paper noted similarities to the family. The taxobox suggests the family as a possible parent to the species, but indicates that this placement is tentative.--NoahElhardt (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Archaeamphora longicervia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeamphora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719103627/http://ephedra.hip.uni-heidelberg.de/lehre/ZV-Literatur.pdf to http://ephedra.hip.uni-heidelberg.de/lehre/ZV-Literatur.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]