Talk:Eryops

Disscusion

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)

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

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)

Carboniferous/Permian

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

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

Four or five fingers?

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

No Direct Descendants

That's a powerful statement. Did all Eryops practice abstinence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclear statement on metamorphosis or "lack thereof."

"Eryops would have grown slowly and gradually from aquatic larvae, but they did not go through a major metamorphosis like many modern amphibians." To me this sounds contradictory, as having been an aquatic larvae at some point and then developing into a terrestrial-ish/amphibian animal would be a "metamorphosis" of the same level of many modern amphibians, unlike some modern amphibians that skip the tadpole stage. Perhaps "major" is referring to time, a quicker more abrupt transformation? Or maybe that instead of the larval stage being very "fish like" it was more like the adult, so a bit like salamanders? ~2025-40556-88 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)