![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Doesn't it seem premature to accept this generic designation? In particular, this designation by Ng et al. is not supported by the molecular study of Harrison. So, I suggest reversion back to Cancer gracilis. Sushilover2000 ( talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Problem is that Ng et al., don't even cite the Harrison and Crespi study, and there are no other molecular studies available. So Harrison and Crespi may be weak, but it is the only one and it is many times better than Ng et al. Going back to the old and not widely accepted genus of Metacarcinus seems very premature. I have no idea of why Ng et al. did that, but it certainly is not supported by the molecular data. I guess in a few years when somebody does a decent molecular study, we will know. Blindly following the obviously flawed Ng et al. now will just confuse people.-- Sushilover2000 ( talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metacarcinus gracilis. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Doesn't it seem premature to accept this generic designation? In particular, this designation by Ng et al. is not supported by the molecular study of Harrison. So, I suggest reversion back to Cancer gracilis. Sushilover2000 ( talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Problem is that Ng et al., don't even cite the Harrison and Crespi study, and there are no other molecular studies available. So Harrison and Crespi may be weak, but it is the only one and it is many times better than Ng et al. Going back to the old and not widely accepted genus of Metacarcinus seems very premature. I have no idea of why Ng et al. did that, but it certainly is not supported by the molecular data. I guess in a few years when somebody does a decent molecular study, we will know. Blindly following the obviously flawed Ng et al. now will just confuse people.-- Sushilover2000 ( talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metacarcinus gracilis. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)