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
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
This article was copy edited by e.w.bullock, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 2 May 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
It is outright dangerous to link such lists without checking for synonymy and particularly homonymy, because it will cause all sorts of false genus pages, block senior homonyms with redirects etc. It is probably best to delete this whole mess, if nobody can be found to give it a thorough review; at least, each and every name that is not 100% confirmed to be a valid genus must be unlinked! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurdly high standard. Abyssal (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this page is incorrect. It is not dealing with all known "prehistoric" ostracods, but only with many of the known ostracod genera. That limitation should explicitly be given in the title of this page by substituting "ostracods" by "ostracod genera". Kempf EK (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of extant ostracod genera are probably old enough to have a left a fossil record. Abyssal (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
