Re: early tetrapod

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Comments?
> any more scientific sources?

This is a paper in tomorrow's Nature that I'll read tomorrow.

> was this older or younger than acanthostega?

Older.

> what of the comment "I imagine this is an animal that could haul itself 
> over sand banks without any difficulty. Maybe it's poking around in 
> semi-tidal creeks picking up fish that got stranded."
>
> implying terrestrial motion? is it just sensationalism, or supported by 
> the fossil?

Very good question, considering the utter weakness of *Acanthostega*. Most 
importantly, I'll check if the paper reports whether *Ventastega* had fins 
or limbs -- something unknown so far. (Yes, most people who define 
"tetrapod" by the presence of digits and absence of fin rays unhesitatingly 
call it a tetrapod, but they haven't got a reason for that.)