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 is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Tiktaalik is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
The press release at Reference 5 (doc) says "Instead of using the traditional Latin or Greek to name the fossil, the team consulted Nunavut residents, who suggested Tiktaalik (tic-TA-lick), the Inuktikuk word for large, shallow water fish. The second part of the name, roseae, honors an anonymous supporter. Other funding came from the National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society and the researchers’ home institutions." A few other fishy things have rosea in their names, iirc. ...dave souza, talk08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It might be worth mentioning in the article that the anonymous supporter's first (or Christian) name was Rose, based on the use of -ae as the default Latin feminine genitive in taxonomic contexts (even when it doesn't really make sense from a grammatical point of view) as well as sources such as this one. Sure, The Economist is neither peer-reviewed nor a specialist source, but it is more than good enough to source something that is glaringly obvious from the Latin name anyway.--Leptictidium (mt) 21:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
