Nice!
Now the debate will begin! Why doesn't it count as a transitional species?
Half of Creationists will say because it is just a "fish-like amphibian." The other half will because it is just an "amphibian-like fish."
That's the trouble with these transitional species. They always blur the lines. Get hard to classify and dismiss.
Now all we need to do is wait for the members who insist that there are no transitional forms!
Yup. And what they fail to appreciate is the importance of scientific predictions. When a scientific theory makes testable predictions and we go out and check those predictions against the evidence and the evidence supports and confirms those predictions, that is the hallmark of good science.
The evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition has continued to increase over the last hundred years as more and more gaps keeps getting filled (See, my OP on "No Transitional Forms" and "No Transitional Fossils Have Been Discovered"), and labs have discovered that changes in a single gene can cause leg bones and muscles to instantly appear in fish fins.
The discovery of Tiktaalik is an interesting example-- a missing link with fish and tetrapod traits that have earned it the name "fishapod." What's interesting is how it was discovered. Based on fossil fish lower in the fossil record (380 million years old), and tetrapods higher in the record (365 million years old), scientists predicted that this intermediate should exist and in sediments dated in between. The scientists went looking for this transition and picked research locations based on evolutionary predictions, and lo and behold, found Tiktaalik just as predicted. That is the sign of a good scientific theory: one that makes testable predictions that are then confirmed by the evidence.