Talk:Thalassodromeus

Images

Image available at [1]. --Snek01 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I'll upload this and a cropped version that removes the anachronistic Skimmer. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done [2] Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have other restorartions, I think it is ok to show the skimmer image as it was intended, to just show the two animals side by side during discussion of their lifestyles. Or well, that's what I had in mind for doing for an expansion of the article some day... FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I'm currently expanding the article in honour of the most likely destroyed type specimen, with FAC as the ultimate goal. But I'm finding some of the existing text hard to verify; there is now a claim that the jaw tip now named Banguela (by some) was proposed as a "Thalassodromeus oberli" already in 2005, but I can't find this name in any of the sources listed. Seems this was added by MWAK, is there something I have overlooked? Also, does anyone know why the text on Thalassodromeus in Veldmeijer 2005 and 2006 is largely identical? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it was destroyed? It was not officially part of the collection of the MN. Anyway, the subject merits a FA-status! The mention of a 2005 Thalassodromeus oberli was based on a misunderstanding on my part. Veldmeijer prepublished parts of his dissertational research, as many universities encourage or even pose as a condition for promotion.--MWAK (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but many social media comments suggest it was there, and Mark Witton has stated that many Brazilian pterosaur specimens from other institutions were currently on loan to the National Museum:[3] So better be prepared for the worst... FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ouch.--MWAK (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thalassodromeus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 13:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Will start reading today, but it might take a day or two until I'm able to post the first comments as I'm travelling. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem, I didn't even finish the intro yet because I thought it would take a while to get a review, so take your time! Also, I won't FAC nominate this until it has received a copy edit (or maybe I should learn from my mistake with Gallimimus?), and until Brachiosaurus is further down the queue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be ready now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• it was heavier built than its relative Tupuxuara – Sounds like you are talking about the whole body, but you mean only the skull, right?

Witton actually doesn't specify, but since one is only known from a skull, it can be nothing else, so added that. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• the hindlimbs were 80% of the forelimb length, unique among pterodactyloids – could be made clearer if they are uniquely short or uniquely long.

Witton doesn't specify, just that they are uniquely equal. I assume the legs are unusually long, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• with a sharply bordered lower outline – do you mean "with a sharp lower border"?

To be honest, I found the source very confusingly written there, and assumed it has something to do with the angle. This is what the source says, any ideas? "From the rostral tip to the anterior edge of the nasoantorbital fenestra, the skull exhibits a streamlined profile, with a sharp-bordered ventral outline (Figs. 1, 2)." FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, maybe removing this bit would be an option. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, just removed it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Are you sure that air sacs invaded the skull? I would have assumed that skull pneumaticity would be part of the nasal sinuses (as in mammals), and that only postcranial pneumaticity (PSP) is connected to air sacs.

Ugh, yeah, I may have been muddling it up while writing in the Brachiosaurus article... Said "hollowing of the bone" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• frontoparietal bone – before, you mentioned the frontal and parietal as if they were separate elements? Also, I would introduce this term at first mention.

Just had a look again throughout the sources, and it seems they only use the term "frontoparietal" for the part of the crest formed by the frontal and pareietal bones, but when the bones are mentioned themselves, they are referred to as either frontals or parietals. So I changed it accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• gradually thinner toward the top – a bit repetitive, as it was already been mentioned.

Consolidated mentions. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• except for the lower part behind the occiput – not sure why the "except for" and the connection with the previous part of the sentence is needed. Does the part behind the occiput not get thinner toward the top?

The lower part behind the occiput did not itself become thinner. So it does not connect with "thinner towards the top" but the latter part of the sentence, "towards the... back". The source says "Above the skull roof, it thickens at the contact be- tween the premaxilla and frontal and gets gradually thinner toward the top and back, except for the ventral part directly behind the occiput (formed by the supraoccipital), where it has a thick base". FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• other parts of the crest has – typo

Changed to "have". FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• the upper jaw of T. sethi was primarily composed of – is followed by plural.

Hmm, the source does this too. After all, the upper jaw will always be singular, though the bones are paired. I can see this creates inconsistency, but since the source does this too, so I don't know if it is much of an issue? FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• pterodatyloids – typo

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• As they are quite important, consider introducing pterodactyloids at first mention.

Added "(short-tailed pterosaurs)". FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• The orbit was slender and compressed sideways – maybe add in which orientation it was slender (vertically slender?). Also I'm not sure what "compressed sideways" means; do you mean anteroposterior compression?

Replaced with "from front to back", better? FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• lower side edges of the palate – is this the same as the "sharp ridge" mentioned previously? But why now plural? How many edges were there?

The ridge is on the midline, the edges are on the sides of this ridge, clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• and it was well-developed compared to related species" – I would start the sentence with this part: The ectopterygoid was well-developed … and had large sides.

Rejigged. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• had muscle scars at its upper end – how do those relate to the ridges for muscle attachment that were mentioned earlier? Maybe the two bits of information can be combined?

Removed first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• The description of the palate and the corresponding parts of the mandible are a bit unclear: You mention that the palate was a "sharp ridge"; "lower side edges of the palate"; "lower edge of the area"; and elsewhere in the text mention a "crest" of the palate. Are you talking about the same structure? If so, I'm confused why sometimes plural is used and sometimes not. I would consistently using the same term to refer to it.

Answered about the mandible below. Lower edges of palate was changed to lower edges of the ridge. "Lower edge of the area" is hard to specify further, since it can either refer to the ridge or to the lower edge of the rostrum tip (which are effectively synonymous, but it might be misleading to pick one). As for the "palatal crest", I'm pretty sure what Kellner and Campos 2002 also refers to this as the "palatal keel", and no palatal crests are mentioned at all in the 2018 paper, so I replaced the word under classification. So as you point out below, it seems these authors have a confusing habit for using different terms for the same things... FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• of the of this – typo?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Seen from above … ridges … formed a sharp margin – not sure how one can distinguish a sharp margin from a blunt one when seen from above only.

Good question, I imagine it is visible that they taper upwards from that angle? Looks so from the photo. The source says: "Seen in dorsal view, the lateral edges of the dentary in this region form a sharp margin and are tall." It refers to fig. c here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Near the end of the symphysis — which end?

Added front. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• the ridges that formed the margins – why not simply "side edges" as in the previous sentence?

From how I read it, they confusingly refer to the same structures as both edges, keels, and ridges. I am not sure if this depends on where along the structures it is. Here is an example: "Anterior to the posterior end of the dentary symphysis, the dorsal keels expand their bases medially and invade the flat dorsal surface of the symphyseal shelf (Fig. 10C). This creates a small groove, which tapers anteriorly as the symphysis tapers as well. Anterior to this groove, the bases of the dorsal ridges meet each other. As the tapering of the symphysis proceeds, the dorsal keels finally fuse.". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering the figure 10c in the paper, the dorsal keels and dorsal ridges must be synonymous, I see no other explanation. Yes, the wording in the paper is less than clear. But the problem is that if we leave it as is, the reader will not understand and get confused, and there is no point in keeping incomprehensible information. I personally would be bold and interpret, using only one of these terms, to make it sound. The only alternative I see would be to remove the confusing bits altogether. But these are only my thoughts, I will promote anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced some instances. As for the keel on the palate, it starts out as a ridge and becomes a keel, which I guess is because it becomes larger, so I kept the wording there, because the source makes a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• ended in a "V"-shape – maybe "ended in a "V"-shaped indentation? Perhaps mention the size of the V-shape at the end of the crest; without pictures it was difficult to imagine.

The sources are quite vague about this, Kellner and Campos just calls it "end", "ending", or "apex", but Witton says "prominent notch", which is a bit more descriptive, so added that. But no sources give measurements for this, so can't give any exact size. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• A small, 46 mm hole was present above the orbit – In one of the skull reconstructions, I see a hole anterodorsal to the orbit and between the orgit and the nasoantorbital fenestra, is it that one? If so, maybe describe the location oft he opening more precisey.

The hole is actually left out of most reconstructions, I guess because it was assumed to be a break, but the 2018 description considers it a natural opening. You can see it clearly on this image:[5] I will see if I can make its position clearer in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There was no more info on the position in the 2018 paper, but the 2007 paper states it is at the basal part of the crest, which I added. The small hole you could see in front of the orbit in the Headden skull drawing is the lacrimal foramen (which is only mentioned, not discussed, so I didn't mention it here). FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• (pterosaur bones are often flattened compression fossils) – maybe "in contrast, most other pterosaur fossils are" to make this clearer that the skull is not following the rule?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• to Naturmuseum – "to the Naturmuseum"?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• on the basis that they had not examined the fossil first-hand. – ambiguous formulation. Who is "they" referring to? Also, "on the basis" is maybe not the best wording as this cannot be the main reason. Perhaps "arguing that"?

Said "those researchers" instead, as I would otherwise have to repeat "Dyke and colleagues" twice in a sentence. Also said "arguing that". FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• you are mentioning "groups" and "clades", sometimes within the same sentence, apparently as synonyms. In a book I once read about writing the author argued that one should always use the same word if referring to the same thing, and I'm inclined to agree. Otherwise, the reader unfamiliar with the terms will thing that the meaing must be somehow different, because different words are needed. Sure, you will get repetition of words, but comprehensibility is much more important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of the sources do this too (for variation, I guess), but I have replaced most uses of "group" where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• The above should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack, with some questions and comments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I'm expanding Irritator's paleoecology section, particularly the paragraph on fauna, so feel free to take anything from there to update this. A larger edit on ecological relationships, as well as some stuff on taphonomy will be up later. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I'll keep an eye open! Wonder if any of that survived the fire... FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thalassodromeus … would thereby represent an old adult individual. – Thalassodromeus is a genus, not an individual. Do you mean the type specimen of Thalassodromeus, or do you mean that Thalassodromeus represents the adult stage of Tupuxuara (i.e., that the two are synonymous)?

All of the above, specified... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The palatine bones of Thalassodromeus were also enlarged – it was not yet mentioned that they are enlarged in skimmers.

Yeah, in this way I followed the source, which first lists the obvious similarities, and later lists a lot of anatomical details features of the skimmer that are adaptations for skim feeding, with only the palatines being singled out as a common feature of the two. I have rewritten that part, perhaps it is a bit clunky. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• which they suggested it could – remove the "it"?

This seems to have been reworded during the copy edit, as I can't find it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• an upper jaw tip – "and an upper jaw tip"?

Also seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• or, due to the thin crest, plunging into it – took a while to get it. Its a bit confusing as the sentence is about the limitations of the scissor-like bills. Maybe make a separate sentence out of it, or declare the "thin crest" as an additional reason to the scissor-like bill.

Reworded, is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• that the crest would impede … – maybe remove the first "and", and add an "that it" behind the second end, or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This was completely reworded during the copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! The copy edit just began, so I'll fix these issues once it's done (to avoid edit conflicts). Should give you time for the other answers as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The copy edit is now over, and I've answered the above, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, promoting soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, the above should be addressed. Kellner hasn't replied to the paper request, but I doubt it has much new anyway. I've cited it now, anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have one last thing I wanted to get your opinion on; which life restoration do you think should be shown first in the description? The one currently there of a wading animal, or the one currently under locomotion of flying animals? FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a preference here, we don't know if the animal spend more time on land or in the air. I think the current choice is good; there already is a flying one in the taxonbox. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll send it off to FAC soon (Brachiosaurus seems to be safe now). And on images, I just moved the skull diagram up to the description section, so it will be easier for the reader to orientate themselves (wonder why I didn't think of it before). FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lacusovagus JWPhoto.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the page Thalassodromidae be renamed as Thalassodrominae?

I know I should put this discussion in the actual Thalassodromidae page, but since this page gets more attention (and opinions from editors are more likely to appear), I thought of putting it here. So yeah, I'm well aware about the controversies of this group, and I know that the best way to keep things is to keep them neutral. But considering Thalassodrominae was named first, shouldn't this article be named with that name instead of Thalassodromidae (which was named later)? Also, a lot recent studies seem to favor Thalassodrominae over Thalassodromidae, but I guess that has nothing to do with this. As a side note, Saturnaliinae also seems to have the same issue as Thalassodrominae, with a certain later study reclassifying the group as Saturnaliidae. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess we could look at what most newer sources use? But then again, it comes down to which "camp" that publishes on the group. If Brazilian, we can be sure they use one name, if British, the other.FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, it's always like a "Brazilian vs British phylogeny" in these type of studies, because of course it has to be. :P But seriously, what I thought the actual issue here is that Thalassodrominae has priority over Thalassodromidae, but I guess that's not the only thing? But yeah, there has been a lot of these "Brazilian camp" studies published very recently (including Kellner et al. (2019), Pegas et al. (2018), Holgado et al. (2019), Ji et al. (2020), which apparently just follows Kellner et al. (2019), as well as Jiang et al. (2020)), while the latest "British camp" studies are Longrich et al. (2018) and Bestwick et al. (2018) if I'm not wrong.

Also, Andres et al. (2014) and Upchurch et al. (2015), even though using the "British camp" definition of the group, they actually use Thalassodrominae, so I guess we could take them into account as using Thalassodrominae as well? Correct me if I'm wrong though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess, and something that will probably remain unsolved for a long time. I'm not sure it matters which version of the name was coined first, because it's just different forms of the same name, with the difference being their rank. So the important point is what rank it "truly" belongs to if we want to determine the name, which is of course also subjective, because ranks are arbitrary anyway... So in short, I don't really have an opinion on this, it's too much of a mess, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, so I guess it should just stay as it is right now? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily, others with stronger opinions might show up. But then I think there's a slightly bigger chance of making more people notice it if you make a section at the palaeo project. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I can try that. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)