Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Discussion about New World Gompotheres

There seems to be a "heated debate" going on in the scientific community about the (re)assignment of three genera of South/North American gompotheres; Stegomastodon (Pohlig 1912), Haplomastodon (Hoffstetter 1950) and Notiomastodon (Cabrera 1929). New user (registered 2 months ago) User:Hemiauchenia -who didn't care to write an introduction user page stating his knowledge/experience/interests/background- has been aggressively deleting information from articles to follow a proposed new classification of these genera. A brutal redirect with the deletion of relevant information was done just 2 days ago without discussion first here with the comment "Blanking article, no reason for it to exist, as syn with Notiomastodon and merely confuses people". The same has been done to Stegomastodon, where relevant information from the South American fossils was deleted including their references with the comment "false references".

  1. references cannot be "false". They may be outdated and replaced with new research (but then still are valid and/or relevant) or
  2. they may be "unreliable", which is not the case for the notable journals they were published in

This same aggressive behaviour can be seen in "THE" publication that attempts to push this reclassification, available online here. Some points about that article:

  1. it is quite strange there is just 1 author (some Spencer Lucas) + 1 editor (Chinese) for such an important and allegedly groundbreaking reclassification
  2. the tone of the article is quite aggressive and not very scientific, pushing an idea that all South American gompotheres (from tropical Cartagena to cold Patagonia) are part of just 1 genus, except Cuvieronius
  3. the use of absolutes as "never", "always", "everybody agrees that..." etc. also doesn't speak for the author and his ideas
  4. the publication itself mentions that there are "ongoing discussions" and "heated debates for 50 years" among experts about these classifications of North, Central and South American """elephants"""

See the conclusions of the article:

6. Conclusions

The above review supports the following conclusions:

1) There are only two genera of South American gomphotheres: Cuvieronius and Notiomastodon (= Haplomastodon). Stegomastodon is a strictly North American genus. Amahuacatherium is invalid, being based on a specimen of Notiomastodon. 2) The oldest, well-dated South American gomphothere is ~2.5 Ma from Argentina. A Miocene (older than 9 Ma) age of the Amahuacatherium type material is refuted by mammalian biostratigraphy and a reanalysis of relevant magnetostratigraphy. 3)

The North American evolutionary lineage Gomphotherium gave rise to Rhynchotherium during the Hemphillian, and Rhynchotherium gave rise to Cuvieronius by Blancan time. Cuvieronius gave rise to Notiomastodon in South America.

A fossil cannot be "refuted" based on biostratigraphy, it is still a data point. To claim this, the specimen should be reanalysed, maybe corrected for stratigraphic age or placed into a new or existing genus. This is not an acceptable way of reworking earlier research. Also note the article is not published in a paleontological journal, yet in the Journal of Palaeogeography. Even in such a journal, skipping over the problematic paleogeographical range of 1000s of kms from Cartagena to Patagonia, the different climatic zones and elevations and the natural barriers such as the Andes and the Amazon rainforest for those migrations would not be appropriate.

Taking that into account, especially the point about the "debates"; what Wikipedia should do then, is not choose the "side" of one author, but reflect that "ongoing discussion" and debate in the articles. Plus the articles should contain all the previous information about fossil finds, distributions, etc., wikilinks need to be resolved, categories reorganised, etc. Not just "delete this" and "push this paper", thumping as an elephant through millions of years of previous work (pun intended).

I have no issue with reclassifications and new insights in paleontology often overprint earlier estimates, but what I care for is A) no loss of information (I write articles related to the Colombian gompotheres which now just were completely omitted (just as in the Spencer article, where "from Peru to Argentina" was mentioned, "forgetting" the Colombian fossils) and link often to Haplomastodon and Stegomastodon) and B) a decent, thoughtful, scientific and balanced discussion before the rearrangement of these articles into 1 genus.

Thoughts please. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi Tisquesusa
Sorry for the apparent aggressiveness, I merely wish to show the scientific consensus on the topic, which has become stable over the past few years.
You have not linked to to definitive article on the topic, which is located [[1]], (free link [[2]]) the paper gives a detailed breakdown of the confusing taxonomy of the South American gomphotheres it has become clear that regardless of name, there are only two species of gomphothere in South America, Cuvieronius hyodon. and the lowland gomphothere whether that be Notiomastodon, Haplomastodon, or Stegomastodon
The main paper it references that gives there being only 1 non Cuvieronius gomphothere is not the paper you mention, but [[3]]. This paper is not referenced in the article yet, my apologies. As for the suggestion that Stegomastodon is present in South America, it is shown in the ('60 years after Mastodonts of Brazil') paper and the one from which the cladogram [[4]] is derived that the south american Stegomastodon species do not cluster with the north american ones, making the genus apparently polyphyletic, so we can be confident that Stegomastodon is not present in South America. Again I have been somewhat careless with the references, for that I apologise. (EDIT: the reference has been added, again my apologies) The first paper clearly shows that the genus Notiomastodon has taxonomic priority over Haplomastodon as Haplomastodon was coined in Hoffsteter (1950) while Notiomastodon was described in Cabrera (1929) (both referenced in '60 years after Mastodonts of Brazil').
The reason I suggested a deletion instead of a merge is because I felt that there was little of value in the Haplomastodon article, it was an almost completely bare stub and therefore would have little content to merge. I was not familiar with wikipedia merge policy before now, but I am happy for this to take place.
Kind regards

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

We also have a way of preserving edit history with a "redirect " tag. See the history now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The best would be, as well as a redirect, a sentence or two on why the genus is synonymised in the target article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with that, I will provide justification in the Notiomastodon article now. EDIT: Justification added Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, it's redirected now. While you're at it. It'd be good to add an inclusive overview at Gomphothere too. I think the taxonomic history in all detail is important (much like the wikihistory here) as I think it is good to show the public that it is a developing process - people draw conclusions and are sometimes wrong or sometimes need to re-evaluate as new data becomes available. Pelecaniformes is a case in point, Ciconiiformes has a complex history which someone should write up at some point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I for one think this redirect should not have happened yet. We should be reporting what the current OVERALL opinions are for the species/genera, with reflection of the main suggestions. Do ALL probocid researchers follow the suggested taxonomic changes? If not what is the distribution of usages in the years after the paper was published, is the a trend towards using it?--Kevmin § 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Exacttly what Kevmin says (although maybe getting ALL paleontologists on the same page is impossible). I see the push and hurry is just continuing like this discussion wasn't started.
Thanks for the publications. But simply linking them on the talk page and claiming the opinion of Mothé et al is a done deal is not enough. Also, STILL all the distribution is just brutally removed with this redirect that removes relevant findings.
If the sudden push now is based on "solving confusion", it does the opposite. At Tibitó, 2600 m high in the Andes both Cuvieronius (the so-called "highland species") AND Haplomastodon (an allegedly "lowland species") have been reported, making not only the Notiomastodon ("=" Haplomastodon) article incorrect, but even the source pub that pushes the idea that there was just 1 mastodon in South America, not even 1 genus with different species, but lumping them ALL together in 1 single species, described in the publication as "however with morphological differences". So tropical coastal finds from Cartagena or Brazil are suddenly the same species as findings high up in Pleistocene glacial Andes?? That makes no sense. If there are morphological differences, then they would be "subspecies", highly unusual for prehistoric mammals. And again undescribed.

So what this paper (or set of them but still by the same Brazilian group) is doing, is not solving the problem, but adding to it. There is no rush to push this redirect which is not a merge right now. A decent overview of the various opinions among researchers is what's needed as a start. From there, it's possible to MERGE the articles, what is not done now. Keep Haplomastodon and Notiomastodon separate for now. There is more referencing needed than just 1 group of experts from Brazil to push this through. Tisquesusa (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the paper Sixty years after 'The mastodonts of Brazil’: The state of the art of South American proboscideans (Proboscidea, Gomphotheriidae) I gave a link to? in the paper, it said that many fossils of Cuvieronius and Notiomastodon were misdiagnosed, were simply labelled one or the other based on location. The paper (at least on the website) has a nice map to show you that there is NO diagnostic material of Cuvieronius in Colombia. Again many of your issues seem to be personal incredulity about the range of the animal. Many animals today range through an extremely wide range of habitats just look at the historic range of the Leopard or Asian Elephant
Historic distribution of the Leopard
Historic range of the Asian Elephant
You posted this link yesterday afternoon, I have scanned through the paper, read parts of it, but not properly read it completely, no. You cannot expect that from people. I will read it properly, but that takes time. And that's my point; you're pushing this through like there is some rush. There isn't; these fossils have been in the ground for millions of years and the publications need time to read and digest. Also, this is not about ME, or YOU. That's why I started the discussion here; it is to get a decent discussion among many other contributors.
The leopard example is good to show that mammal species (present-day) can have a wide range, I am not disputing that. The Asian elephant example you give is incomplete; there are four subspecies of Asian elephants, related to their geography (island species in this case).
That map I saw indeed and that is my point; the authors apparently did not include the fossils reported as Cuvieronius from Colombia. Watch my wording; I do not say they are or aren't Cuvieronius, I use the report wording, reflecting the work of authors, not my own POV. What you are doing on the other hand is taking that map as a fact and say there is NO Cuvieronius material in Colombia. That is evidently a wrong way of phrasing it and not a paleontological way of treating fossils.
The same with the "misdiagnosis". That needs to be shown for every fossil that was diagnosed as Cuvieronius and not just a statement. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
If you look at figure 4 on the 60 years after 'The Mastodonts of Brazil' paper, you can see that Notiomastodon was absent from the High Andes from Peru to Bolivia, but is present almost everywhere else bar a section of the amazon basin and the extreme southernmost tip of South America.You can see from this paper [[5]] Notiomastodon had an extremely wide dietary range depending on location. Your question about subspecies is confusing, subspecies are not typically named for prehistoric animals as 1: we usually do not have enough material to make this distinction and 2: this would likely shift over the hundreds of thousands of years as the intensity of the Ice age varied. Also the highland/lowland distinction is quite frankly incorrect, as we have plenty of evidence of Notiomastodon inhabiting high altitude areas of Colombia and Chile.
The point about "subspecies" is not confusing. The authors state "all -mastodon fossils found belong to 1 species (N. platensis)" AND they state; "but they have morphological variations". Then the question arises; what causes those "morphological variations"? Subspecies? Race? What biological factor makes them different? And "we don't have enough material to make the subspecies distinction" is exactly what I was saying; it is not common to place fossil species into subspecies, what normally happens is the definition of a genus and then assign different species to that genus. If you're saying "that highland-lowland distinction is "incorrect", then why do you consider this paper so good? Because it's the authors that make this distinction. The "evidence" is reversing the point. You follow the claim that all highland fossils were Notiomastodon (a claim!) and then say "all highland fossils were Notiomastodon, because they were Notiomastodon". That is circular reasoning. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I would like to stress that there is ONLY ONE SPECIES Gompothere in South America besides Cuvieronius hyodon, all of the recent papers agree on this. The only issue is with the name. It is either Notiomastodon platensis Haplomastodon chimborzai or Stegomastodon platensis, again Notiomastodon has clear Principle of Priority, at it was named in 1929 while Haplomastodon was named in 1950. There is no current dispute in this regard. All of the phylogenetic analyses indicate that the S.platensis and the North American species of Stegomastodon do not cluster together, but cluster with the specimens labelled Notiomastodon and Haplomastodon. The type specimen of Stegomastodon is North American, and so therefore the species cannot belong to Stegomastodon. This leaves Notiomastodon as the clear choice of Genus name. Again I would like to stress that in current scientific discussion The only dispute now is whether Notiomastodon platensis or Stegomastodon platensis should be used (see [[6]]). There is no current dispute, as far as I can see, about Haplomastodon being depreciated as a genus name, either for Notiomastodon platensis or Stegomastodon platensis. However, the removal of the possible species Stegomastodon platensis from the Stegomastodon article was premature, and I shall re-add this to the article now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Great example. There is no need to shout THERE WAS ONLY ONE SPECIES, I know that that is the claim of the authors. You take that as an established FACT, I take it as a proposal. There is much more needed to make this such a black and white fact as you present it; independent other authors, much more elaboration in the text of the articles with arguments on which basis this is concluded, etc. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There are several points running along here:

  1. Stegomastodon is an exclusively North (and partly Central) American genus. Ok, that makes sense from a (paleo)geographical view. I have no issue with that at all. So, fossils previously assigned to "Stegomastodon" from South America should be placed into another genus (Haplomastodon, Notiomastodon, Cuvieronius or a new genus).
  2. Claim A: All "Haplomastodon" (and "Stegomastodon", following from point 1) fossils should be placed in the genus Notiomastodon (or Cuvieronius?). This is a common way of paleontological redefinition; "Genus A species" is actually "Genus B species", that happens all the time in paleontological research.
  3. The problem is now with Claim B: "Not only all former species of the genera Haplomastodon and Stegomastodon should be placed into the genus Notiomastodon (so "Haplomastodon chimborazi" -> "Notiomastodon chimborazi" and "Stegomastodon waringi" -> "Notiomastodon waringi"), no, this group of authors (NOT "the entire scientific community" as you claim) says that the whole species variation is bogus and places ALL fossils into 1 genus!? Essentially saying to every single South American expert who analysed those fossils: "you were wrong". Now, that may be the case, but then that needs much more elaboration in an article than just one or two phrases.
  4. An additional problem is that they suddenly recategorise Cuvieronius fossils into Notiomastodon, even in the case where BOTH genera were reported in the literature (e.g. Tibitó).
  5. Finally, there is the scientific problem, which is less of a structure problem and more food for discussion on talk pages, not as part of the articles, and that is the grouping of tropical coastal environment fossil finds (e.g. Cartagena, NE Brazil, Habitat A) in the same SPECIES as highland Pleistocene fossils, Habitat B.

The last point refutes your examples of the Asian elephant and the leopard. Today, we don't have a Pleistocene climate. Back in the glacials of the Pleistocene, the temperature of Habitat A was roughly similar to that of today, maybe a couple of degrees colder. But Habitat B was MUCH colder than today; 5-10 degrees easily. The timber line at Tibitó was 1000 m lower than today. Páramo vegetation vs Andean forests. That is very significant. The authors seem to (I will read all the articles you posted to have a better grasp, no hurries) completely skip that difference. They just group the Patagonian lowland cold climate ("Habitat C") "N. platensis" with the tropical lowland hot climate fossils (Habitat A) with the highland cold climate "N. platensis" of Habitat B. To stick with your examples; it would be like claiming a snowy leopard is the same species as a leopard from Egypt... Or a mammoth and an African elephant. In terms of climate/paleogeography.

That relates to the -again- claim you added to the Gompothere article "that these species probably had grey skin", how TF do you/they know that? Has skin been preserved? They could have been brown, black, white (albinism), whatever. It is those black-and-white claims or assertions that do not belong in a decent paleontological article.

Reports on the fossil species found in Colombia, (there are more) reported as "Haplomastodon waringi" (1), "Stegomastodon waringi" (2) and "Cuvieronius hyodon" (3):

Popular science link, with more and map: Mastodontes en Colombia.

Yet, what we see in the article you linked by Mothé et al, that one with the map (fig. 4), the ONLY link to a paper about Colombia is "Hooghiemstra & Tan, 2004"

There is much more to discuss before this reassignment can be added as an established FACT. I've added the proposal phrases to the relevant articles, as that is what it is; "We, authors from RdJ University propose a new classification up to the species level". Will read the articles you linked in the next days, but there's no hurry to push this through now. Also the input by colleagues @Abyssal: and @Rextron: is highly appreciated here. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


To summarize my thinking so far:

1. There are 2 species of South american Gompothere: Cuiveronius hyodon and a species of either the genera: Notiomastodon Stegomastodon orHaplomastodon

This requires an analysis of every fossil formerly classed as "Notiomastodon", "Stegomastodon" (South America) and "Haplomastodon", to state as an undisputable fact. It may be a proposal and that proposal should be listed in the articles, as I've added to them all using phrasings as "proposed", "regarded" and "considered". Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Notiomastodon should be preferred over Haplomastodon due to the Principle of Priority, as Notiomastodon was named first.

If all the species are indeed part of that genus, yes. The point is that not only the previous genus is dumped, but the species differences too. If the proposal would be "Haplomastodon waringi", "H. chimborazi" are now "N. waringi" and "N. chimborazi", it's an entirely different case. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

3. Some controversy whether Notiomastodon should be treated as part of Stegomastodon. in phylogenetic analyses they do not form a sister group. However this has been disputed due to the scrappy nature of the North American Stegomastodon material. Until this is better addressed I think we should keep the articles separate for now.

From a paleogeographical point it makes sense that North American and South American gompotheres belonged to different genera. What doesn't make sense is that all South American fossils, no matter their paleoclimatological position would be the same species. The argument FOR Stegamastodon =/= Notiomastodon is the argument AGAINST all Notiomastodons are N. platensis. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

4. Notiomastodon should be treated as a single species for now, as all specimens form an (admittedly wide) morphological continuum, with no sharp boundaries or clusters. and there is not enough material nor a comprehensive enough analysis to split it into multiple species.

And that is the point, apparently there was enough material to define multiple species. And the geography and climatic differences certainly support that too. Grouping a Patagonian """elephant""" and a Caribbean coastal """elephant""" into one species is the big stretch, not the definition of various species on a continent as large as South America. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Distinguishing Cuvieronius material from Notiomastodon material is difficult, as the only distinguishing characteristics are found in the skull and teeth, leaving many fossil finds in South America as Gomphotheriidae indet, not diagnostic to either.

Also here, apparently authors were able to define these differences in the past. What this new proposal says is "you were all mistaken", but fail to point out where, why and how. You cannot just refute fossils, as is done by Spencer Lucas, linked in the articles now and ref'd by Mothé et al. too. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Cuiveronius not simply a highland taxon, as lowland remains have been found at La Huaca, Piura, Peru

And that is the curious thing, you seem to like those articles written by the Brazilian group very much, but it is them that make/push that distinction. Imho a lowland (tropical climate)/highland (cool to cold climate) distinction in species or even genera makes much more sense than grouping them all into 1 species. Just like there are lowland and highland gorillas. Or snowy leopards and leopards. It is remarkable that the argument for separation of Stegomastodon and Notiomastodon (paleogeography) is suddenly dropped when the South American species/genera are regarded. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

7. In the 'Sixty years after 'The Mastodonts of Brazil' ' paper, they state that is was very likely that Cuvieronius was found in Colombia (It's sort of impossible it wouldn't). Just that there was no diagnostic material found there yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there was, because it was classed into Cuvieronius. But those papers that did that are not even referenced! That's not speaking in favour of the authors who claim to have been rigorous in their analysis of South American fossils... Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also think about the idea, rough timeline:

  • Panama Block formed (Late Miocene-Early Pliocene)
  • North American ancestors of Notiomastodon and Cuvieronius migrate to South America
  • From Colombia they migrate to Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina
  • oldest gompothere found in Argentina at 2.4 Ma (Early Pleistocene)
  • how did they get to NE Brazil? From Argentina? Through the Amazon (unlikely)?
  • Fossils of Late Pleistocene age found in Colombia (the starting point for the migration) and they are regarded the same species as the ones in E Brazil, who had thousands of kms and hundreds of thousands of years of history

So the authors claim:

  • there was no evolution during 2.4 Ma of these gompotheres (single species)
  • there were morphological differences, but we do not take that into account; single species, no matter what
  • climate, topography, ecosystems, etc. play no role. Argentinian pampas are just like Andean forests for these N. platensis

That is very strange, especially for such large mammals and especially the different climates and topography of South America. Not even taking into account the different predators in the various ecosystems. Patagonia is and was completely different from lowland tropical Colombia, Venezuela or Brazil. And different from the Andes. Those differences were even larger in the glacial stages of the Pleistocene, because the elevation caused a much colder climate vs the coastal lowland. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

8. I assumed that the skin of Notiomastodon was tough and grey was an unsourced assertion, based on comparisons to extant elephants in similar climates and for thermodynamic reasons. Similar things have been said about the Columbian mammoth, for which also little is known about the hair and skin, If you feel that it is inappropriate, you are free to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little late for this discussion, but on point 8 above, you are absolutely not allowed to add such claims unless a source that says so can be cited. WP:original research is strictly forbidden. Hair is mentioned in the Columbian mammoth article because reliable sources mention that probable hair has been found, not because some editor thought it might have had hair. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be backed up by preserved skin, otherwise it's just a rough idea. It would also be congruent evolution, as the New World species are only related to the African and Asian elephants long ago (Miocene). The idea that in the Pleistocene glacial climate of the Altiplano Cundiboyacense (at 2600 m altitude, constant yet cold climate) these beasts would have just the same skin as the ones found in Piura (desert today!), Argentinian pampa (seasonal, temperate) or Caribbean/Brazilian coastal biomes (tropical, wet) seems very far fetched.Tisquesusa (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What the authors are getting at , is there isn't any clustering to indicate distinct species, but that there is a large continuum between all the specimens of one extremely variable species. Also as to your point on the size of the Amazon, during the glacial periods the size of the amazon declined by about 50%, and was largely replaced by dry woodland /savanna, which was the preferred habitat of Notiomastodon. Regardless of whether you consider it Stegomastodon or Notiomastodon it is clear that both genera of Gomphothere entered South America separately. The reason given that there is no record of Notiomastodon prior to its entry into South America is due to the fact it was probably evolving in poorly sampled regions of central america. and the '60 years after 'The mastodonts of brazil' ' paper cites a discovery of an apparently very Notiomastodon like tooth in Costa Rica.

I don't think the authors are claiming that Notiomastodon is the same everywhere, just that it formed a single population that was able to interbreed. On the contrary it seems that Notiomastodon was very adaptable, both morphologically and in terms of its diet. I have previously cited a paper on the topic of diet [[7]], and from this it is very clear from that the diet these animals had was completely different depending on location, some areas it was almost solely a grazer on C4 grass, in other it had a large component of coarse woody plant material like twigs and branches etc. It seems it was an extreme generalist able to adapt to whatever food source was available in the environment.

Again I would like to stress that the main dispute in current scholarly literature is whether the species is S.platensis or N.platensis. The reason I link to Mothé et al primarily is because people of opposing position usually only publish the papers in Spanish, and none of them are typically focused on taxonomic revision, merely saying "we follow the opinion of A because we find it the most convincing", which isn't particularly helpful.

Funkmonk, I have removed the assertions about skin from the article, thank you for your understanding. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is ONLY one point of view is being espoused! DO NOT change the articles based on one paper from October 2016, it is much to young to let other authors with other opinions respond. Given the drastic shifts that the paper suggests, WIKI needs to take a cautious stance rather then simply supporting a sole research group. Also do not say ALL researchers think one way when its being based on a single paper less then a year old. I would suggest reverting the changes that have happened so far and crafting sections in the effected articles that reflect the suggestions of the 2016 paper.--Kevmin § 23:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevmin, I personally don't see what you are getting at, this isn't one paper from 2016 that paper is simply a review paper that nicely summarizes the changes that have gone on in the taxonomy since around the late 2000's. The first paper to propose the classification into Cuvieronius hyodon and Notiomastodon platensis was in 2012, about four and a half years ago. [[8]]. And the probable synonymy between Haplomastodon and S/N.Platensishas been documented since 1995, over two decades ago now[[9]].
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (the highest authority in taxonomic nomenclature) decided to reject calls to create a neotype for Haplomastodon in 2012 [[10]], meaning that Haplomastodon can therefore be considered a nomen dubium. Again, the last paper to publish support for Haplomastodon was Ferretti in 2010, about 6 and a half years ago now. [[11]]. Again I would like to stress that even by people who think that X.platensis is not Notiomastodon, but Stegomastodon the idea that there is only one Gomphothere besides Cuvieronius is now consensus see [[12]] and [[13]].
I fail to see how I am espousing merely one point of view, I am showing at least two off (S/N.platensis) in the article. The reason I keep using the 2016 paper is because it is a review paper that gives a very detailed history of the taxonomy of the South American gomphotheres, and is an extremely useful reference which has sources to most of the articles to which I am quoting. Most people who are involved with research into South American Gomphotheres in some way were involved in either writing or refereeing the paper, including Dr Marco Ferretti, the person who wrote the Haplomastodon paper, so he must approve of the current taxonomy. (Marco is also a co-author on the 'dance of the tusks' paper, which does not accept the validity of Haplomastodon [14]). And even those who weren't, their position (i.e. Stegomastodon supporters) was represented accurately and fairly in the article, and I have reflected this in the wikipedia pages of both Notiomastodon and Stegomastodon by mentioning the controversy and why they are currently treated separately on wikipedia.

On a further note, Tisquesusa, all of the papers you mention were at least 5 years old, the oldest being from 1969, nearly 50 years old now. Before the taxonomic revision really began with around late 2012 or so. None of the papers in question are focused on taxonomic revision, merely reflecting taxonomic opinion at the time. Also the papers are far too Colombia-centric, and do not provide a Continent wide view of the issue.

"And that is the point, apparently there was enough material to define multiple species. And the geography and climatic differences certainly support that too. Grouping a Patagonian """elephant""" and a Caribbean coastal """elephant""" into one species is the big stretch, not the definition of various species on a continent as large as South America"

"Big stretch" according to who? Again, it seems it's your own incredulity towards the idea that this animal could roam so widely and through so many climactic regions and altitudes, rather than anything in the current academic literature you object to. If you had said "I disagree with the diagnostic characteristics that they are using in the Mothé et al 2012 paper" or something along those lines then fair enough, we would have something to discuss, but at the moment it's just your personal skepticism on the topic.

"Because it's the authors that make this distinction. The "evidence" is reversing the point. You follow the claim that all highland fossils were Notiomastodon (a claim!) and then say "all highland fossils were Notiomastodon, because they were Notiomastodon". That is circular reasoning"

The reason for this is that some authors previously expressed circular reasoning and grouped all fossils found into the Andes into Cuvieronius and all lowland fossils into either Haplomastodon Stegomastodon or Notiomastodon, I'm not sure what version of the paper that you are looking at, but for the online version on Sciencedirect.com has a nice custom google maps thing where they have all the sites labelled, whether Cuvieronius Notiomastodon or undiagnostic, as they did a complete revision of all the known material, and characterized it based on diagnostic characterisitics. From that you can see large areas of Undiagnostic mixed with solely Notiomastodon, in that case it is probably reasonable to infer that all the undiagnostic fossils found in areas with exclusively Notiomastodon diagnostic fossils belong to Notiomastodon and not Cuvieronius until further research proves otherwise.

"From a paleogeographical point it makes sense that North American and South American gompotheres belonged to different genera. What doesn't make sense is that all South American fossils, no matter their paleoclimatological position would be the same species. The argument FOR Stegamastodon =/= Notiomastodon is the argument AGAINST all Notiomastodons are N. platensis"

I have no idea what you are trying to get at. "From a paleogeographical point it makes sense that North American and South American gompotheres belonged to different genera." really, why? The gomphotheres were only really present in South America for a short period of time, probably less than 3 million years. so there is no strong reason to think that they speciated strongly like the canids and deer did. All of the Cuvieroniusspecimens from south america are usually treated as part of the same species C.hyodon that had a pan-american range from Bolivia to Northern Mexico by the late pleistocene (Its northern range had been declining for millennia by that point, probably due to competition from the Columbian Mammoth and/or Mastodon)the distinction between Stegomastodon and Notiomastodon regardless of outcome, wouldn't change the fact that there was only one species in South America. The main distinction would be that it is part of Stegomastodon a genus which has a long fossil record in North America. or Notiomastodon a genus with a poor-non existent record before migrating into South America, and occupy different parts of the phylogenetic tree. Nobody is suggesting that Notiomastodon emerged as a new genus in South America, just that it's range prior to the Great American Interchange was confined to the southern part of central america, where the fossil record is much poorer. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, Hemiauchenia. You are one of the co-authors of this set of papers by the Brazilian group. That is not an "accusation", it is an interpretation, based on:
  • the aggressive push for this proposed reclassification
  • your use of technical language and clear expertise on the subject
  • your refusal to introduce yourself on your user page "page left intentionally blank"
  • and mainly; your language "false references", "only there to confuse people", "too much focused on Colombia", "ALL researchers agree", which is all not true
You can read in Spencer Lucas' article here; Fig 11 and Conclusion #3 that he proposes that Notiomastodon (=Haplo, =South American Stego, he follows the Mothé group in that) evolved from Cuvieronius in South America, so after the migration from Central America. You are saying "Nobody [another absolute] is suggesting that Notiomastodon emerged as a new genus in South America" which is evidently false. So that means the evolutionay tree is far from a "done deal" as you push as idea.
You are right that I have personal skepsis about the grouping of all formerly different species into one species (except Cuvieronius, but even some of those fossils are -unseen- placed in Notiomastodon, the example from Tibitó, the article I wrote). But, I have stated explicitly that that skepsis is for the talk pages only, not for the articles.
I have no issue with you being one of the co-authors of this set of papers; it is a good thing there is an expert on this subject contributing and the articles are all quite poor for such an interesting topic.
My problem lies with your behaviour of pushing this proposal as "the only valid, new classification, everyone else is mistaken, 'old-fashioned', there to confuse people, false references, the whole scientific community agrees on this only you, Wikipedia editors are falling behind, too much focused on one country, etc.". That is not how it should be. There is no objection against including this new research as a proposal in the articles, you've seen I did that. But that is something different than making it "the new truth", the way you are pushing this through.Tisquesusa (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The fact that you think I am an author of these papers is genuinely hilarious, I just have actually read the papers. Again what I meant was that there is Consensus not necessarily that all researchers agree.
    • That paper was published in 2013, four years ago when the phylogeny of the gomphotheres was still in flux. The idea that Notiomastodon evolved from Cuvieronius is now considered to be erroneous, as in recent phylogenetic analyses (both Ferretti 2010 and Mothé et al 2016) Rhynchotherium comes out closer to Cuvieronius than to Notiomastodon, this would push the common ancestor of Cuvieronius and Notiomastodon back sometime into the Miocene, well before the formation of the isthmus of Panama, meaning that both taxon would've entered South America separately, and even if Notiomastodon is in fact Stegomastodon the statement is still true. To be honest I agree with you that I am not a massive fan of this paper. After all it is written by Spencer Lucas of Aetogate fame. It doesn't cite many sources and is quite, because I said so at times. The first link I provided on the this talk page is much better.
    • Again I'd like to reiterate Haplomastodon had its request for neotype designation denied by the ICZN (this is effectively the equivalent of wikipedia's arbitration committee for zoological taxonomy) in 2012[15], effectively leaving Haplomastodon a nomen dubium. That isn't the opinion of just some researcher, that is the effective opinion of the highest taxonomic authority, that cannot be disputed. Therefore, it shouldn't be presented as just a proposal, but a statement of current taxonomic fact. You can't just disagree with the ICZN, their decision is final.
    • Again, I'll emphasize that the only current dispute to my knowledge is whether the species should be in the genus Notiomastodon or Stegomastodon. There is consensus to the fact that it is one species among all recent papers I've seen. This issue is still currently ongoing, and I have referenced the dispute in both of the articles, with citations.
    • The reason I criticized your references (on this talk page) is because lots of them were ancient, some nearly 50 years old, and only of interest for historic reasons. I was criticizing your focus on Colombia, which seems to be your special interest topic (at least according to your user page), because A: didn't provide a broad view of the topic, and B: were not focused on taxonomic history of the animals. Again, please look at fig 2 and read section 3.1 "The timeline of 210 years of taxonomic issues" in [[16]] in its entirety. it makes the taxonomic history crystal clear. even if you don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, their account is accurate and explains all the species names you mention in your references. You are just saying over and over and over again, "oh it's just a proposal" and tone policing by saying I'm aggressive, and that I'm saying everyone else is wrong etc. Rather than trying to engage me on specifics in the taxonomic literature, as well as falsely accusing me of being being a co-author on the papers.

The reason I keep doing this is that wikipedia should reflect cutting edge science and research. Many articles on 'Ice Age' animals are very barebones. If I hadn't taken an interest in improving these articles it would just be another shitty quality stub/start class article that no-one cares about, and if I left nobody else would bother to improve it. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think we need to move forward with a solution instead of this never-ending back and forward. Yes, WIkipedia should present the latest research, but older theories should not simply be cut out. I suggest that, if you really want to improve these articles, make some taxonomy section for the relevant articles where you present the various historical classifications chronologically, ending with the present day interpretations. See for example Paraceratherium where I tried to do this for an even more confusing situation. If there are competing views, present them all, without claiming one is more true than the other; stating which one is more recent is enough, and avoids editorialisation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree , my main point of contention is that the Haplomastodon article should be made into a redirect of Notiomastodon, due to the ICZN's decision to reject calls for a neotype. While an extensive history of the Taxonomy of the South American gomphotheres should be made on the articles Notiomastodon and 'Cuvieronius, while the Stegomastodon article should focus on the North American specimens for now, with mention to the controversy over whether platensis belongs to this genus or not.

Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'd suggest doing this work first, though, and when we agree it reflects all possible viewpoints (including those that are now considered outdated, for historical context), we can discuss whether the article should be merged. I'm inclined to agree if most recent papers find it to be a synonym, but I haven't read the relevant literature. A good, well-sourced overview in one of the articles could help the discussion here go forward. Add dates and in-text author attribution instead of vague wording like "most authors think" and similar. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait a minute. This naming convention is only valid if indeed ALL Haplomastodon species should be part of another genus, and Notiomastodon would be the one, based on the principle of priority. But that reassignment of all those species under Notiomastodon is a proposal, not a done deal.
This article, from 2016 (!) uses Stegomastodon waringi, Stegomastodon platensis, Cuvieronius hyodon and Cuvieronius tropicus for South American gompotheres. So, the idea that this proposed reclassification is a done deal, and older literature is outdated is simply untrue. New publications use these different species, that were defined and analysed decades ago, too.
A statement like "those publications are 50 years old" doesn't mean that the analysis from them is incorrect. Those articles clearly differentiate between Haplomastodon (waringi, chimborazi), Stegomastodon (waringi, platensis) and Cuvieronius (hyodon, tropicus). To claim that all those analyses are "wrong", because "now every fossil should be Notiomastodon platensis or Cuvieronius hyodon, there were no other species", those fossils need to be reanalysed.
Imagine someone writes a paper saying "All Homo erectus and Homo habilis are all part of Homo sapiens, there is just 1 species, I don't need to look at the fossils, they belong to 1 species only just with morphological differences". That would be a landslide in human paleontology and it would be required to back this reclassification up very well. Now, the South American gomphothere community clearly is much smaller, so there wouldn't be so much opposition against this Mothé et al. reclassification, but that doesn't mean this proposal is the leading and defining research for all -unseen!- South American fossils.
I am busy compiling an extensive list of publications about this subject, inluding this new proposed reclassification, just wait and see what I will come up with. Takes a few days, but for millions of years old """elephants""" that shouldn't be such a problem... Tisquesusa (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great discussion here. For now I'll just say that I've read the recent works of Dimila Mothé and Leonardo Avilla about the nomeclature of the South American gomphotheres and I'm mostly agree with their proposal of a simplification, with Notiomastodon as the valid genus for the "Stegomastodon-Haplomastodon" species. The recent work of Asier Larramendi (2016, see here: [17] ) also follows this conclusion. Of course, in the article about Notiomastodon should be reflected this discussion about the taxonomy of these proboscideans (by the way, I've read that these authors have presented a congress abstract that even proposes a new clade for the New World advanced gomphotheres). About the presence of Cuvieronius in Colombia, it should be clear that is a task that needs to be made by the paleontologists in the future, many of the Colombian gomphotheres are simply classified in the museums as "mastodonts", we for now only can reflect that some remains have been classified in that way but the most comprehensive study so far (again, Mothé et al.) didn't find a diagnostical remains of that genus in this country.--Rextron (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I find that in the XXX Jornadas Argentinas de Paleontologia de Vertebrados of 2016. Unfortunately, I can't find the pdf with all the abstracts, but I have the abstract that I mentioned before, see it here [18] So you can see by yourself ;). Cheers, --Rextron (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's much stranger than I expected since it is usually considered that clade to have derived from Gomphotherium, and we have no fossil records for the brevirostrine clade until about 6 ma, long after their apparent divergence from other proboscideans so without looking at what they presented i'm somewhat confused. Regardless, much like the whole thing with the Palaeoloxodon DNA last year, until the paper is published in a journal we should probably refrain from seriously revising wikipedia's taxonomy on the topic. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

List of fossils

Main article: List of gomphothere fossils in South America

Ok, I've spent 4 full days on this extensive list with references to the fossils, a list of publications more extensive that those used in the Mothé et al. publications. I have listed all the fossils and locations I could find, with their original description and notes where Mothé et al. think they should be reassigned to Notiomastodon platensis. Also see the map of South America where that proposed reclassification is nicely shown.

Listed, explained and referenced is also the new proposal by Mothé et al. and what it means for the species. Pardo and Alberdi, who couldn't be called "just some outsiders disagreeing with the -alleged- "consensus within the scientific community", how dare they, amateurs" as Hemiauchenia tries to push it, disagree with the singe species and in their 2016 (!) article about Chile continue to name Stegomastodon in the title even. Reference is included to read the details of it.

I've also come across one of the dangers of this "simplification" by Mothé et al. Because they call Notiomastodon a "lowland gomphothere", though listing its wide topographical range, Lindsey and López, who analysed a fossil from the Ecuadorian coast, couldn't determine genus or species, but named their Gomphotheriidae indet. "cf. Notiomastodon". The idea that this reclassification is a done deal does not follow from other researchers than the group in Brazil, where they there indeed name their new discoveries "Notiomastodon".

But it's not up to us, editors to make that choice, it's up to the readers. That's why I've compiled this extensive list and maps, actually a sidestep from my normal work, the Sabana Formation that is described. The other formations of South America, especially Luján and Inajá should have an own article too, as they represent important formations where fossils have been found.

Now it's time for a wikibreak. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Palaeontology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for this list. Would be good to improve the articles; this list of 500 most popular paleontology articles shouldn't contain stubs, the top 10/20 all should be B class or higher and several starts need expansion. Will try to make some time to work on some to help doing this. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
If anyone wants to try getting an article to Good or Featured article, I'll be happy to guide and assist. Dire wolf is currently at FAC, for example, and it's number 15 on that list. It could be great to have a featured article for every major group of animals, to set a standard that others can follow afterwards. I'm currently trying to get Istiodactylus to FA, as the first pterosaur to reach that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Improving Diabolotherium

As I was creating the Diabolotherium article I noticed that there was an extensive German Wikipedia article on the topic, however most of the article was dense anatomical jargon, which seemed to be almost verbatim to the describing paper. What are the guidelines for incorporating anatomical jargon into Wikipedia articles, how long should the physical description be?

Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:jargon. I just try to "translate" such texts into as plain language as possible. But there's no limit to how long a description section should be. If it gets really long, it can be broken into subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
In my own humble opinion, I think some Paleo editors write like they're (re)creating a scientific publication, not a general encyclopedia, or assume that actual paleontologists will be using Wikipedia to diagnose specimens. This is misguided, as Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Articles do not need a level of detail found in primary literature, and attempts to simplify complex anatomical terminology with plain language can result in clumsy prose that is both confusing to non-specialists and unsatisfactory to specialists. Rather than try to "dumb down" or de-jargonize a precise description, in my view it is sometimes better to simply leave it out. See also Make technical articles understandable. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Considering how technically descriptions are generally written in articles about ships (Yugoslav monitor Drava FA), plants (Isopogon anemonifolius FA), or fungi (Gomphus clavatus FA), I think it's unfair to say that palaeontology articles should somehow be made even more accessible to laymen, just because more laymen are likely to stumble across such articles. It adds to the misconception that palaeontology is "kid's stuff" compared to more "serious" subjects. If people want simple descriptions, they can read the summary in the intro, or look at a Simple Wikipedia version of the article. On the other hand, I don't think we should have specific sections about "diagnostic features", though such can of course be mentioned under general description. Some Featured Articles go into detail that even I would consider too much (such as Oryzomys couesi, an extant rodent), but such FAs can be seen as precedents for what's considered acceptable by the wider "community" of editors. There isn't really a limit, but it's up to the individual writer to decide how detailed the info they add should be. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
In most of the examples you give though, there probably isn't a single unifying source on the characteristics of these things, so it is useful for Wikipedia to collate this information together. While for many of the Palaeontological articles, it is simply a rephrasing of the holotype description paper or equivalent thereof. Which is pointless as someone who is interested enough to read it can just read the paper themselves. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Most times, that's either because only one description exists (often because the taxon is recently described, like Zuul), or because other sources haven't been used by the writer. So in the first case, it's just a matter of time before views from other sources can be added, and as for the second case, other sources should be sought for and used. But even when only one source exists, and we rely only on that, what's the point of even going to Wikipedia, if you can read the info elsewhere? I'd think most layreaders wouldn't want to/know how to seek out scientific papers when searching info about a subject, and often they wouldn't have access to such papers anyway. And in any case, Wikipedia articles are rarely as technical as scientific papers, and can give a wider summary of the literature about a subject than any single scientific paper can. Anyhow, that the articles I linked above use several different sources doesn't change the fact that they are written very technically, which is what this discussion was initially about. You'll also find technical articles about those subjects which are based on single sources, so it isn't really a palaeo-article versus everything else scenario. It's a Wikipedia-wide issue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My algorithm is to substitute plainer English words or phrases for jargon wherever possible, unless meaning is lost or the plain form is extremely wordy and cumbersome. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Megalodon taxonomy dispute

Hi, it has come to my attention that there no longer seems to be a dispute over the classification of C. Megalodon. There seems to now be a strong consensus that Megalodon is a member of Otodontidae and thus is not a close relative of Great white sharks within Lamniformes. It therefore should be considered a member of the genus Carcharocles. No paper supporting the Carcharodon placement seems to have been published for over a decade, and every recent scientific paper on the topic uses Carcharocles.

The main contention being that Megalodon is derived from the genus Otodus and therefore ultimately Cretaceous Cretolamna while the great white shark derives from "Cosmopolitodus" hastalis, I can find very little information about the precise origin of that species except that is probably derived from some Cretaceous members of the mako genus Isurus.

At this point, I think that Wikipedia should be updated to reflect this, but since the article is such a high traffic one I think that a consensus should be reached first.

Edit: Made a parallel discussion in Talk:Megalodon

Kind regards --Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems the article already reflects this (both in-text and in the taxobox)? What should be changed? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
That's because I personally changed it, because I wasn't really getting a response and I thought changing it would at least provoke a discussion. But it seems that the change is relatively uncontroversial, despite the articles popularity. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the average drive-by-editor cares more about exaggerating the size of any given prehistoric animal than about taxonomic details... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As a tangent to this discussion, the good article listing for Megalodon hasn't been reassessed for over 8 years, how often do articles need to be reassessed? --Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no timeframe for these. There was a sweep of all Good Articles around 9 years ago, and I think this involved reassessment of this article then. To see how the process works, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

merge discussion at Baltic amber

There is a merge proposal that could benefit from additional eyes at Baltic amber--Kevmin § 17:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon at PR

I'm trying to get Megalodon to FA, so I've nominated it for PR. Comment if you feel like it, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Cradle of Humankind

Could someone please reassess the above article ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy on "amateur" life restorations of extinct taxa?

I realize this isn't strictly an issue that only concerns this wikiproject but I figure this would be the place to ask to fine others who've given thought to the issue. But apologies if this would be better asked elsewhere. Please let me know of ideas for a more appropriate venue if this is the case :) [edit: I've decided to see if WikiProject Extinction has thoughts as well]

I've noticed on several articles (recent ones I've seen are Paracamelus and Conquered lorikeet) that there are images about what the taxon in question might have looked like while it was alive. And for plenty of articles the images come from artists who've worked closely with experts who have transparent methodologies and outline their assumptions and everything's great and perfectly cited. But for a lot of articles it seems like the image has no such provenance; rather some editor on wikipedia or in commons drew an image and ex nihilo an "authoritative" image has been added to an encylopedia entry. It seems strange to me that for a platform like Wikipedia that's so big on No original research and Verifiability that these types of images would be fairly common.

Is there some policy I should defer to? Should I not be worrying about this? Thanks for any thoughts. Umimmak (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensivley[19][20][21]], see WP:PALEOART for guidelines. In general, original imagery is not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:pertinence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to avoid repeating the conversation it seems like the discussion will happening at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Extinction#Policy_on_.22amateur.22_life_restorations_of_extinct_taxa.3F Umimmak (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous. Abyssal (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Istiodactylus

The teeth had sharply pointed crowns and triangular roots that were shorter than the crowns. The tooth crowns do not appear to have been sharp; most had slightly blunted points, or were somewhat worn So sharply pointed or not? Mpn (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just the sources that are inconsistent, I'll try to consolidate them. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the problem is that one source (Howse) says "sharply pointed crowns", while another (Martill) says "none of the tips of the tooth crowns are pointedly sharp". Later, though, Martill says "While many extant animals are known with crescentic, closely spaced dentitions (e.g. Homo sapiens) very few possess sharply pointed, labio-lingually compressed triangular crowned teeth comparable with those of Istiodactylus latidens". So Martill seems to be the one contradicting himself. I might have to cut out "The tooth crowns do not appear to have been sharp". Any thoguhts? FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Article complexity Request for Comment

I'm posting this here to direct interested members to a Request for Comment on the recommended technical level for the anatomy of extinct taxa. The RfC can be found at Talk:Jianianhualong#.28Long-belated.29_Rfc_for_level_of_anatomical_detail_in_dinosaur_articles. All discussions should be held there to keep the comments centralized. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon at FA

Okay so I closed the PR and now Megalodon's at FA. Feel free to leave any comments if you so please, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll review it once some less palaeontologically-inclined editors have looked over it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Biarmosuchian genera" and similar categories

I just noticed we have a category for "Biarmosuchian genera"[22], which seems to be redundant, as we already have the category Biarmosuchians.[23] Am I missing something, or should this and any similar category be redirected? Seems Caftaric is making these. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a systemic pattern, and I think it's annoying. Ditto with the ever narrowing "____ first appearances" and such. Splitters gonna split and Hypercategorizers gonna hypercategorize, forever and ever. The itch must be scratched. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In this case, it is probably something that has to be dealt with, since I don't think we have equivalent categories for any other types of animals. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not exactly new, and not limited to extinct groups: Category:Bird genera has been around since 2013, Category:Plant genera since 2008. The parent category seems to be Category:Taxa by rank. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, didn't see that... Hence "am I missing something", but I think in this case, where we only have genus articles anyway, it just seems like duplication. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The plant taxa by rank category tree is pretty well developed. It's spottier with animals, but I think there are some areas where genera are pretty consistently categorized in genus categories (e.g. Category:Spider genera). I agree that it doesn't make much sense for palaeontology where species articles are basically nonexistent. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Creation of these categories is still going on, so I have notified Caftaric of this discussion, as the first ping either didn't go through or was ignored. I wonder whether it is as easy to redirect categories here as on Commons or not... FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Museum für Naturkunde: rename suggested

Hi. Please, have a look at this discussion. The German name is ok... but not if used as the main title for our Wikipedia article. The article has to be titled in English and, in the body of text, this museum also has to be mentioned by an English name... isn't that obvious? Please go to the discussion and share your views. Thank you. Kintaro (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read and add thoughts to the discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Navbox input needed, thanks.--Kevmin § 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pterosaurs asseesment categories

I found 3 sparsely-populated assessment categories relating to Pterosaurs. The category pages did not exist, so I created them crudely as sub-cats of Category:WikiProject Palaeontology articles:

Maybe someone will want to organise them better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Whale-eating sperm whales

I'm wondering if there's some kinda collective name for all the prehistoric whale-eating sperm whales (Zygophyseter, Aulophyseter, Orycterocetus, Acrophyseter, Brygmophyseter, Livyatan)? I always thought it was "killer sperm whales" but apparently that's the common name for only Zygophyseter (as far's I'm aware that is).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, where are the paleobiology and paleocology sections? They are really quite essential for any article about prehistoric animals... The former should consist of functional info you have placed in the descriptive section, and the latter is for ecological/geological context. I wouldn't be able to pass it without those; hyper-lumping of sections doesn't help the reader find the info they are looking for. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
the extent of paleoecology anyone knows about it (as far's I know) is that it most likely ate whales and fish and stuff.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in your other GAN here[24], it is for contemporary species from the same formation, as well as age and geology stuff. Look at virtually any dinosaur or paleo featured article for examples. You had something similar in the megalodon article in the sections about prey and competitors. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay, it's there now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on paleoartist biographies

I've noticed a couple recent articles on current scientific illustrators/paleoartists, e.g. Emily Willoughby and Danielle Dufault. The many red-links at Paleoart suggest more may be on the way. I know we all love anything dino-related but care should be taken to clearly establish notability by third-party sources, avoid excessive reliance on primary sources, and keep a lid on dino-trivia and paleo-cruft like extensive listings of species illustrated. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As for notability, there will probably be "outsiders" who have quarrels about these articles, but let's just deal with that when it comes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, which is why we should strive for highest quality sources to demonstrate notability off the bat (and to respect WP:BLP most of all), exercise discretion about creating articles (or red-linking names) and be willing to put our own biases aside (or at least in perspective) should debates arise. Outsiders are necessary to balance the perspectives of "insiders". --Animalparty! (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Even someone as influential and historically significant as Stephen Czerkas doesn't have an article, which of course doesn't negate these other articles, but it does put things into perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Todd Marshall doesn't either--I realized this morning that his link from Paleoart led to a footballer. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting an article! Abyssal (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Category Changes

Somebody has been running around unilaterally changing lots of established dinosaur categories again. I don't have the time to undo all of them or request a block. Anybody? Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The same user has made other baffling, unneeded categories, as I mentioned before here[25], but doesn't respond to complaints. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely unnecessary category, as all Coelosaurs except birds are prehistoric, and entirely against the concept of defining characteristics for categorization. Some wikignomes just won't stop or discuss. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram help

Im working on a cladogram for Mesembrinella caenozoica and for the life of me I cant figure out how to get rid of the two empty branches that are popping up:

Oestroidea

Other Oestroidea

Ulurumyiidae

Mesembrinellidae

M. species 2

M. species 1

M. latifrons

Any help would be appreciated, the cladogram is based off the one in Cerretti, P; Stireman, JO III; Pape, T; O’Hara, JE; Marinho, MAT; Rognes, K; Grimaldi, DA (2017). "First fossil of an oestroid fly (Diptera: Calyptratae: Oestroidea) and the dating of oestroid divergences". PLOS ONE. 12 (8): e0182101. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1282101C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182101. PMC 5568141. PMID 28832610.

Thanks--Kevmin § 13:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Like this? Loopy30 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kevmin: I haven't looked at the reference, but the parameters to each separate call of {{Clade}} should be numbered sequentially, i.e. 1, 2, 3, ..., whereas you have non-sequential values, which makes it hard to work out what you intended. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Peter, I have now renumbered sequentially. Initially, I was only trying to make the image look right without worrying about the script. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Now the cladogram matches the ref supplied. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Loopy30:Awesome, thanks Loopy30, that's exactly what I was needing. I always struggle with the coding for the trees.--Kevmin § 23:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes to size and weight - Largest prehistoric animals

The article Largest prehistoric animals has recently seen a significant number of changes to size and weight. Please could someone familiar with the subject take a look? diff encompasses the changes. I have also asked on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, size of prehistoric organisms tends to be a common target for vandalism often due to its contentiousness, this is quite frequently seen on the Megalodon article history. Usually the vandals will exaggerate the size of the organism in question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Creation of a Burmese amber Wikipedia article

Currently "Burmese Amber" redirects to the "Amber" wikipedia page, given the enormous diversity of fossils known from this deposit over the past decade or so, it probably deserves it's own Wikipedia article at this point like the Baltic Amber, however I am not sure a biota list would be practical as the most current list has over 668 genera and 870 species, which would probably make it the longest Biota section of any Wikipedia article by several orders of magnitude. Would like to hear your thoughts

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You could create an article at "Burmese amber" that gives an overview, and put the species in a separate List of taxa found in Burmese amber. Wikipedia does have some very long lists of species (e.g. List of Bulbophyllum species should have at least 2000 entries, although I'm not sure if it is complete). Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That's fair for a species list of a single genus, however doing the list like this justice would require multiple layers of subcategories to properly show the taxonomy, which seems to fit better for a page like List of Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation

is there any tools for importing/manipulating table data that would be useful in this case? Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential hoax, or at least needing merging

Hello! The page Limnopodididae, describing an ichnofamily has been suspected of being a hoax (probably because a Google search of the name results in nothing).

There is only one source listed, which is a print source so I can't check it, though it does exist. I think this could also just be a discovery which is potentially not notable, and might be merged with... something else (this is not my wheelhouse). There are also newly created pages for its listed ichnogenera Limnopus (which came up with some hits) and Ichniotherium (which I've just seen is a placeholder name for unidentified trackway makers). I'm not familiar with paleontology enough to determine whether the papers mentioning limnopus are actually referring to the same thing as these articles.

Basically, I think these pages (Limnopodididae, Limnopus, and Ichniotherium), need some knowledgeable eyes on them to determine whether they are hoaxes or just non-notable discoveries which should be merged or deleted. Thanks! -- ElfLady64 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Limnopus is 100% legit. I have the source and can't find Limnopodididae in the section that discusses Limnopus or the index. I likewise can't find mention of Ichniotherium. Abyssal (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Google Scholar shows a lot of academic entries for Limnopus and Ichniotherium, so they are verifiable and notable. I cannot find anything for Limnopodididae as well, however. I do not believe it is a hoax, but probably a classification that was proposed in that source and never accepted elsewhere. I would remove the hoax tag and simply propose it for AfD.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe ping the creator of the articles, @Ozarcusmapesae:. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all. I have done a deep dive and read a bunch of paleoichnology articles trying to figure out what these things are, and have come up with enough material to rework Ichniotherium, though again I am not at all familiar with this kind of stuff so it's possible I could have misunderstood some of my sources. Waiting on @Ozarcusmapesae: to potentially give sources/rewrite before I do anything to the other two, but I am super not experienced with this so if anyone can figure it out, please do! --ElfLady64 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Topics requiring improvement

I think the eurypterids can be removed from "Topics requiring improvement" now. Over the last three months, I have attempted to expand the eurypterid coverage on wikipedia, I created a navbox template, expanded the eurypterid article itself and restored the "List of eurypterids" article. Furthermore, me and Super Dromaeosaurus have created and updated articles so that every genus and clade has an article that at the very least contains the latest available taxonomical information (e.g. classification) and for genera, the species contained in them and where they have been found, with references. All the "notable fossils" in the navbox have somewhat decent (at the very least not stub) articles.

Overall, there are still improvements that could be made in many of the articles (particularly the obscure genera that are difficult to find anything on at all) but there are other subjects and groups that are significantly worse off in coverage. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to expand one eurypterid article to the point where it can act as an example for the others. Eurypterus itself came pretty far in that regard once. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose that would be good. Eurypterus is by far the most comprehensive of the eurypterid articles so I am not really sure what could be expanded in it, potentially the sections on the individual species. There is also bound to be more that could be written in the "discovery" section (since it stops before the 1900s) and maybe the "popular culture" section as well but it might be difficult to find extensive information for either. I could look into it eventually. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Jaekelopterus could be expanded, as one of the only other "famous" eurypterids". FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
All the ones I put under "notable fossils" in the navbox are really ones that could be expanded, some are "famous" (e.g. Jaekelopterus, Megarachne and Pterygotus), some are taxonomically and phylogenetically important (e.g. Megalograptus and Hughmilleria) and some are important because of their temporal range (e.g. Brachyopterus and Adelophthalmus). I suppose more "famous" ones such as Jaekelopterus are slightly higher in priority than the other ones since logically, more people are searching for information on them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what I've been thinking, generally. The ones that are most often read are in a sense "ambassador-taxa" for their respective groups, and if we want to target most readers, that's where we should focus. Seems like Jaekelopterus is by far our most read eurypterid article, with over 1500 hits a day. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. 1500 hits a day has got to be way too high though, comparing the five eurypterids I would consider moderately "famous" (link), Jaekelopterus and Megarachne seem to be rather equal in pageviews, beating the other three by quite a lot, which should make both of them priorities to be expanded upon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, of course, make that 20 days. Didn't expect Megarachne to lead, but never underestimate the power of the Walking With series... But all this being said, people should of course just work on whatever they want, if an editor really likes some obscure taxon, there will be more motivation to expand its article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations with the first ever eurypterid GA, Ichthyovenator! FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Hopefully there will be more to come. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If we’re doing mosasaurs, I’d like to see either Tylosaurus or Hainosaurus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
As for mosasaurs, I was planning on going over my stuff in the Prognathodon article at some point, though I think I'm going to focus on the eurypterids a while longer. In addition to the mosasaurs mentioned by Dunkleosteus77 above, I think Platecarpus and Mosasaurus itself would be good candidates to be expanded upon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally I'd find one of the old wastebasket mosasaurs difficult due to the many species involved which are constantly moved around, and take something monotypic. But Ichthyovenator did a pretty good job at handling Prognathodon, which has that exact problem, so it should be doable. IJReid also seems to be getting close with the monotypic Goronyosaurus, so that would probably be easy to push over the edge. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I also noticed Fanboyphilosopher massively expanded Tasmaniosaurus, looks good! Basal archosauromorphs are certainly also under-represented among quality articles... FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm happy to expand on basal archosauromorphs (although I also like working on enantiornitheans and rhynchocephalians) as there is certainly a shortage of quality articles on them. Even the page for Macrocnemus, one of the most abundant of the group, was infested with Dave Peters' "info" before I rewrote it. I'm usually quite busy with schoolwork, but I'll do what I can. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can't really copyright a phylogenetic hypothesis, right? So... theoretically, if I encounter a cladogram in a scientific paper, there's nothing stopping me from drawing up my own depiction of that phylogenetic hypothesis and uploading it to the commons, right? On that note what software do you guys use to draw cladograms? Abyssal (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just a list of names, with no artistic value, so not copyrightable. But having cladograms in-text is much preferred over images, since they can contain links. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I was mainly thinking more for out-dated cladograms not currently in articles being archived on the commons. Abyssal (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia cladograms are made in edit source. You'll need a bit of practice, but there's probably a tutorial somewhere. Cladograms are part of a scientific paper's results, so a cladogram submitted without a source is basically original research, which is not allowed. As long as you don't update a cladogram with your own original research (or some Frankenstein-esque mashup of new and old phylogenetic hypotheses), there's nothing wrong with putting a published cladogram on a wikipedia page, though make sure the source is cited. My biggest pet peeve is when people change cladograms regardless of the results of the cladogram's source. Like what's the point in citing "so-and-so" as the source of the cladogram if the cladogram includes the results of "what's-his-name" instead. Sorry, I'm just ranting. If you don't do that, you'll be fine, though always click show preview before you publish your edit to catch if the formatting is messed up. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Bird stub

I published a fossil bird stub. English is not my best language. Please clean it up and add to it, if you can. Thank you. [28] --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:E828:E5F3:D3B:BDF3 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

your grammar's fine, just a couple of wikilink things. By the way, unless it's in the taxobox, when mentioning a person for the first time in an article, use their full name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus

A. N. Riabinin described a single phalanx from a flipper in 1915 as E. (?) sachalinensis; the species was named after the island of Sakhalin, where N. N. Tikhonovich found it in 1919. Really? Found in 1919, descibed in 1915? Mpn (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Source actually says 1909. Corrected. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandasuchus

Could someone knowledgeable construct Template:Taxonomy/Mandasuchus so that the taxobox in the article works? The article says "Mandasuchus is an extinct genus of paracrocodylomorph pseudosuchian" but if you look at Template:Taxonomy/Paracrocodylomorpha and Template:Taxonomy/Pseudosuchia, the taxonomic hierarchies don't overlap, so on this basis a taxon can't be shown in an automated taxobox as a "paracrocodylomorph pseudosuchian". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I just placed it in Paracrocodylomorpha, as the description[29] article indicates. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but should Pseudosuchia appear in the taxonomic hierarchy for Paracrocodylomorpha? It doesn't at present at Template:Taxonomy/Paracrocodylomorpha. This is one of the oddities created by the need to have skip taxonomy templates to allow different classifications for dinosaurs and birds in their respective articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I think Pseudosuchia is an informal or controversial term today not used in cladistics anyway, but I'm not sure... Like for example Labyrinthodontia or Prosauropoda. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If so, then Mandasuchus shouldn't start by saying that it's a "paracrocodylomorph pseudosuchian". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The headline of the description paper says the same, so at least it's sourced... FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Paracrocodylomorpha is unequivocally part of Pseudosuchia, but the Paracrocodylomorpha taxobox skipped Pseudosuchia for some reason, which I've now fixed. And Pseudosuchia is far from a poorly-used or confusing term, it's basically just the clade of all archosaurs closer to crocodiles than to birds. It's not like the other examples given, which are grades. Pretty much every cladistic analysis focusing on archosaurs considers Pseudosuchia to be valid. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice on Alcione elainus

Hi guys, I just want to let you know that I created the page Alcione elainus, which was deleted based on reasons above. However, since it's from the same paper as Tethydraco, which has its own article, I saw no reason as why to not create it, so I did. I hope that this was okay. Also, it would be helpful if someone could upload some more of the files from Longrich et. al. to Wiki Commons. Thanks for any feedback in advance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, when dealing with genera with only one species it is still appropriate to title the article with only the genus name, so the article should be titled Alcione. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
In general, yes, but in this case Alcione is a disambiguation page, so then the article should be at the species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay, right. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, since no one seems to object, I'll go ahead and work on Barbaridactylus and Simurghia sometime today. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: which images were you thinking of? It's PLOS Biology, so no licensing issues, but the only Alcione-specific images seem to be bone fragments in situ - not very enlightening. There's a full tree [30] but that might be a bit overkill. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess the holotype would be the most important. I am aware of the free license, but my computer takes a loooooonnngg time to download the original PNG files. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded [31]. Compressed a little but still 6.5MB. Honestly not sure how beneficial this image would be for the article, but you decide :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If an animal is only known from scrap, an image says more than a thousand words. Can't imagine the layman reader getting much from simply reading a description of those bones... FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fossil felid articles, and lack thereof

I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and am very interested in paleontology. I am also interested in all members of the family Felidae (cats). As I have been reading through the available article on the various cat species/genera/other taxa, I have noticed that the info on the prehistoric species/genera is pretty sparse... Most articles are stubs, and many genera don't have an article, period.

That all said, I have limited access to scientific papers, and an even more limited ability to understand them. If possible, would some other, more experience and/or knowledgeable editors please help me fill out the various felids? Thanks for any help.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Journal articles can often be found online, or at least their abstracts. I have started many articles just based on that, few editors actually have journal access. So if you know which genera you want to create articles about, you can find relevant articles through Google scholar, and use them as sources for short articles. Also note that we usually don't make separate articles about prehistoric species, but keep focus on the genus level. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of this WikiProject's general guidelines for articles on fossil genera/species. Thanks for responding so quickly.
Part of the problem is, there are no sources listed for most of the redlink genera. And the taxonomic nightmare that is the cat family makes it difficult to determine which are synonyms for other taxa. For instance, the link for subfamily Proailurinae redirects to Proailurus- but the source I have access to (Big Cats and their fossil relatives, by Alan Turner) suggests that Proailurus and Pseudaelurus share a subfamily. And then there's that list of redlinks under Felinae- no sources for most of them.
I have limited internet access, and finals are coming up, so I won't be able to do as much as I'd like. And once summer comes around, my internet access will be even worse. So basically, I'd prefer that another editor(s) help work on the felidae articles, since my own work won't be very good.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A good preliminary source for taxonomy is Fossilworks. See for example the page on Proailurus:[32] As for who does the article creation, well, there are probably thousands of prehistoric genera that need articles, so I wouldn't count on others doing the work if they don't have a special interest in a given group. Everyone here is just a volunteer, and usually have their own agendas. I have created a couple of articles about prehistoric felids in the past (Rhizosmilodon, Amphimachairodus), but article creation isn't really my favourite type of occupation here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Welcome to Wikipedia. Using a uniform taxonomy across many articles can sometimes be tricky: Fossilworks may be good as a reference to to major papers and classification schemes, but may be out of date. More recent scientific papers may propose new classification or synonyms, and/or newer scholarly books may offer context on competing classifications. The best I can recommend is to strive to find a consensus classification (e.g. one that appears in the majority of reasonably recent sources) and use that as a taxonomic baseline/backbone, and explain any significant departures/updates in text. For example:" Foogenus was long regarded as the sole member of the subfamily Foogeinae,[1][2][3] yet some authors also recognize Boogenus as a second genus in Foogeinae,[4][5] while others regard it as synonymous with Foogenus.[6] An unnamed species described in 2018 was tentatively identified as a stem foogein.[7]". --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Alopias grandis ref

Can someone find the reference for the original description of Alopias grandis Leriche 1942? Another near-worthless Bubblesorg production that I had to cut down to bare bones - not sure this is even worth an article as a palaeo-species. In any case, original publication is surprisingly hard to unearth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You can find the Memoir on Google Books, but you can't see anything inside it. One for a library visit I think, although my local library (Geological Society in London) doesn't appear to stock it, which isn't encouraging. I tried the SGF website, but I couldn't even find a simple listing of its memoirs and searching on their website for Leriche found nothing. Only two places in Paris seem to hold a copy and only one (the Sainte-Geneviève Library) has it available on what I take to be inter library loan. Mikenorton (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the exact reference specification would do (no real need to look inside)... but I cannae google it, cap'n. It's not on WoRMS or CoL, which I find suspicious... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Synapsids

I have recently proposed to create a new WikiProject (WikiProject:Synapsids) that would be part of this WikiProject family tree. I would like anyone to make comments and discuss it on the Proposal (link to discussion in section title). Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Late Pleistocene ground sloths Articles for creation

When a new dinosaur is published, it usually takes only a few days or often less than 24 hours for an article to be created. However for some late pleistocene taxa, it seems that the article is only created if I am aware of the taxon in question and create the article myself, which means it can be over a year before the taxon is given a wikipedia article. As far as I am concerned any article of a late pleistocene taxon that would have been alive at the point of ameridinian arrival is a priority for Wikipedia article creation, given the limited number of such taxa likely to exist. Many new late pleistocene taxa (particularly ground sloths) are coming out of central america and northern south america over the past few years, and because of the obscurity of the topic I find it difficult to know when new taxa have been described, do you have any recommendations for keeping up with newly described taxa aside from checking the Paleontology in X year articles? Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is a resource that specifically reports new Pleistocene taxa or xenarthrans. Other than checking the websites of the journals that might publish articles naming new taxa from this time period, you might want to consider following Paleowire on Twitter - though keep in mind that they report publications about paleontology in general, not just about Pleistocene taxa.--Macrochelys (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a vertpaleo mailing list where such info might be posted? The dinosaur mailing list is at least how I get updated on new dinosaur papers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Been thinking about this - is there enough energy to set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Palaeontology collaboration in the manner of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration? My thinking is that (a bit similar to kids' books) we have a situation where Good/Featured paleontological material outside dinosaurs is pretty meager, and feasibly a lot of broader topics could be covered...like the eras, periods and epochs, or mass extinctions, or ancient orders/classes/families for instance. The good thing about setting it up like the dino one (i.e. a new collaboration is only chosen once old one reaches GA-hood) is that the time limit is very flexible. Anyway, if at least a few people think this is viable I can set it up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Cwmhiraeth once suggested work on extinction, which I found pretty daunting at the time, but maybe articles like that would be easier as a group-effort. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Extinction is an interesting topic, but paleontology is not my sphere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this discussion anyways? If we're all joining forces I'm happy to support wherever I can. Are we only targeting high- and top-importance articles or are middle-importance and so-forth okay? Do we have the goal of getting the target article to FA (it's definitely possible especially with a lot of us)? Are we going with articles only starting at C-class and below or are B-classers fine?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Shall we do a geological period or era

Thought about this some more - this is about the best way I can think of to do a geological period, of which none are GA or FA. We have Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and Chicxulub crater at FA level..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we have any featured articles for geological formations either. Geologic periods are very broad topics and without a template i'm not sure what specific information would be needed to make the article comprehensive enough to make it GA/FA. I know that the world maps got removed from the articles a while back. I think it was that either the world maps only showed a single interval of time and weren't representative of the whole period, or it was due to Ron Blakey who makes the maps forming Colorado Plateau Geosystems and commercializing his work, making it's inclusion in Wikipedia no longer free. Either way I think that the maps should be re-created, but this time showing several images to show the movement of the continents over the period, which should make it much more representative. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
On templates/precedents, few periods and formations have been nominated for GA before, but never passed, such as Kirtlandian and Honda Group, Colombia. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
do we wanna do a really famous formation like the La Brea tar pits? I can sort of imagine what a GA version’d look like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly a worthy subject, though I don't think it is technically a "formation". William Harris might also be interested in that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, based on the radio-carbon dating of the removed specimens, the La Brea tar pits date back only 30-40k years ago. So we would be looking at only the very latest Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. William Harris • (talk) • 01:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Original description of Parahughmilleria matarakensis

I am working on the Parahughmilleria article and I can not find the original description of the species P. matakarensis. It's strange, since I know the name and author, but I can not find it in Google Scholar, Google Books or BHL. The complete citation of the document is:

Pirozhnikov, L. P. 1957. Remains of Gigantostraca from the series of Matakara (Devonian of the North Minusinsk Depression). Vsesoyuznoe Paleontologichesko Obshchestvo Eze-godnik, 16, 207–213.

Could someone try to find it? Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't tried, WP:RX is always the best bet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will go to make the request. Super Ψ Dro 18:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I fear Ozarcusmapesae is back and in full swing

See the above discussion for background. I'm getting the impression that Ozarcusmapesae, blocked 11 March with a full drawer (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#User:Ozarcusmapesae), is back as Laossaurus, registered 5 April. Same modus operandi: basically unsourced stubs about obscure genera (Nicksaurus; Gspsaurus; Rarosaurus; Sidormimus - the first two apparently derived from a welter of salami-sliced conference proceedings by the same author [33],[34], the others unfindable), pushing nomina dubia (Gronausaurus - history:[35]). Could people please have a look at these and comment? If you agree, a speedy SPI would be indicated, as this guy has an enormous output, and is already becoming a bleedin' timesink again. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archives/ 27#Problematic taxonomy; definitely wasting my time! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I found that user suspicious before, but I didn't see any direct wrong doing. In any case, if it is a sock, that is reason alone for being blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, an SPI is in order. Walks like a WP:DUCK. Loopy30 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Well what do you know - that was almost instantaneous :) [36] Righto, now we have to sift the rubble. Never quite sure - I assume one can't just wipe the entire production on grounds of being produced by a sockpuppet? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
AFD'd Sidormimus already, on factual grounds. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC) - and closed debris now.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Could Bubblesorg be another one? FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Judging by his edits, I think that is unlikely, they seems to be more inexperienced at editing wikipedia. Most likely a Paleontology enthusiast in their teens. Most of their articles represent genuine things, like the australian spinosaurid, and the prehistoric kingdom game. It's just most of it is clumsily executed, without forward planning or an understanding how wikipedia operates. Which is very different from the deliberate trolling of Ozarcusmapesae making up fake taxa. I don't think we should come down too hard on them because there are only a handful of regular Paleontology wikipedia editors to begin with. A message should probably be left on their talk page explaining how wikipedia works and giving them editing advice though. A lot of people are overtly hostile to new wikipedia editors who don't quite understand the rules and I think we need to do better in this regard Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The first two seem real enough; Rarosaurus probably came from the Spanish wiki since it looks like it's the same article word-for-word; and Sidormimus derives from here, and this page lists a couple journal articles as references for the thing (though the former link says that Sidormimus is an unofficial name). I don't think s/he's intentionally causing any harm here, I just think they're trying their best   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Also I feel like these investigations should take longer. The account was blocked 22 minutes after the official complaint; this was an open-shut case, the user didn't even get the chance to come down and defend themselves   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I now realize Hemiauchenia was talking about Bubblesorg, but still, I feel Bubblesorg and Lapitavenator are not puppets, they're just new to Wikipedia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree, Bubblesorg seems unconnected - just finding their feet. - Re Laossaurus, a CU was done, and AFAIK these don't throw up false positives (although they are prone to false negatives); and lo, the penalty for socking be death. Anyway, Ozarcusmapesae produced some valid material as well, the problem was that it was mixed with so much crap that eveything had to be double-checked... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If Ozarcusmapesae and their many confirmed socks are just young, this doesn't excuse why they keep ignoring repeated warnings about not making hoaxes and uploading copyright violations. At one point, it just makes more trouble than gain, and that happened long ago. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The fact that we are taking about them behind their backs like this just isn't helpful. If someone is not obviously a very deliberate troll or vandal, a friendly but stern message should be left on their talk page going over etiquette and editing tips, (most notably sandbox use). It'd be much better if Wikipedia had some kind of direct message function, but alas. I think if a new user is enthusiastic about creating articles, as long as they are not deliberately fake, they should be encouraged. The trend to AfD new users articles or liberally revert their edits is one of the main reasons that new users don't stick around and why the userbase has been in decline since 2009. Learning proper Wikipedia formatting is a steep learning curve for most people and the use of the sandbox as a testing ground to get a sense of Wikipedia formatting is not emphasized enough in the new user experience. I don't think that having a couple of poor quality pages detracts significantly from the encyclopedia, and the AfD first, ask questions later approach of some of the new page patrollers is churlish and unhelpful. It's quite clear from the AfD for Bubblesorg's article Australian Spinosaurid that they had not done a basic google search on the topic. On upload copyright violation, It's quite easy to do to be honest. Most people don't really understand copyright of images (see Getty images suing people over using stock images they got from google images), and just simply having the image deleted and a copyright warning on their talk page is not useful feedback on what they did wrong and what they need to do next time. The whole selection of fair use justifications and creative commons licenses is byzantine for a new user, and is not adequately explained properly. It's also not clear to a new user that there is a distinction between uploading to Wikipedia, which allows fair use, and Commons, which does not. These issues are largely the result of new users being thrown in the deep end without strong guidance, or a proper tutorial, which particularly with adolescents is going to lead to issues. The fact that new users are more likely to be reverted when their edits would not be reverted if an experienced user had made them is also unhelpful in this regard. For the most part, the banning process should last longer to get a better understanding of the user and their motivations. The fact that it is difficult to actually talk to the user directly to get them to engage is incredibly frustrating and is probably one of wikipedia's worst issues.

If I had a guess Ozarcusmapesae is around 10 years old, give or take a few years, I remember when I was 10 I was an idiot and probably would have made wikipedia edits like that, I'd imagine that for a 10 year old, understanding wikipedia formatting and etiquette, image upload copyright and so on is daunting. and to have adults expect you to respond like an Adult with clear and well reasoned arguments is also pretty intimidating. I think that Ozarcusmapesae and their sockpuppets are acting in good faith. Most of their edits are at least constructive, if incompetent and sloppy. I totally agree that they were being disruptive, but this is more a result of being unable to efficiently communicate. I remember making some sloppy edits as an IP user many years ago, and I think we can all do better at being more welcoming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, friendly messages have been placed on their talk pages, but there was never any response. The user even admitted to be making hoaxes at one point. Cleaning up is one thing, but when repeated warnings are ignore,d it simply isn't worth it. In any case, having sock puppets is not allowed, and that's the reason why the person was blocked, not their edits. This is a very clear Wikipedia policy, and anyone who does it gets blocked, it isn't rocket science. As for "talking behind their back", it is hard to talk to someone who is blocked and who doesn't listen anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I don't disagree, the kid (Ozarcusmapesae) is clearly immature and not ready to contribute to an encyclopedia. I can see them being allowed to create a new account a few years down the line when they are more mature and willing to contribute properly, I don't think sockpupptery is worthy of a ban for life if you're just a kid at the time. My main point was a lack of direct messaging makes it difficult to get through to people like that, and if such a system was in place we might have gotten a response from them. and my talking behind the back comment was about bubblesorg, who does seem to be ready to contribute to an encyclopedia, just unfamiliar with the system. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Bubbles is probably alright, but sock puppeteering always makes one suspicious, there is also one Hungarian guy who keeps returning with new sock puppets and IPs only to edit war over size estimate minutiae. It gets very tiresome in the long run. As for Ozarcusmapesae, we can't be sure it's a kid, though. Some of their edits seem a bit too advanced, so the worst case scenario is that they are making some valid edits to mask their hoaxes. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Bubblesorg is innocent and ignorant from my perspective, although he does seem to have a sockpuppet called Richard.sutt. I'm pretty sure other users such as Hallothere! are the same way. Ozarcusmapesae, on the other hand, is editing maliciously as a vandal. The one response we have gotten from that user was him simply saying "hoax" after FunkMonk called out one of his articles. Sockpuppeting is not the main issue here, it's vandalism. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't disagree there, I'm pretty sure they are a kid as I remember seeing one of Ozarcusmapesae or his sockpuppets creating the article for "battle for dream island", which is a amateur flash youtube series aimed at childen, I can't imagine an adult making that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That does make sense, although even then that's not much of an excuse for his actions. Also, I just left a comment on the talk page for Bubblesorg and Richard.sutt, asking him (them?) to stop sockpuppeting for their own safety lest they be confused with Ozarcusmapesae. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Just as a further note, bubblesorg has created a somewhat disjointed userpage where he states that he is six years old. For a six year old he is remarkably coherent and knowledgeable and seems to be engaging with editors now, I think we should cut him some slack since he is so young and seems to edit in good faith, and is clearly learning from his mistakes Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As others have noted, Bubblesorg is growing increasingly disruptive, adding nonsense, copyrighted images, "range maps" that show entire countries, and similar to many articles, which results in a heck of a lot of clean up/waste of time. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)) Hi this is bubbles org I am a teen Biology and space enthusiast who is interested in Paleontology. NO I AM NOT RICHARD SUTT and I AM NOT 6 Years Old i would be in the news if that were true. I am around 12-15 years old (true age kept anonymous) and wanted to say that yes I can be ignorant which I apologize I will use the sandbox to experiment around. Look on the bright size at least i created a Ganges river Dolphin page that lasted instead of being redirected to South ASIAN RIVER DOLPHIN.

I was a late teen too when I began editing Wikipedia, and many of my early edits were admittedly junk. So of course, you should continue editing, but when people warn you that something is a bad idea, you should stop and consider it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I still am a late teen. Try seeing what other more experienced editors do to get a better feel for Wikipedia, read through featured articles to get an idea as to how good writing is defined around here (specifically articles somehow related to your field), or use the Show preview function before saving if you wanna experiment with templates without saving anything (unless it turns out really well)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m Richard.sutt and I assure you I am not him. I’m a teen from Toronto.

And if that's not enough, Laelaps aquilunguis gets its own article, too! Both of these articles are by one of Lapitavenator(=Ozcusmapseae)'s socks (Beaudesertoceratops). At least there's an obvious redirect for this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The latter article should be redirected, and the Zuni theropod article is kind of an ethical problem, I don't think we should have any articles about animals that are soon to be named and described. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This banned user just returned as Sus memes, who was also just blocked, but it poses a new problem. In addition to being disruptive, this guy has also mass created a lot of articles about taxa that actually exist, which is a good thing, but many of these get deleted after their accounts are blocked. Which means the articles have to be created again, as happened with some of these newly described Moroccan pterosaurs, and some other articles will likely go that way too, see for example the list of new articles here:[38] So I'm not sure how, but I think the user's crated articles should be evaluated before they are mass deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Jusjih and SamHolt6, who handled some of the user's articles after block. Maybe the user's articles can be listed on this talk page for evaluation before being deleted in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate situation given some of Sus Meme's content, but I agree with the above that not all of their work should be deleted. I would recommend instead that their articles be unilaterally draftifed and then looked over by editors with experience editing topics related to paleontology before being returned to the mainspace. I will also note that every aspect of these articles needs to be picked over, especially references; when I looked over User:Sus memes/Gumshoe (detective), I found that they had intentionally miss-represented images and had cited a number of fake sources, including text sources, and this needs to be considered when evaluating any of Sus Meme's articles.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Idoptilus

can someone make an article about this insect Idoptilus it is dated back to Carboniferous, it is the evidence of the evolution of the flying insects, that has 2 wings fair like structure. (info came from [39]) 49.145.246.5 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Cecilia Apaldetti

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cecilia Apaldetti of the National University of San Juan in Argentina seems to be a notable palaeontologist, but there is no Wikipedia article on her. See Ingentia and the Google Scholar search above. If you think that she is notable by Wiki standards, you might want to start an article on her. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Palaeontology is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 52.9% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of Chasmoporthetes

The article on Chasmaporthetes currently claims that the animal's name means 'he who saw the canyon', providing a reference to D. MacDonald, The Velvet Claw, a companion book for a BBC documentary series. This etymology is wrong. Chasmaporthetes means 'canyon ravager', from χάσμα (canyon) and πορθητἠς (ravager). See the definition in the LSJ, the standard dictionary of ancient Greek.[40] I've tried to change the article, but User:Apokryltaros reverts without discussion, so I thought it best to bring it here. Furius (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

First off, I am not the only editor to revert you, secondly, I would think it would be unwise to put all of our faith in a dictionary, especially when there are legions of scientific names relying on hidden double, triple or even quadruple meanings. Or, is it just too hard to look for the original paper?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither translation is supported by the original source, which only says "The name of this makes allusion to the Grand Canyon, whose beginning this animal may have witnessed." 2001:569:782B:7A00:44ED:FE73:AE08:3649 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Im being bold and removing it totally until the original description can be used as a reference. No source other then the original author should ever be used for an etymology, and we at no point should be using pseudo etymology parlance such as "canyon ravager", as that is rarely to never actually something used by anyone other then third party translations. If Hay in 1921 did not provide an etymology, and such translations such as that done from trying to look at the root words by Wiki editors is pure WP:OR --Kevmin § 04:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Article ready for promotion for stub to start-class?

I was wondering if Barbaridactylus is ready to become a start-class article? It currently has no paleobiology section, but I think that that's okay for now. Any input? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think you need to ask when upgrading a stub to a start if it's clearly there, that's definitely not a stub class article, however the remains are pretty scrappy so I'm not sure how much more you'll be able to write about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think anything beyond a couple of sentences can be start class. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Smilodon for deletion

The Category:Smilodon has been nominated for deletion. It has only one page in it (Smilodon) and is unlikely to have any more pages added, because Smilodon is a felid genus.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Weird, I wonder why that category was made in the first place. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The individual species each used to have their own articles, it seems. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC being planned

Please see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_genetics_studies. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge La Huérguina Formation and Las Hoyas

These two articles represent the same formation, and I see no reason for them to be separate, but I would like input on The talk page

Brazilian formations need updating

It's come to my attention that Tisquesusa was quite right with this edit: [41], I almost forgot about it until I reread the research paper on that Brazilian spinosaur tibia[42]. The Santana Formation has now been elevated to the Santana Group, and the Ipubi, Crato, and Romualdo Members are now all formations. This is honestly a bit of an annoyance for my current expansion of Irritator, but many articles will need to get updated and some (geology ones) moved or created. Notifying FunkMonk since he's got his own project with Thalassodromeus from the same formation/group. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoGeekSquared: Ha, if you think the Brazilian formations are a "mess", take a look at the Argentinian ones... ;) I have been working on it for a week now and solved some issues, but there is an awful lot to do still. I am not quite sure if the Santana Formation became a group, from what I've read (and put into the Araripe Basin article), is that the Santana Formation still is a formation, but that the other, former, members are split from it, and they all belong to the Araripe Group. I can read Portuguese, so can work on it in the next weeks to get the issue solved a bit better from the original and most up-to-date sources, a good start I think is the Scherer et al. article, from 2013, linked in the basin article. The 2016 article about the fossil feathers uses Santana Formation, so I don't think that became elevated to a group, rather that the other formations were split from it. What would be nice is to have them described, also to show the paleoenvironmental evolution of the small basin through time and how that relates to the paleofauna found.
Oh and thanks for linking that paper, it is the most recent from May this year. The aquatic (and quadrupal vs bipedal-prone) Spinos, that is an ongoing debate I read... Tisquesusa (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Could use a source for the upgrade from group to add to the articles. If those members are really formations now, they should all have articles... FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
They should, definitely. The Crato-Santana-Exu sequence is notable enough and the formations in between need articles too. Hence my work on the basin article where you find the different formations of the Araripe Group. Did some rewriting on the Irritator article, a useful recommendation is to always use convert temps, as FACs require those anyway and it's easier. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
There is also the fact that the Alcântara Formation, home of Oxalaia, is technically part of the Itapecuru Formation, some workers use the Itapecuru Group, but the term Itapecuru Formation still seems to be in use by some workers. This seems to stem from the fact that Brazil lacks a formal stratigraphy commission, and the last time that there was a formal stratigraphic lexicon was 1984, any revisions given since then are informal. Given the old adage that if you ask two geologists to interpret the same rock sequence they'll interpret it two different ways, stuff like this seems inevitable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
With this in mind, PaleoGeekSquared, seems we need to completely rewrite the palaeoecology sections of Irritator and Thalassodromeus? FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, FunkMonk. I've been quite busy with Cristatusaurus and just nominated it for GA, so once that's done I'll probably get back to working on Irritator, now that I've got the Angaturama paper handy. Nice to see Thalassodromeus is already on its way to GA as well, though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to copy anything useful from that article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion here for more. It is not just a question of "simple rename", there are more implications of this in both geology and paleontology, as can be seen in the section in the Santana Formation, there are fossils found that are not referenced, so they may have been found in other formations than the "Santana Formation" (now: Romualdo Formation in part or in whole?). Tisquesusa (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

But in that case, the info needs to be moved to another article. In any case, the Santana Formation should be moved to group, changing the name into an entirely different formation, as you suggested, doesn't make much logical sense; the subject of the article is defined by the title, not by the information in it, therefore it is the info that needs to be modified accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Also note that the upcoming FAC nominations Irritator and Thalassodromeus extensively discuss and link to the Romualdo Formation, so it would be nice if someone would make an article for it (it is just a redirect now)... When that is done, there should be few problems with renaming the Santana article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

National Museum of Brazil fire

Just a heads up if someone here didn't see the discussion at the dinosaur project[43]. This is possibly the most catastrophic event in palaeontological science (or science in general?) since WW2. Makes me want to vamp up articles about some of the animals whose holotypes were destroyed... I've been wanting to get Thalassodromeus, whose only known specimen is possibly destroyed, to FAC for a while (as the second pterosaur after Istiodactylus), anyone is of course welcome to join... FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I made some preliminary fixes to Thalassodromeus[44], I'd be happy to provide some assistance, and perhaps I'll do additional work on Irritator as well. If that museum burned down tons of scientific knowledge, perhaps we should give some of that knowledge back. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, and since it is unlikely much more research will be done on these genera (unless more fossils are found or similar), the articles here will be able to hold everything that is ever likely to be known by time of their FACs. If both Irritator and Angaturama fossils have been destroyed, their status as synonyms or not will probably never be solved. On a related note, List of lost, damaged, or destroyed dinosaur specimens will need an update once it has been confirmed which specimens are destroyed, I see the fossils destroyed in Germany during WW2 aren't even there yet... FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Irritator's holotype wasn't there and I've heard conflicting thing about Angaturama's location, so it mmight yet be okay. If the latter isn't, we'll have to come to a decision whether to split the article or not. I suggested it at some point but the attitude was to wait and see what future studies say on the issue, which may not be possible anymore. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've heard conflicting things about both, so we sure need some confirmation... Which should be possible already for the specimens that were not in the museum. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
While we're waiting on that, work has started on Irritator,[45] I think it's the spinosaurid article within the best reach of GA right now, and this situation should help motivate me. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully the postcrania will be described one day, since it is supposedly in Germany, so there'll be a bit of updating to do when the time comes! FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The Irritator postcrania were in the National Museum, we know this for certain because they were on display as opposed to in the collections. No chance at all it survived the fire. The holotype was what was not there based on everything that I've heard. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Bummer... I wonder if casts exist, because those full, mounted skeleton reconstructions must be base don something... If they're not just completely sculpted. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Casts are likely, now that I think of it. The mount in the taxobox image[46] for example appears to be in China or Japan, judging from the flickr page it was collected from and the signs in the background. And I think I've seen images of a similar reconstruction in another country floating around on the internet. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I added information on the size estimates of Irritator to the article[47], is this arrangement in the lead section good or should I stick with the 7.5 to 8 meter range that more recent estimates give? I feel like that would be violating WP:NPOV though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 07:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
It's always good to give a probable range in the intro, and we'll never know the precise length anyway... But the description section should of course go into more detail in what estimates have been given, by who, and why. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I just realised that both Thalassodromeus and Irritator are from the Santana Formation, so maybe we can coordinate the writing of that section when we get there... FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
More expansions to Irritator's paleoecology, and an added citation. Perhaps we can get both Irritator and Thalassodromeus to GA this month, with you doing most of the work on the latter and me on the former. Of course, anyone else is welcome to help! I see some folks already pitching in with Irritator[48] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
And there are of course also plenty of other kinds of taxa to choose from if anyone wants to write a "tribute" article. I also noticed there seems to be a drive[49] to upload photos from the museum to Commons, I just identified a lot of unlabelled skeletal mounts from there... Feels almost like I've been to the museum by browsing through the photos. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Outdent - some of the images look to be uploading to this spot [50] - not sure whether there is a global tag that should be on them all to link them all to the museum? EdwardLane (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All of them seem to be in the correct museum category, only problem is that the subjects of the photos are often unlabelled... For example, this image[51] shows some pterosaur skulls, but I'll have to double check on Google images to see what exact species are shown... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Unidentified palaeontological objects in the National Museum of Brazil

As noted above, a lot of photos from the museum are being uploaded to Commons, many which are unidentified. Here is a gallery of some palaeontological objects form the museum that I couldn't identify, so any help would be great. Some of it may never have even been identified to genus at the museum, so we may never know. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Model silesaur or sauropodomorph?
    Model silesaur or sauropodomorph?
  • Pterosaur snout
    Pterosaur snout
  • Pterosaur wing bones
    Pterosaur wing bones
  • Pterosaur wing bones
    Pterosaur wing bones
  • Pterosaur skulls and model
    Pterosaur skulls and model
  • Pterosaur long bones
    Pterosaur long bones
  • Not sure what the head in the background is, doesn't look like Deinonychus as captioned
    Not sure what the head in the background is, doesn't look like Deinonychus as captioned
  • Plesiosaur model
    Plesiosaur model
  • Same supposed pterosaur snout as above, but here labelled as a fish? Which is it?
    Same supposed pterosaur snout as above, but here labelled as a fish? Which is it?
The text on the label of the third image can almost be made out, looks like "Anhanguera sp." to me but it's impossible to be certain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You are probably right, though it could maybe also be no more specific than Anhangueria or Anhangueridae? FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like it ends in an "a" and not an "e". There is no sign of a "d" near the end that I can spot, so I think that Ichthyovenator is correct. With the pterosaur long bones, the short length of the paired ones suggests that it is a forelimb. I also can see what probably is a pteroid. Not sure what type of pterosaur, but that's at least one piece of the puzzle. I have to have a go at these with Witton's Pterosaurs sometime. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly. If you look above the name there is what I assume is information regarding its classification (as it is indented). The clade above the name of the pterosaur in question here appears to at least begin in the exact same way. Though the names are incredibly blurry I am fairly certain that the pterosaur shares its name with whatever clade it is classified in (at the very least both appear to begin with "A"), as it is for Anhanguera (Anhangueridae). Of course it could also be "Anhangueridae" and then classified under "Anhangueria". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

tangent regarding neotypes

Just in case anyone is wondering if and when a neotype might be designated to replace any destroyed holotypes, the answer is maybe never: see When zoological type specimens are lost: ICZN-compliant guidelines for when and when not to designate neotypes. The takeaway is "there are already thousands of species and subspecies for which the name-bearing type is lost, and the recent event has resulted in thousands more. However, unless the lack of a name-bearing type renders it effectively impossible to distinguish a named species or subspecies from all others similar to it, or to be certain where it lives, a taxonomist cannot validly designate a neotype for that taxon." Per ICZN commissioner Doug Yanega: "only a fraction of those lost types actually require replacement... the situation surrounding each individual type must be taken into account, and only in exceptional cases is it possible to designate a replacement (neotype); doing so requires very explicit justification and documentation. It is entirely likely that only a small fraction of the holotypes that have been lost will fulfill the necessary criteria, thus greatly reducing the burden on the taxonomic community." --Animalparty! (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems designation of neotypes isn't that uncommon in dinosaur palaeontology at least, and often not just because a holotype has been lost, but rather because it was undiagnostic. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Spinosaurus' neotype designation is still causing controversy and disagreement, so people may be more cautious doing something like that in future cases. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Archaea/Species/Fossil taxa/Taxa 'described in' decadal categories submitted to CfD

@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 18#Category:Archaea described in the 1920s, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month

If anyone noticed the WP:Wikipedia Asian Month banner, this could be an opportunity to create articles about fossil Asian taxa, and receive some kind of postcard in return! There is a lot of stuff to grab, including many in free papers with nice images, and so far I've created the following (which require some expansion to apply): Paracancrinos, Parapengornis, Xinjiangchelys, Hakusanobaatar, Panraogallus, and Archaeodobenus. I found a few of these by looking through the List of years in paleontology. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My Siamosaurus suteethorni[52] draft would be perfect for this, but sadly the rules state only new articles apply, not improvements upon present ones. Nevertheless, it did give me the idea of making an article for Varavudh Suteethorn! He's probably the most prominent figure in Thai palaeontology so it's a shame he didn't have an article here. It's my first bio article however, so there might be some issues. I tried my best to read the MoS for these and look at similar articles, though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Cool! There are probably also some other animals from the same formations as some Asian spinosaurs that need articles, if you are a completist... FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems really odd to me it has to be new articles, that lowers the scope so much... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess the point of it is to have new articles created, though. At least in palaeontology, it isn't really hard to find subjects that need articles... And with free available images as well, I created Yubaatar today, for example... And that's just one of a bunch of Asian multituberculates described in free journals I know of... The number of missing arthropods and fish is probably huge... And if one is more into tetrapods, there seem to be a lot of fossil Asian turtle and crown group birds without articles... And I haven't even looked thoroughly at the mammals and squamates. Non-bird Archosaurs are, predictably, pretty much a sea of blue, though... FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And as a bonus, this is a great opportunity for some DYKs.[53] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, makes me think it would be fun to try to get the WP:Four Award from this... FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, I'll probably do that for Atlanticopristis in the future, when I find enough time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Nice, I think I'll try with Spinophorosaurus one day. I've never done a DYK... FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
On the whale side of life, I just created Awadelphis, Archaeophocaena, Miophocaena, Pterophocaena, and Yamatocetus which were all found in Japan some time this decade   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Cool! Now they just need to be 300 words, and you're good to go... It should suffice by just giving a summary of the abstract and conclusion of a paper. But yeah, fossil whales are also pretty neglected around here. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

When was the first dinosaur?

I went to check this edit at evolution of dinosaurs and found that it was less than clear when the first true dinosaurs lived. Before that edit, the evolution article said Ladinian, now changed to Anisian to Carnian. Our dinosaur article gives dates also consistent with the same time range. The sources, however, seem to make it clear that the earliest known true dinosaur is Late Carnian, although the diversity already present at that time suggests an earlier date for their first appearance. This 2016 paper suggests that the earliest dinosaurs are indeed mid-Carnian, based on new zircon ablation dating results that give the earliest known dinosaur an age of 231.4 Ma. Being a relatively new paper, I don't know how widely accepted it is, although I note that it has already been cited 63 times, so that may be a good indication. There may be other papers that I'm unaware of that support older ages for the first true dinosaurs, but if not, then the articles need to be updated. Mikenorton (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a 2018 paper that suggested Staurikosaurus was 233.23mya old. Langer et al 2018. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I did look at that paper too, but the date is very similar and still early to mid-Carnian, rather than Ladinian or Anisian. Mikenorton (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that might also reflect the supposed sauropodomorph identity of Nyasasaurus, which does happen to be poorly dated and rather enigmatic phylogenetically. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
An Anisian date for the first dinosaurs has been estimated because the oldest known silesaurid, Asilisaurus, lived during that stage. As silesaurids are usually considered the sister group of Dinosauria, that means that the first dinosaurs evolved parallel to them, so the earliest dinosaurs must have been at least as old as Asilisaurus based on our current understanding of their relations. However, so far there are no known examples of 100% guaranteed dinosaur fossils from that stage, barring controversial stuff like Nyasaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
So our articles should make it clear that we only have solid evidence for mid-Carnian dinosaurs and that all else is inference. Mikenorton (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Phylogenetic evidence is a solid and generally reliable predictor of Anisian dinosaurs, even if we haven't found the fossils themselves. But if you insist, I just want to note that the Dinosauria taxobox already accounts for both sets of data. While 233.3-0 Mya is the "hard data" green bar, there is also a "soft data" translucent extension of the bar which goes as far back as 243 Mya. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not insisting on anything, the taxobox databar is a good solution and looking through the rest of the Dinosaur article it mostly sounds the necessary degree of caution I think. It's the evolution of dinosaurs article that is in need of some work - it has Nyasasaurus as a "confirmed dinosaur" and doesn't give any uncertainty in the quoted 243 Ma date. Mikenorton (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I certainly agree, though Nyasasaurus is the least of that article's problems. It doesn't even mention Ornithoscelida, and the main image shows prosauropods as a monophyletic group, a hypothesis which has been disproven for decades. We should certainly notify the dinosaur wikiproject about how antiquated the article is. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I confess that I was unaware of the wikiproject - I would perhaps have started this discussion there had I known. Mikenorton (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think everyone on the dinosaur project watches this page too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Prosauropods

I noticed that there is a Category:Prosauropods (0), which contains some basal sauropodomorph taxa. Other basal sauropodomorph taxa however are included within Category:Sauropodomorpha (0), but not Category:Prosauropods. There appears to be no logic as to which taxa have been put in which category. I propose that we place all pages currently in Category:Prosauropods into Category:Sauropodomorpha, doing away with Category:Prosauropods. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The category should be redirected also. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Transferred all pages in Category:Prosauropods (0) to Category:Sauropodomorpha (0). Not sure how to redirect the category. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk)
Replacing the page with this[54] should work. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Synapsid Eothyris compared with "Memeitis" ??

Our article on the synapsid Eothyris says

The skull is short and broad, two features which suggest that Eothyris had a snapping, rapid bite, similar to the Memeitis' bite.[1]

(This is cited to Prehistoric Life: A Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth. Dorling Kindersley. pp. 1–512. ISBN 978-0-7566-9910-9. OCLC 444710202.)

Can anybody make anything of this comparison? "Memeitis"?

- 189.122.238.134 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly deleted it. It was added early last year[55] in a bout of nonsense by this charming vandal. The article should be fully scrutinized. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Ouch, why the heck isn't he blocked? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

New (?) large Triassic dicynodont Lisowicia bojani

New (?) large Triassic dicynodont Lisowicia bojani

Lisowicia was about 4.5 metres (14.7ft) long and 2.6 metres (8.5ft) high ... 40% larger than any dicynodont identified before.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/22/an-elephant-sized-mammal-walked-among-the-dinosaurs-claim-scientists-8166651/

This is obviously from a very "popular press" (silly) article, but if we can find any better sources we should start an article Lisowicia.

- 189.122.238.134 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

[Edit] Likely this - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Dicynodont_from_PolandDB.jpg - "unnamed" as of 2008. - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't' start the article before the name is formally published, but yes, that restoration is most likely it... FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles in Science -

An elephant-sized Late Triassic synapsid with erect limbs

Tomasz Sulej1, Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki2,*

Science 22 Nov 2018: eaal4853 DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4853

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/11/19/science.aal4853

Giant mammal cousin rivaled early dinosaurs

Gretchen Vogel

Science 23 Nov 2018: Vol. 362, Issue 6417, pp. 879 DOI: 10.1126/science.362.6417.879

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6417/879

Does Science count as formal publication? - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The first linked article "An elephant-sized Late Triassic synapsid with erect limbs" is the actual scientific description paper, so use that as the main source Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case, go ahead and create! Not sure if IPs can create articles, though? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Not sure if IPs can create articles". Last time I checked, no they couldn't. Somebody with a registered account will have to start this. - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if it is the same dicynodont mentioned in this 2008 article[56], in that case, we have more free images of it... FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I've started a stub at Lisowicia, feel free to expand. And yes, that 2008 paper is certainly a preliminary report on this animal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting opinions and input on state of the Paleoart article

Over the past several months, I have been doing my best to bring the Paleoart article up to a relatively high standard, using some of the newest sources (such as Mark Witton's recently released book on the subject) to help structure the article. I am now at the point where I have fleshed it out to the best of my ability without outside input from other knowledgeable parties. I would like to eventually get this article up to GA status, but there are a few odds and ends that I can't easily do on my own (somewhat for COI reasons, as I'd like to keep the article as objective as possible...). For now, it would be helpful to have some input on dealing with the many redlinks in the "Notable artists" sections. I have created many stub articles for notable artists here, but I am not knowledgeable enough about those redlinks that remain to be comfortable removing them myself.

Please chime in on anything else that needs work as well: For example, suggestions about images to include (I have not been able to find many images by Dinosaur Renaissance artists that are under CC, for example, which is really a shame), sections to add (or remove, for that matter), or any sources that I have missed in my editing. (And, as always, copyediting is appreciated... think I've done all I can do for now.) Thank you! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem with dinosaur renaissance art is that it is from a window in time just after it could have been public domain due to age, but before CC licensed journals started popping up, and we really don't have much art from that period. There are maybe phots available of some sculptures from the time. We do have photos of some by Stephen Czerkas[57][58] (could be nice with the influential, pre-feathered version), Ron Seguin[59], and Brian Cooley[60] (maybe too recent?). Unfortunately, we can't really use photos of newer sculptures in the US, due to lack of freedom of panorama. But it should be fine for Canadian or British sculptures. Otherwise, maybe skeletal mounts based on paleoart from the time, such as the Rockette Tyrannosaurus[61] (did Bakker base it on the Dinosaur Heresies cover? Maybe I misremember) or the Allosaurus and Stegosaurus in Denver Museum[62] (based on a Gregory Paul painting) could be used somehow... Acta Palaeontologica Polonica made their journal CC licensed retroactively, so maybe there is something from the period in their archives that could be used (though probably not much by western scientists before recently). Anyhow, excellent work so far! FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
There might be something useful on palaeoart in general in the pdf discussed and linked here:[63] FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, FunkMonk--good idea to incorporate skeletal mounts that were based on influential paleoartists of the time (though would be best if I can find one that is mentioned specifically in one of the sources I've been using).
Do you have any suggestions about redlinks in the Notable Artists sections? Stephen Czerkas is certainly notable enough to have an article. Is anyone aware of reliable sources that discuss Scott Hartman, John Bindon, Alain Beneteau, Felipe Elias, Cheung Chungtat, Zhao Chuang, Lida Xing? These artists strike me as intuitively notable, but it is surprisingly hard to find sources that discuss a lot of paleoartists (rather than just publishing their works), which I think might be required to establish notability... -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't know about written sources for those other artists, Ferahgo the Assassin, as for the skeletons, though it isn't a written source, Andrea Cau just linked to this video[64] of Bakker and Attenborough that clearly shows a connection between the Dinosaur Heresies cover and that Tyrannosaurus mount; seems the cover used to hang directly behind it! FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Would Jurassic Park or the Walking With series be considered paleoart, or is it only limited to paintings and drawings?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
While paleoart is not just drawings and paintings, it must be based on scientific consensus at the time. (See the many notable sculptors in the article, such as David Krentz, who has turned his talents to 3D modeling and has worked on models for series such as WWD.) WWD may be borderline. Jurassic Park is certainly not paleoart, but was influenced by the trends of paleoart at the time. JP gets a mention at the end of the Renaissance section, where it is certainly relevant.
That said, the relationship between popular culture and paleoart has been difficult to accurately communicate in this article. I have mentioned the pop culture influences that artists who star in the history of paleoart had, when these influences are pointed out in the tertiary sources I've been using--for example, in addition to JP being an outcome of the dinosaur renaissance, Charles Knight was a major influence on films such as King Kong and Harryhausen films in the '60s. I also began a "Cultural significance" section a number of months ago that may be extraneous now, but I don't feel strongly on it. Either way, we already have a separate article called Cultural depictions of dinosaurs where additional detail on this topic might be better kept. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Presumably you guys discussed this already - what is the status of the images in "All Your Yesterdays"? After all it was available as a free download (although Irregular Books seems to have gone belly up in the meantime?). I'm aware that doesn't say anything about licensing, but the information in the book itself is somewhat ambiguous about the intended copyright level of these. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it, but Ferahgo would be able to confirm, since she has art in the book, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
My first thoughts regarding the text are: great job, quite impressive! I'm pleased to see strong secondary and tertiary sourcing from works expressly about paleoart to keep the scope and content focused, formal, and professional (paleontology topics can sometimes stay into fan-centric dinotrivia, heavy with primary sources and/or disproportionate emphasis). I think a narrow scope is better, and topics like the accuracy and portrayal of prehistoric life better off relegated to spin-offs, such as Cultural depictions of dinosaurs or single-issue topics such as Jurassic World#Scientific accuracy. As for the list of artists, I think some hard discretion and/or objective criteria might be called for, to prevent it becoming indiscriminate, even if verifiable. I appreciate how some entries give some justification or context to the inclusion (e.g. "notable for...", "first to..."). I clicked on Alex Ebel randomly and from that article cannot surmise why he's on the list, and is Darren Naish really known for paleoart? Surely not everyone who's ever drawn a dinosaur professionally should be included. The list here should probably not be exhaustive, lest it exhaust common sense and good taste: we have Category:Paleoartists, and a potential stand-alone spin-off list might be warranted. An encyclopedia article is a summary, not a directory of everything. Similarly, the image gallery should also be scrutinized for relevance and encyclopedic content versus "here is a cool drawing that's freely licensed". WP:GALLERY has more guidance, as Wikipedia is not an image repository. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
On a deeper reading, certain passages stick out as potential novel synthesis, or at least unclear attribution. For instance the statement: "As any cohesive definition of the genre depends on its relationship to scientific knowledge, paleoart can be considered to have originated...", this certainly sounds like someone's particular argument, not a neutral encyclopedic fact. If it is an author's particular point of view, it demands attribution. Conversely, other elements seem unnecessarily attributed: take "Gregory Paul, writing for Scientific American's 2000 volume on paleontology in a chapter dedicated to paleoart..." Do we need to know all this metadata, or can it simply be relegated to the citation (see WP:INTEXT)? Concise writing is key to imparting knowledge. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the great insight, Animalparty! I agree the text could be cleaned up for synth and original research. As for the list of artists and the gallery, I think a good rule of thumb would be to remove everyone who isn't mentioned in text of at least one of the tertiary sources the article is based around (this shouldn't be that hard--there aren't that many), as opposed to having their art simply appear in notable sources. Anyone want to be bold and take a stab at it? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor detailed, but is "lamented" a bit of a strong word to use in reference to Conway, Naish, and Witton's article? Doesn't appear at MOS:WTW but it seems in the spirit of it. I only skimmed the article, but the specific word at least wasn't used by them within it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. Working through the article tightening up text and removing potential synth/OR now... more feedback welcomed! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The sentence as altered is an improvement, but it now uses the word "meme", which is appropriate terminology but which will be confusing to most readers without proper explanation of what it means in this context. I don't think the word should be removed, but the idea needs to be more fully stated. Perhaps split the sentence into two, with a period after "significance of paleoart". Anyways, thanks to you as well - I had no idea Commons had that nice Olorotitan diagram... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I know what meme is supposed to mean in this context but most readers will think of internet memes, so you should probably use “norms” or “ideas”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the article uses the original meaning of the word meme, I don't think we should dumb it down just because the majority of people inaccurately think it specifically refers to Internet pictures. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting second opinion on Macroraptorial sperm whale

I accepted to review the GA nomination of Macroraptorial sperm whale, but I am unsure if this lemma warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, for reasons summarized below. The article is about a paraphyletic group. It is possibly similar to an ecomorph, but it has never been defined in that or another way; instead, the name is merely a descriptive and ad hoc term meaning nothing more than "Sperm whale with macroraptorial lifestyle". I therefore fear that the article suggests that there is a scientific concept behind this term when there is none, and that we have some case of WP:OR here. I am wondering if the content should better be moved to Physeteroidea, and the article reduced to a redirect to that clade (also to avoid content oversplitting). I was not able to come to a conclusion with the author of the article, but we both agree that we would like to hear more opinions from the WikiProject Palaeo people on the matter before we can go on. Thank you, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If no source cover them as a group, we might have a WP:synth problem, yes. I'd support a merge, especially since the article is so short, with all the info already being present in other articles (creating a WP:content fork problem). It is like having a distinct article on herbivorous theropods or similar; we know they exist, but are they a distinct subject that should be covered in a separate article? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
One source says, “At the next branching among stem physeteroids, a clade including Acrophyseter, Brygmophyseter, and Zygophyseter is recovered,” and then it goes on into how Livyatan (the other macroraptorial) fits in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice: Requested some moves

Earlier today, I requested some (hopefully uncontroversial) technical moves at WP:RM/TR. All 9 moves requested were on prehistoric feline articles, mostly to bring the articles' titles in line with other prehistoric feline articles. I left a full explanation of my reasons with my request.

Since these articles are about prehistoric felines, I felt it needful to notify members of this WikiProject. If I am wrong about something, please tell me.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A little help please

I have recently done some major work on Proailurus, but have run into a problem with citing articles. Also, a review of what is already written would be nice.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what your issue is, but if the problem is finding more sources, you should try WP:RX or this. As for using citation templates, just copy them from other pages and fill them out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I put more information about the citation issues on the talk page, but to summarize: I have access to 3 of the 8 sources I cited. The other five are taken from the references of one of the 3 I have. The citation templates are a mess, and I can't figure out how to link from the citation to the online articles.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and the Proailurus article is my first real attempt at major revision & expansion of an article, so I am kinda nervous.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You can check out the citations in the article I'm currently working on (as it doens't have that many citations, it should be easy to check), Xixiasaurus; articles can either be linked by their doi (as in ref 1) or by adding a url field to the template (as in ref 5). Also, it would probably be best to base the article structure on a featured article about a relative, such as Smilodon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You can go to sci-hub to read the full versions journal articles that aren’t free. It doesn’t work on google chrome, you’ll have to use Firefox or bing or safari   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're having issues with citation templates I recommend enabling ProveIt through your preferences. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your refs, it looks like the only problem you have is you keep forgetting the |journal=, |volume=, |issue=, and |pages= parameters and your, right now, lumping all those into the |title= parameter. That’s just the basic error. If we wanna get into the more specifics and scrutinizing, refs in foreign languages needs |trans-title= for the English translation of a title in a foreign language, and a |language= to specify what language the ref is written in. Also, check if a journal has a doi (they might, but they don’t have to) by googling it and seeing if a doi is provided, and if so put it in the |doi= parameter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I have figured it out (mostly), and applied my newfound citation skills to some other articles. Now I just need to track down those other papers... :)--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(Authority, YYYY) Question

Should I be putting Authority, YYYY in parentheses or not? Right now, I am not; but a lot of articles do have them in parentheses. Scientific papers are pretty inconsistent on the matter (even internally inconsistent), so no help there. Any opinions?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello SilverTiger12, the parentheses around the authority and year signify that the species was originally described as being classified in a different genus. An authourity/year without parentheses would indicate that the genus has not changed from the original description. Follow the lead in the source you have found and do not try and change from that. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as an example, see Broad-billed parrot. The original binomial is listed under synonyms, where the authority is not in parenthesis. But the current binomial, with a new genus name, has the authority in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Be aware that there are some sources that omit parentheses which should be included by convention. Fossilworks, Mammal Species of the World, and The Reptile Database all have this issue; it seems that these databases are presenting the authority strictly as "person who described the species" rather than "conventional format for citing taxon authority". If in doubt about whether a given source routinely omits parentheses that should be included, do a search for the taxon name+authority and see what other sources (especially journal articles) do. Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I always use Author YYYY, without parentheses or commas, all small in the infobox. That is the most common use in publications and also how Fossilworks does it. Only if you refer to an author specifically you can use a comma or parentheses, like "as was described in Darwin, 1859" or "according to Darwin (1859) the Galapagos tortoise is growing old". But the species should be "Tortuga galapagosensis Darwin 1859". Tisquesusa (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
That is an unrelated issue, though. Your examples are more about how to cite publications in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The issue is the difference between "Smith, 1978" and "(Smith, 1978)", which have different meanings, as set out in the ICZN, which we rightly follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

'Taxa described in' categories

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Taxa described in that stumbled upon the Category:Taxa by century tree, which was mostly, if not completely, created by the now-banned user Caftaric. I'm wondering if there's any merit to these categories, either in that they serve as a container for "Fossil taxa described in" and "Species described in" categories, or in some other capacity. If so, I will expand them to fill all available/necessary years. If not, I will remove them. Please comment there for Taxa categories and here for Fossil categories.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

'Fossil taxa described in' categories
The first issue to be addressed is what the "Fossil taxa described in" categories are supposed to hold. I see at least two issues in practice:
  1. Ranks that are not covered by the nomenclature codes are included (e.g. orders like Sparassodonta). In such cases, there's no explicit priority for the names, so what does "described in" mean? For species, which is all that is categorized by year of description for extant organisms, there's a clear meaning to "first described in".
  2. Extinct taxa too recent for fossilization are included (e.g. New Zealand coot). Is this intended?
Peter coxhead (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I wish there was at least some feedback from this WikiProject, regardless of direction.
Peter coxhead, perhaps we can reason this out for ourselves here in the void, and someone may chime in if we get too far off target? Worst case, there will be some discussion to point to if/when any action is taken as a result.
  1. What is the reason for excluding ranks higher than species in the 'described in' tree, and does it make sense to apply/restrict fossil taxa to the same logic? Aside from it being part of the category name, 'species' certainly organizes everything nicely, and I'm glad there's no flood of all the various ranks. I don't know what the completeness situation is in paleontology (both on and off-wiki), but I assume it's pretty sparse, so perhaps allowing all ranks makes sense? I don't know if this would be favorable in practice, or if it would make maintenance more difficult than it's worth. It may also suggest to editors that there should be an equivalent set of cats for extant ranks(?).
  2. Based only on the Fossil article, I would assume that moving any 'fossils' less than 99 million years old out of the fossil tree and into the species tree would be uncontroversial.
  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: yes, it's a pity that there seems to be so few editors around now for this kind of discussion. My answers to your questions:
  1. Arguments for restricting ranks to species in 'normal' cases:
    1. We can only go up to families anyway because "described in YEAR" has to mean "described in YEAR according to the relevant nomenclature code", because priority doesn't apply higher.
    2. Genus names depend on a type species, so other than exceptional cases, the year in which the type species was described is the year that the genus in which the species was first placed was described.
    3. We could categorize family level names by year of description; it would look odd, I think, to pick out this group of ranks separately, and I've never seen anyone argue for it.
    4. In principle, fossil taxon names are no different to other taxon names. In practice, because we tend to have articles at the genus only for many fossil taxa, there is a slight argument for treating them differently. However, monospecific genera are in the same situation, and the solution there is to categorize the species redirect, which works for fossil taxa too.
  2. I don't think 99 Mya is the right dividing line. This would exclude Baltic amber, for example, an important source for invertebrates, including the spiders I work on. The WSC's list of fossil spiders includes many from amber sources younger than this. What the right dividing line is I'm not sure; we need more input by editors working in different areas.
Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, re point #1: I completely recursed Category:Fossil taxa by century and found 7131 unique articles. 957 (~13.5%) have titles matching the regex ^\w+ \w+$, i.e. probably binomial species, and a quick visual scan of the titles confirms that. A random but sparse check of the converse, 86.5%, show that they're mostly about extinct genera. So in the interest of least disruption, that should probably be allowed to continue (and that I don't feel like finding all of the species #Rs to genera articles to categorize). That's the best argument I've seen so far (due to a dearth of participation) for 'Fossil taxa described in' categories and, by extension, the 'Taxa described in' categories.
I might try to get a more accurate figure for how many rank-greater-than-genus articles there are in these cats, either via Wikidata or by article-text scraping. If I find something weird, like they're mostly > genus, then that might change things, but I'm betting I won't.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, here's the breakdown by rank of all pages currently in Category:Fossil taxa by century, per Wikidata: 

genus		4716
species		1488
family		 177
order		  38
subfamily	  27
suborder	  12
subspecies	  12
superfamily	   7
infraorder	   6
subclass	   6
class		   4
tribe		   3
superorder	   2
infraclass	   1
phylum		   1
subgenus	   1
null/error	 631
Total		7132

So there are ~284 pages with rank > genus, or ~4%, so I think these can safely be removed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: but this raises the question of whether the species should be here at all: should they be categorized in the normal way under "TAXONOMIC GROUP described in YEAR", or by "Fossil taxa described in YEAR", or by both? Also, the decades and extra layers introduced by Caftaric should be removed, which can be done immediately, to give the now normal straightforward hierarchy:
Fossil taxa by year of description
Fossil taxa described in CENTURY
Fossil taxa described in YEAR
(I think there's now sufficient consensus simply to empty the decade categories and then mark them for rapid deletion, rather than keep going through CfD.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Peter coxhead, I fully recursed Category:Species described in the 18th century through Category:Species described in the 21st century (i.e. the non-fossil analog to Category:Fossil taxa by century), and found ~240,000 unique articles. So somewhere in-between 7k & 240k it makes sense to use more specific categories. I don't know where that would be, but I suspect somewhere in the few-dozen-k range (~260 potential year-cats × ~200 articles/cat = 52k), necessitated by concentration within "several"(purposefully ambiguous) specific years and at least 1 specific species or genus (I don't think only 1 year with many otherwise-branchable articles in it would necessitate branchings for all other years for that type of fossil taxa).
I agree with the above hierarchy; it 1) makes sense at this time in the Fossil tree, 2) is similar to the Species tree, for which there's documented consensus, and 3) causes the least disruption. I'll implement as much of it as I can without interfering with the CfD in the discussion immediately below (which I think contains the remaining "widely implemented" decadal cats). I'll either CSD:C1 going forward, as you suggest, or redirect to slightly-renamed cats, both due to consensus and because most, if not all, of the remaining non-consensus cats are much less frequently implemented throughout the tree. If/when WP:PALEO needs to expand this tree, there should be enough evidence, I think, to point to and to use a system similar to the 'Species' tree, if not by {{Category described in year}}, then by either going up the tree to Category:Taxa by century (which will get a rename) and coming back down the 'Species' side, or by discussions like this and the CfD below.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: all I can say is keep on with the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ootaxa described in YEAR

Today I found the ootaxa-family of year-cats, which currently span from 1975 to 2017, and include only these 25:

Ootaxa seem to be taxonomically special enough to deserve their own separate structure, but I know next to nothing on the matter. Being so sparsely populated, I would like to know what the substantive topic-specific justification(s) is/are for their use. Peter coxhead, do you have an opinion on these? Also pinging the creators of all of these categories @Abyssal, Ashorocetus, and Le Deluge for input.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would make more sense to have a general trace fossil parataxa by year category to include footprint ichnotaxa and coprolites (they get names sometimes, too!). Otherwise they're likely to remain small. There simply are very any few formally described egg taxa. Abyssal (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This makes a lot of sense to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Though do be careful naming the categories since fossil eggs are technically not considered trace fossils. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ashorocetus and Abyssal: what name would you suggest for this overarching category that would include trace fossils and ootaxa? Or, perhaps a trace fossils cat tree can be created ("Category:Trace fossil taxa described in YEAR"?) and ootaxa cats deleted with contents upmerged to the general "fossil taxa" cats?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
What about something like "fossil parataxa described in year"? That way it can include all the taxa from the various "nonstandard" fossil classification systems. Might help us avoid some of the grey areas. But even with that it seems like plant morphotaxa often get discussed as if they were regular taxa. I'm not sure how we should handle those. Is there anyway to be sure what fossil plant taxa are "real" taxa and which are just morphotaxa? Abyssal (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The ICNafp now uses the term fossil-taxon. Art. 11.1: "The use of separate names is allowed for fossil-taxa that represent different parts, life-history stages, or preservational states of what may have been a single organismal taxon or even a single individual". Since both non-fossil and fossil-taxon names are governed by the Code, differing only in this respect, it does seem usual not to distinguish them. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. That makes sense. Abyssal (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So what would the hierarchy look like? I'm having trouble following.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with using the term fossil-taxa, since this could easily be confused with any fossil taxon, and not exclusively parataxa (which is what we are going for, correct?). I think separate categories for fossil animal parataxa and fossil plant morphotaxa would make sense. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't suggesting using fossil-taxa as a general term, merely pointing out that this is now the correct term for groups covered by the ICNafp, not "morphotaxa". Personally, I'm not convinced of the need for a separate hierarchy for plant fossil-taxa as opposed to non-fossil plant taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I misinterpreted what you said. I'll admit my ignorance on the topic of fossil plants. In that case I agree with the category "fossil-taxa" for plants, but for animal trace fossils and egg fossils this is not applicable, since these are distinct classification systems. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly; they are quite distinct systems. This shows up inside Wikipedia too, since the top level in the automated taxobox system is different: ootaxa have the very top level as "Veterovata", ichnotaxa have it as "Ichnos". Ordinary taxa end up at "Life". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Fossil parataxa described in YEAR

From the discussion above, I'll create "Fossil parataxa described in YEAR" categories soon (via move, leaving a redirect), and populate them with the "Ootaxa described in YEAR" contents. This will also remove the small and unnecessary ootaxa category layer (for which there's significant duplication, e.x. Similifaveoloolithus) in Category:Eggshell fossils; the ootaxa articles will be upmerged to "Eggshell fossils".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also created the scaffolding up to and including Category:Fossil parataxa, which could use populating, as it currently only contains Category:Fossil parataxa by year of formal description. I created Category:Fossil parataxa to fit into the status quo (e.g. Category:Plants by year of formal description, Category:Crustaceans by year of formal description, etc., all have their own self-named top-level category Category:Plants, Category:Crustaceans, etc.), but I can remove Category:Fossil parataxa if redundant/unnecessary.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


Is anyone paying a second's attention to WP:OVERCAT and WP:DEFINING? Or is it just OCD splitters-gonna-split ad infinitum.?

There's a lot to read above, but if you do, you'll see that the parataxa categories combine ootaxa and other taxa groups, for the purpose of dissuading ad infinitum splitting, and preventing WP:SMALLCATs, assuming they get populated. And, legitimate WP:OVERCAT instances within Category:Eggshell fossils were removed in the process. These new categories can be revisited in some months' time to allow for population, and another assessment can be made then.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I see that Category:Egg fossils is put in Category:Trace fossils. But egg and eggshell fossils are not trace fossils, they are fossilized parts of organisms or parts of a stage in the life-cycle of organisms. None of the definitions of "trace fossil" I've seen include egg fossils. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: not only that, but Category:Egg fossils is doubly nested under both Category:Trace fossils & Category:Eggshell fossils, so certainly more tidying can be done. So goes the rabbit hole of cleaning though... and I'm afraid that's beyond my current interest & understanding, since it can't be folded into {{Category described in year}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Good points. I've taken it upon myself to correct and simplify the categories. There was no need for separate "Eggshell fossils" and "Egg fossils", so I've moved everything to the latter. I've fixed the stub template to match. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting long pages

Our list of longest pages includes:

I have already made a start in splitting off parts of the first of these. What's the best way to continue this - which other sections can be split off, and what should they be called, as stand-alone articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Synapsids, archosauriforms, and arthropods are typically the first groups to be split off. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are going through those pages, you should probably check for duplicated entries. I've seen some discoveries listed on three different year pages... Which brings up the question: what year should a paper be placed under? The year it became available online, or the year it was published? Because with more recent papers, they might be online before they are published.
For that matter, the entire group of "years in paleontology" pages need a lot of work, especially the older ones.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on new classification scheme

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates

Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Last common ancestors" articles

I just noticed a bunch of hominid articles about "Last common ancestors"[65] of various taxa have been created (by Article editor), but these seem problematic for a bunch of reasons. First off, this should (already) be covered in articles about named clades, making all the info redundant, and second, it is not possible to identify the last common ancestor species of anything that ancient (even if one article misleadingly states "The species, which has not been identified"), and we effectively have an article about something that no one is even looking for. All that can be found is species close to the split. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Deprecated Taxonomy subtemplates

Hey, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Deprecated Taxonomy subtemplates, which needs input from actual editors with with experience in this field. Also worth mentioning that both Template:Taxonomy/Lonchognatha and Lonchognatha have been changed recently. --Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Last remaining manual taxoboxes in WikiProject Primates

Looping ya'll in on this, as the four articles mentioned are all paleotaxa. I'd appreciate some input on these taxonomies.

Thanks. --Nessie (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Needing attention: Eonatator

The text (still?) lists that the genus was found in North America (a.o. the Niobrara Chalk), but Fossilworks lists only Sweden (type) and Colombia. None of the other references seems to indicate this genus also was found in North America and the fossils attributed to the genus may have been recategorized to another genus, but then that needs to be solved. I have removed the categories already and adjusted the time span based on FW, but someone with knowledge of North American paleontology and/or mosasaurs should take a closer look and add references where needed, explain the reclassifications or delete the North American occurrence. Tisquesusa (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Macrospondylus

Can one of you have a look at the recent history of this article, and possibly the other work on the resume of this IP? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that though the paper cited doesn't ally the species in question with the genus it is usually associated with (Steneosaurus), the paper doesn't use the name Macrospondylus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymologies when authors don't explicitly give one

Thalassocnus is at FA, and one of the things that a reviewer brought up is, "[references] simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name." Thoughts and opinions are needed here, and I'd say that sentiment's unfair because it's quite often, I find, that authors don't give etymologies and, given the simplicity of deducing the meaning, it'd be impractical not to take some liberties and cite translator authorities instead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here, with opinions both ways, though I stand on the side of Wikipedia can not "give" an etymology if one has not been given by the author or another reliable source.--Kevmin § 05:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The scientific name should really be considered as a translation from a non-English language, and, "Faithfully translating sourced material into English...is not considered original research" according to WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The key is surely careful wording. In my view, you can always state (with a source of course) what the component parts of the word Thallasocnus mean, but shouldn't state that it is derived from these components unless the author did. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"Home-cooked" etymologies have been accepted at FAC when nothing was stated in the literature. But yes, we should be very careful with such, sometimes names aren't derived from Greek or Latin either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Wording would be key, and avoiding at all costs the "xxxx mean yyy-yyy" style translations that are present in much of the paleontology articles now is paramount. But I still feel that this is more then translating from a different language, since what is being translated is a made up name, with no defined meaning other the what the original author was wanting. I dont think we can really go around OR on this.--Kevmin § 16:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that you can say that it has no defined meaning other than that the original author gave it. A name composed of Greek and Latin roots has a meaning based on those roots; whether the original author knew or intended that meaning is a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Sort of a tangent, but a similar problem exists when attempting to identify honorary eponyms like jacksoni or smithae when the namesake is not explicitly defined. Sometimes it is rather obvious yet unspecified, e.g. "these specimens were collected and sent to me by Dr. Tom Jackson.... hereby describe Foogenus jacksoni n. sp." but in the absence of explicit etymological declaration, "Jackson" could theoretically be Tom's brother, or a different Jackson altogether, and in the absence of reliable secondary confirmation (or at least published speculation that it's probably Tom Jackson), we can't make the inference. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Most recent papers do give etymologies, it is mainly a problem with very old descriptions, from times when it was a given that everyone who read their papers would know Greek and Latin as well. So I'm surprised that etymologies aren't given in the Thalassocnus description, which is form 1995.[66] FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Lets get @Nikkimaria:s opinion on this as they feel that making up etymologies does present a problem for articles.--Kevmin § 22:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's not so straightforward as a simple translation, without knowing what derivation an author intended we shouldn't be guessing at it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
We certainly can’t just not give an etymology, that would leave it terribly incomplete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Why though? Per whom would it be incomplete? Etymology of a new taxon name is something that has only recently become regularly given in the last maybe 20 years, prior to that it was very hit and miss if the describing author gave one or not. I have a number of articles where the authors give etymologies for only some taxa and not all. We here at wiki can NOT give "our" opinion on what a name mean without a source to the author, that is fully Original research.--Kevmin § 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kevmin and Nikkimaria: I continue to disagree. We cannot say what the original author intended if they did not, but we can say what Latin or Greek roots of the name mean (with a source of course). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
In the specific case that kicked this off, the article claims the etymology is ocnus = sloth, but there is another meaning for ocnus. We may think the former is more likely, but without knowing the author's intention it's not appropriate to flat-out state this name comes from the word for sloth. Greek and Latin roots can have more than one definition in themselves, and can also form the basis of words in other languages that may be the true source of the author's naming. It's not as simple as "This name looks like X, and X means Y, therefore this name comes from the Greek/Latin word for Y". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: (1) note that I said "with a source" (2) of course you can't write therefore this name comes from without a source that says this. You could, however, write (with a source for the translation) "in Greek, θάλασσα (thalassa) means 'sea', and οκνός (oknos) 'sluggish, slothful'". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But by putting that under the heading of etymology you imply that that is where the name came from, which may or may not be true. Sourcing a definition is very different from sourcing the etymology. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: agreed that it should not be under the heading "Etymology" – I would never use this heading. It's merely a small part of "Taxonomy". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and very short sections are discouraged in any case. This needs to be a much wider discussion, however, pinging Casliber and Jens Lallensack, who also give etymologies this way sometimes. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I would not add anything that any author has not published, first principles here I reckon, and no matter how obvious or easily discernible the ghost of a fact may be, creating anything to meet a checklist of content is something I avoid (synthesis, OR, and so on). Recent example, I read about a new species named gouldi where the author mentions Gould by name a dozen times but not the intended honour of the epithet. I could only say that Gould presumed it was for himself a few years later, which he explicitly stated, if he had not there is no gaping absence for the reader and I only noted it while looking for something more notable. I'm a wonk about these things, because I don't think it is our business to expound on what an author did not write. I can not translate a name as 'red-headed bastard', but [thankfully] an author did that for me and I can only report that fact. Offering a translation that selects an interpretation is difficult to avoid, and while a circumspect and sourced translation is preferable and 'more neutral' (I don't blink at Peter's solution, for example) it still is likely to creep out as a routine for reviews with the questionable results I have seen in article content. cygnis insignis 15:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to formally weigh in: we should probably not add etymologies when none are given, even if they are true (or very likely to be true). The potential for mistakenly perpetuating falsehoods by well-meaning amateur linguists (us) is too high. And I think even inferring an etymology by providing translations ("I'm just gonna leave this definition here and walk away... not my fault if someone interprets it as an etymology...") is misguided : an analogy would be "Tom Smith is an English biologist.[ref] Smith is a surname meaning one who works with metal".[ref] Both statements may be true, but the implication that Smith was named after metalwork is fallacious. And if there is no published etymology, that's just too bad: it's not a significant omission, nor does it render the article seriously incomplete, anymore than a biography that lacks exact date or place of birth. Sure it may threaten the desired uniformity of our precious Wikipedia articles, but them's the breaks. If it's not published, we don't include it; we don't need disclaimers, inferences, or extraneous commentary. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with others here that we should probably not give one if we don't actually know the authors intended meaning. An example of this is Utahraptor. 'Raptor' usually means 'seizer' or 'thief' and it is often given to dromaeosaurs, however, in the paper that describes Utahraptor they state the etymology is 'Utah's Predator'. This actually caused us problems due to a high number of people changing/reverting it back to an incorrect, assumed etymology. I actually added in some hidden text explaining the situation to try and reduce the number of people changing it. I notice, looking at the Utahraptor page today, that the article is also citing 'Utah's thief' because another palaeontologist has given that etymology in an appendix list of dinosaurs. I guess that raises another question, should we just stick to an authors original intended meaning, or should we also cite other etymologies given by other relevant authors? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In cases like the one you mention, we should just clearly state that the authors gave this meaning, to avoid confusion. And if someone later has given a different one, we should also state it clearly, without stating either as just "facts". FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes we don't know what the author's intended meaning was. though. To summarise how I do it - I don't have a separate etymology section. If possible I find a source where someone has discussed what the meaning of a name is or might be. Sometimes there is a pretty obvious meaning and I don't see a problem in these cases - e.g. the specific epithet of the white-bellied sea eagle is leucogaster - I have no problem in using a lexicon for these and other similarly obvious ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It’d be the same logic as correcting a typo. If an author, on page 8, says something about the subquadrate fenestra (as if there’s anything below the quadrate), are we supposed to write about the subquadrate fenestra or correct it (using the context of the sentence) to supratemporal fenestra?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Dunkleosteus here above; the "task" of a writer is not to blindly copy and paste, but to analyze/process the given information and combine it with other sources if necessary. I normally add a separate etymology section to biology and paleontology articles, because in quite some cases the etymology is interesting enough for a separate chapter (named after people, locations, indigenous languages readers may not have heard of, renamings, awkward/gramatically incorrect terms, etc.). In case there is no definitive etymology for Greek or Latin terms given, that still is useful to add, but then not "Dunkleosteus, from <indicates definitive derivation by the author> dunkleos = X and steos = Y", but "Dunkleosteus, (dunkleos means X and steos refers to Y)" <indicates what those terms mean, without explicitly stating the author intended to name the genus/species like this>. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm late to this conversation, but I think what's overlooked here is that if the original author did not provide an etymology, this should be explicitly noted in the article. It's a solid fact to include. After that is included, translations should be included with some hedging and maybe more than one translation (e.g. acanthus, meaning 'thorn' or 'thistle'). --Nessie (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_11&oldid=1189629524"