Talk:Elasmosaurus

Untitled

OK. I was creating an Elasmosur link from the trivia part of the Giganotosaurus page (to do with Transformers), and I tried to edit the page by getting rid of a picture of a bird that was there for some strange reason. Now the paleobox seems to have disappeared and no matter what I do it won't come back. It wasn't my intention to vandalise anything but I have completely screwe up the page and have no idea how to fix it. Help, anyone? SMegatron 09:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

weren't there elasmosaruses in Ape escape? they gave you rides over the water in the prehistoric stages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.32.150 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy/Paste?

The caption for the [skeletal image] appears to be copy/pasted from http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Eplatyurus.html MikeyMoose (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then just re-word it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: {{italic title}} added by FunkMonk (talk · contribs). No further action required (non-admin housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Elasmosaurus → ''Elasmosaurus'' – Please italicize the title of this article so it is consistant with other article on genera. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not done by moving, but by adding {{Italic title}} FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong title

Cryptoclidus weights about 4 elasmosaurus. Cryptoclidus should be the largest plesiosaur, while elasmosaurus is the longest. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. However, on the subject of size, I have removed the mention in the text regarding the precise size and weight of Elasmosaurus, on account of the source being unreliable. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Towards promotion

I've been kind of struggling to write a description section that would make sense to most readers, but Dinosven kindly pointed me to one of his publications which describe elasmosaurs in more general terms.[1] Therefore, I think the description can be finished quite soon, so the main problem left for the article is the scant history and classification sections, but Lythronaxargestes has expressed interest in working on those. As for the rest of the article, I think it looks good, LittleJerry, though I think we could also incorporate recent info about how plesiosaurs swam from for example these papers:[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get to them later this week. LittleJerry (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could go ahead on History of discovery. I'm sure those two new papers will go a long way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, strange coincidence they would be published right now when they are needed the most, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• A clarity issue I ran into is that it may be confusing that we say "elasmosaurs" rather than "elasmosaurids" throughout the article, as readers may confuse the former with Elasmosaurus itself. That would of course be misleading, since most of this info does not apply to this genus in particular, but the group as a whole. It was especially confusing in the description section, where I frequently had to go from describing the genus itself, and then to features not known from it, but from relatives. I changed all occurrences of "elasmosaurs" to "elasmosaurids" accordingly, any thoughts on this? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good move. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I'm hesitant to treat Elasmosaurus like a representative of plesiosaurs in general, given how diverse the group is. I think we should treat it more like it represents elasmosaurids, the specific group it gives its name to. LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what I've done here is to fill out the gaps in our knowledge about Elasmosaurus itself with what's known to be true for elasmosaurids in general. Otherwise we can only describe the neck and snout of the animal... That paper I cited for the description is about elasmosaurs in general, but it describes the flippers as general for plesiosaurs. Or are we talking past each other? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the plesiosaur flipper movement articles. They don't appear to discuss elasmosaurids in particular nor do they use elasmosaurid specimens in their studies. Of course I have access to only one. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, but the one that is free at least specifically states how it is about plesiosaurs in general. They chose a specimen with a moderate neck length so it could be representative of the group as a whole: "In addition, Meyerasaurus possesses a generalized morphotype among plesiosaurs, with a moderately long neck, so it can be considered representative of the clade Plesiosauria as a whole, which contains long- and short-necked morphotypes". The flippers seem to be pretty uniform across plesiosauria. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, but I feel that information is too general for Elasmosaurus. The Everhart book gave information that could apply to plesiosauria but he relates them to the elasmosaurids. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Both papers cite articles about elasmosaurid anatomy, so it at least seems it has been taken into account. It doesn't warrant a section, but I think at least a sentence or two under paleobiology might do. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm slowly working my way through all the Cope-related stuff of the history section. Were you interested in writing about referred species that were later split off to their own genera, Lythronaxargestes? Because I'm thinking of leaving that for the end of the section, structure-wise, so that the first part is only about the type species (and maybe E. orientalis). And the swimming stuff looks good, LittleJerry! FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I can do that as soon as I finish up Mierasaurus and Zhuchengtitan. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, will still take me some time to finish the type species part anyway... And by the way, the Mierasaurus paper has free images, I was wondering why no one uploaded them in yet... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that each of the images has a copyright in the caption.... so we don't know what's going on there... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sheesh, even the images in the supplementary material has them. What's the point of publishing in such a journal then? FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded them all anyways, because their copyrightedness is questionable. Talking with Jim Kirkland on twitter he implied that all the images could be uploaded here, and the useage of the copyright symbol doesn't seem to be uniform in the paper, it seems to be in place of an @ sign. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

May be an issue with Commons' "precautionary principle[4], but I'm certainly not going to bring that up there. Speaking of images, I added some new ones to this article, both Cope's original and corrected skeletal reconstructions in full, for historical context. I think isolating them frpm the rest of the figure would be a bit manipulative in this here article, because there are also other, minor differences between them. I also added his drawings of fossils that have since been lost. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• LittleJerry, it turns out gastroliths that may have belonged to the holotype individual itself have been found, see Everthart 2005[5], so perhaps the feeding section should be amended accordingly? It also mentions possible stomach contents. But then there is this dissenting view, of course:[6] Even then, one gastrolith appears to be wedged in a vertebra of the type specimen, so at least one is known. I am almost done with the discovery section, but there is an image in Cope's description that could be nice to add:[7] The problem is, I can't see what they're identified as in the text, though they look like dorsal vertebrae. Anyone able to find reference to that place in the text, maybe Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Page 48: "Four anterior dorsals are in one mass (figured in plate 3)"... so yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Strangely, the block isn't figured in any newer papers, but perhaps it's because they have been separated since, and therefore hard tom recognise... FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how you were able find the mention so quickly, Lythronaxargestes, but I have the same issue with the images here:[8] I assume they are neck and tail vertebrae, but can't find the figures mentioned in the text... Apart from proof-reading, I think the discovery section is done now, so I'll do a summary of the E. orientalis situation, and then perhaps the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Struggled with this one because Cope's figure labels are completely messed up, but here it is:

Fig. 15. [actually 11] Cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of Cimoliasaurus magnus (Mus. Academy Nat. Sciences) compared with,
Fig. 16. [actually 12] Posterior cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of Elasmosaurus platyurus; the transverse processes of the former incurved by pressure.

Also, I'm done with my sauropod articles, so I can probably get started on Classification soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A minor issue - our discussion of split species is, ahem, "split" across two different sections. Do we want to keep that in Discovery and naming, or Classification? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird... As for the classification section, I think it has remained untouched from before we started working on it, so you can just ignore its current structure... I'd imagine formerly referred species t be dealt with strictly under history. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'll get started, but did you want to finish writing about E. orientalis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I probably won't get to it soon, so feel free to begin. The reason I want to write about it is because there are some interesting things to say about that old restoration in the section, which supposedly shows an inaccurate orientalis... FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking very good, Lythronaxargestes! I only wish there were more free images of those specimens to illustrate the section... I'll have a look. If you want to write about the description of orientalis, feel free to do so, because I'll probably focus on what's written about it in the "boneheaded mistakes" paper, I don't really know which papers to look for as to its current status... Another thing, I'm pretty sure species names should not be bolded outside the lead section (or be used in the prose of the article body in general). We should probably make redirects for all those referred species as well... I think we should be able to nominate it for GA very soon at this rate, next week perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, my thinking is that it would be hard to navigate the section otherwise. Any alternative suggestions? A bulleted list perhaps? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists within articles are also discouraged (WP:Embedded lists, especially since it is already written as prose here), but I wonder whether we could maybe divide the section into two sections; one about species that are now simply regarded as indeterminate, and are therefore still "de facto" assigned to Elasmosaurus (such as orientalis), and then another section for species that were moved to other/new genera (such as snowii)... Otherwise we can just wait and see what reviewers say, but it does look a bit "aberrant" with bolding there in the context of the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Another option would be to have something like Species of Elasmosaurus (as we do already have for some dinosaurs). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That would mainly be if the article grew too large, though (100.000 kb or more, whereas we are currently at 67.000 kb). The only such article we have left is species of Allosaurus, which certainly wouldn't fit in the Allosaurus article, but species of Psittacosaurus was merged back into the Psittacosaurus after it was nominated for demotion from FA... FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A note on images: Williston (1906) figures a few of his specimens. I don't think we can get any for the Russian species, though... Also, just a heads-up: assuming I've done my research correctly, we're looking at 2-3 more paragraphs for the "referred species" section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Debolded the species names. Looks alright, not too shabby. Should be done soon with the (chronologically) last of the referred species. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

it's fine with a long section I think, especially since so much space is devoted to the single type specimen anyway. Maybe there could be some kind of section breaks, maybe based on description date or geography (or as suggested above, current status), not sure. But I do think we should devote less space to species that are currently in other genera, since they should be covered in detail there, whereas we should devote more space to species that are still de facto in Elasmosaurus, since they will not be covered anywhere else. So maybe the section can be shortened that way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably not a good judge of what can be trimmed, haha..... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I can maybe make a suggestion in an edit at some point, othwerwise I'd say that for example with species that were moved to other genera, I don't think we need to know much about the circumstances of their discovery or exactly what elements they consist of, more like "A partial elasmosaurid skeleton was discovered in X and described by X in year X as E. xii, but was moved to the new genus X in X by X". Of course an oversimplification... FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Did some cutting. Let me know if you think more is necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's ok for now. I'll give it a more detailed look when I proof read the article... Some kinds of section breaks would still be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Just realised I had glossed over the fact that Cope named a new order of reptiles (Streptosauria) based on his wrong orientation of the vertebrae in Elasmosaurus, and that Leidy tried to synonymise Elasmosaurus with Discosaurus, so I've added some preliminary text about this, but it has to be expanded quite a bit... I also forgot the classification section isn't finished, so nominating for GAN this week may be too optimistic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about classification, and went off to do other articles..... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Now I've added the missing information, including some stuff about Streptosauria to the classification section, Lythronaxargestes. When classification is done, I'll try to write an intro, and to make a diagram of plesiosaur neck movement which LittleJerry talked about. Then we should be good to go. After having looked a bit closer at the "referred species" section (I snipped "other", as everything apart from the type species is "other" per definition), I think it would make sense to have an additional "Species moved to other genera" subsection. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll get started on classification shortly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll list the article for copy edit soon too, since the wait is usually at least a month... And by the way, have any of you seen a weight estimate of Elasmosaurus? Could be nice to add, but I have seen nothing of the sort. Also, there may be alternate length estimates, but I have seen none, apart from one stating the length of a mounted replica skeleton... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick look through the lit indicates a lot of estimates for other elasmosaurids, but none for Elasmosaurus itself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This [9] seems to contain a discussion of the classification of Elasmosauridae, but it doesn't seem like all pages are being displayed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to get it page-by-page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Which pages are missing? Sometimes I've also had problems with some pages on archive.org/BDL not loading, but it is usually just temporary. But I've also tried that the pages simply weren't there... I've asked Dinosven about weight and length estimates, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It was a connection thing. I've done some work on Classification, but I don't know how much of it ought to go into the Elasmosauridae article. One could argue that Elasmosaurus more or less is Elasmosauridae in early taxonomies. Also, regarding the Referred species split, I'm not sure if that would work, it may break the flow......... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It could probably be condensed, but yeah, as the first known member and the type genus of the group, it shouldn't be glossed over. I have also worked on some family name-giving genera for FAC, such as Ankylosaurus (with LittleJerry), Heterodontosaurus and Istiodactylus, but as you can see, the history there is heavily summarised. But these names also have a much shorter history, of course. But you could maybe look at their structures; >I don't think every revision done to the group needs a detailed mention, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• LittleJerry, looking again at that neck-posture diagram in Zammit 2007 (fig. 1), it seems we now have almost all these poses represented as images in the article, especially after I added that 1914 drawing with the swan-posture[10], so the digaram would seem a bit redundant now? On this note, there is one "correct-necked" restoration on Commons left that could be added somewhere[11], I can modify it to make it more correct (tail and flippers, Lythronaxargestes?), or do people think it's too crude? FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the diagram would be redundant. The paintings of the neck postures are all fantastical. The snake-like painting is certainly not well representative, as it shows the neck as coiling, which the authors do not support. We need a scientifically based diagram, showing what the neck was likely capable of. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me, though, that the diagram is not meant to show mechanically possible neck-movements, but simply movements that have been proposed historically, including inaccurate swan and snake poses (which those old restorations represent). The text says "The functional significance of this exceedingly long neck, and its role in prey capture and feeding, has been the subject of much speculation (see Fig. 1)". So it is just a list of historical hypotheses which are not necessarily accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As the article currently states The researchers concluded that lateral and vertical arches and shallow S-shaped curves were feasible in contrast to the "swan-like" S-shape neck postures which required more than 360° of vertical flexion. A shallow S-shaped curve is very different from a coiled snake neck as the painting depicts. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, in that case, maybe it would be nice to only show the biomechanically possible versions in the diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Any idea if some of the other options shown are inaccurate as well? FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably anything not within the flexing ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the image could do with a bit of sharpening at its borders as well. Is it just me, or do the teeth feel too short? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the teeth don't seem partciularly fang-like, so I can fix that... Could be room for it in the classification section. Also, I've wondered whether the neck in our main restoration is too short:[12] Or maybe it can be explained by foreshortening? I did lengthen it a bit from the original version anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How's it going with classification, Lythronaxargestes? Once it is done, and I have written the third paragraph of the lead, we should be ready for GA... I'll make that neck diagram later. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Working on a draft of Welles through Carpenter. I think I'll cover 2000s research in maybe a single paragraph, not much to say about it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now added a third paragraph to the intro and mentioned the possible German specimen mentioned by Sven. He also mentioned that Everhart's book may state the length of the neck itself, do you see it anywhere, LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I will check. LittleJerry (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The length of the body is mentioned but not the neck. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than that and the diagram, I think we're ready for GA once classification is done (maybe Elasmosaurinae could get some coverage here?). But I just noticed we have a problem with measurements; we use US English, yet we have metres and kilometres... Note I have also listed the article for copy-edit, which will probably happen soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Elasmosaurinae" is a strange little mess... either way, Classification is good to go. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, now we only have to wait until copy-edit is done (thanks, Corinne), and then each of us can maybe proof-read the article. I've read all of it apart from the species and classification sections yet. If anyone sees stuff missing in sections they didn't write, feel free to add. Then we go for GA, and hopefully we will have the first plesiosaur FA afterwards... A concern could be article size, but it is presently smaller than that of passenger pigeon, which was promoted last year. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now read the species and classification sections, looks good, Lythronaxargestes, and I have two questions. In species, you have a few paragraphs about Willistons research, then you go into Russian and Scandinavian finds for some paragraphs, and then back to Williston again. Is there any reason why the Williston stuff is broken up like that? Also, you mention a figure of E. serpentinus, which I assume is this one[13]. What is the status of that specimen today? I think it would be more interesting to show than for example that Styxosaurus pelvic girdle, especially if it hasn't definitely been referred to anything else... FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't go back to Williston, do I? But there's a paragraph about Welles and Libonectes. serpentinus is discussed in paragraph 5, it is Styxosaurus now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, got confused by the Ws. Doesn't it make more sense before? FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed to be chronological. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, chronological as to species description date (guess the various revisions of later dates of each species also confused me)? And anything on that Williston figure? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the intention. As for the E. serpentinus specimen, I mention it, but it has undergone a bit more revision since then (which I will add). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright. But seems we could show it here then? On this note, I think maybe some of the info about species/specimens that ended up in other genera could be summarised/shortened further (cut info could be moved to the respective genus articles), since they already have articles where this should be explained in detail. Personally, I'd cover them all in a single paragraph here, with links to the genus articles for further info, but that's of course the other extreme... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be showed. About cutting - are there any specific places in the text you have in mind? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the main "problem" is the three paragraphs about Williston specimens that all ended up in Styxosaurus. I'm not sure we need to list every revision of their status and other details, that's for the Styxosaurus article I think, and the three paragraphs could probably be shortened and merged into one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've cut it down. I'm not sure how much more I can cut without compromising the flow of the narrative. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good, and the copy-edit is also done. Should we send this to GAN now, Lythronaxargestes and LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. However my focus is currently on a few articles I never got around to... Eichstaettisaurus, Moabosaurus, Europatitan, Albertavenator, Razanandrongobe, Parasuminia...... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it'll probably take a while for anyone to pick it up anyway. But of course, you're the best one to respond to comments about the species and classification sections... I'll be working on other articles at the same time too, mainly updating Ankylosaurus before its main page appearance next month, and LittleJerry currently has bat at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Jens Lallensack, since I'm not sure when Lythronaxargestes will show up, I'll try to fix the remaining issues you listed. I think maybe the classification section could be cut by one third, but I've moved the full text to the Elasmosauridae page to preserve it. Before nominating for FAC, I'm also wondering whether a more updated length estimate could be found since our most recent one is apparently from 1952? What does the Oceans of Kansas book say, LittleJerry? And Jens, I'm a bit unsure about how appropriate it is to have any of Cope's size estimations in the description section, given how wrong even his updated skeletal reconstruction was? The tail and skull are way too long, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to move/remove the stuff accordingly. My thoughts here are: Since it is a published size estimate, it is relevant for this article, and the reasoning for including the 1952 estimate but not that of Cope does not appear that conclusive to me. I mean, such estimates, especially when an unknown number of vertebrae might be missing, are subjective interpretations, and because of this, it is hard to discard them. So moving the stuff into the history section? As a reader, I would generally prefer to have all size estimates in one place. I would consider splitting only if there is a source stating that Copes estimates are inaccurate, otherwise this split would be difficult to justify. Is there such a source? According to Sachs, there are 18 tail vertebrae preserved, and Cope estimated the original total number of tail vertebrae at 21. This difference does not seem that dramatic to me, actually. Even if the inaccuracy of Copes estimates can be demonstrated with sources, we could think about retaining it in the description section; all we have to do is marking it as an early, inaccurate estimate and give the reason why this is, followed by the more recent size estimates. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Everhart gives a length for "elasmosaurs" (14m) but not Elasmosaurus in particular. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Awww, "elasmosaurs" is too unspecific... And Jens, I was mainly thinking of things like Cope's skull and tail estimates, which seem pulled out of thin air. I think his overall length estimate could be mentioned, but the most recent one should be probably be mentioned first, just to make it clear for the reader what is more correct. Too bad we don't have an estimate newer than 1952, though... We had another source for that length before, but I guess it just cited Welles? Also note that Everhart mentions that one reconstructed mount is 12.8 meters long, but I don't know if we can use that as an estimate for the animal itself... FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I placed the history section first, as would seem to make sense generally, and is closer to how other animal articles are written. I left the former species section close to classification, though, as it may be very long and complicated that early in the article, and it does have more to do with classification, so perhaps good they are grouped closely. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Centra

I am in the middle of copy-editing the article. I know I should probably leave the question of links to the writers or, later, the reviewers, but I do notice words that may puzzle non-experts, so I try to link them. Since this relates to an important article, Vertebra, I'm going to ping Jytdog for his input. In the section Elasmosaurus#Vertebrae I saw the word "centra". I thought I'd try to find an article, or section of an article, to which I could link this word. I entered "centra" in the search bar, and it led to Centra, an article about a convenience store chain in Ireland. At the top of the article it said, "For other uses, see Centra (disambiguation)". So I clicked on that, and it led to a list of a few things. I clicked on Centra (anatomy), and it led to Vertebra. I did a "find" search for the word "centra", and it appears nowhere in the article. The only word that does appear is "central". I'm wondering:

(a) should the word "centra" appear somewhere in the article Vertebra, and, if not,

(b) should "centra" appear at all in the dinosaur article? FunkMonk, is "centra" a word that used exclusively in paleontology? or

(c) should I not worry about linking "centra" at all?

Besides that, I see that the word "body" (and, later, "bodies") is defined and used often in Vertabra, so I think it would make sense to link the word "bodies" to Vertebra. I also wonder why "bodies" needs to be in quotation marks.  – Corinne (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Centra is the plural of centrum, which is in the section Vertebra#Structure. As for why "body" is in quotes, it's just an approximate layman term, because the technical definition of a vertebral body includes more than just the centrum. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, centra is centrum, like fora and forum, and "body" is a common name for this. It is the main part of a vertebra. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Will review this later! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Reading palaeo articles is a nice Christmas activity I'd say... I'll ping my co-nominators, LittleJerry and Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wrote most of description and history, Lythronaxargestes wrote most of species and classification, and LittleJerry wrote paleobiology and paleoecology. So we probably don't know the sources used in the other sections as well as those who wrote them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the description, you use "neck vertebrae", but in other sections its very often just "cervicals". Not a big issue because the description section states "Elasmosaurus differed from all other plesiosaurs by having 72 neck (or cervical) vertebrae", making it clear that these are synonyms. Still, it would be better to decide which term to use, and use it consistently.

Yep, this is a consequence of different writers writing different sections. Now I am unsure about what terms to use throughout, scientific or "common"... Any ideas? Scientific terms worked fine in Ankylosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters so much in this case, and not a big issue, but it would be ideal if it is consistent. I have, however, some thoughts on the use of "middle" instead of "medial", see below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed cervical, dorsal, and caudal throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Did you plan to give both first and last names of people at first mention, and afterwards last names only? If so, this should be consistent. Many first names are not given, and some are given more than once (e.g., Benjamin Kear).

The plan from my part was to give full name at first occurrence, and then only last name at second occurrence. I think mainly the classification and species sections differ, maybe Lythronaxargestes can take a look there, as I don't know the full names of all the people mentioned there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I really missed one sentence stating which elements are known and which are not, before it goes into anatomical details.

This is listed under "Known and possible fossil elements". Usually this isn't stated in the description section. We do state that the single known specimen is fragmentary in the description. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As I think about it, this should appear in the lead already. It is the only known specimen of the genus, so the info is very relevant. Something like "consisting of a fragmentary skull, the spine, and the pectoral and pelvic girdles" should be sufficient. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Added to intro. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Before going into detail about the axial anatomy, I would suggest to add a bit of general information on the vertebrae, to give people an idea how such a vertebra looks like, and the chance to follow the anatomical description. I would at least introduce the terms "centrum" and "neural arch" first, and point out some general proportions and features of these elements in Elasmosaurus: Some information which is apparent for everybody by looking at a skeleton.

I'm not sure how to source this, though? None of the sources used seem to give such general information. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would, for example, look at the Cope descriptions, and an general overviews over Elasmosaurid anatomy. If you think this would be a good addition: Am I allowed to make some edits in this direction? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a good way to source it, would be fine for me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed difficult, but I see you have much in the description text already anyway (I really should read more carefully). I added a bit, and separated the atlas-axis description from the general part with a line break. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I also would mention the cervical ribs somewhere in the article, because they are shown in the File:Elasmosaurusskull.jpg; otherwise, people might wonder what those funny bones on the pic are, and wonder why they are not mentioned anywhere despite the otherwise great degree of detail.

They are mentioned in the description section as "neck ribs", perhaps that's why you missed it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, yeah I missed that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: For Elasmosaurus_neck_vertebra.png, I would add to the image description that "llr" stands for the longitudinal ridge on the centrum, because this seems to be an important feature and is re-occurring at several occasions in the article. Sad that there is no more image material to illustrate more of the anatomical traits described in the text.

Added. Yeah, we've pretty much used all available images already... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• The pectoral girdle had a long bar – If you mention this, you should also add where this bar can be found (the pectoral girdle is a huge element).

Added "at the middle", which is all the source states ("median bar"). FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, although I feel slightly uneasy when I see "median" to be replaced with "at the middle", and I sometimes think that it might be better to explain the term medial and use that instead of "middle". Because "at the middle" can mean so many different things, and I think people (including myself) would generally assume it to mean "at midlength" or "in the center". Which is not what "medial" really means. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How would you explain it, at the midline"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Better. Or maybe "along its midline" or "along the body midline" to be more precise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please add something about neck length (there is an approximation in Taylor and Wedel (2013), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.36).

Funny, I asked Sven where to find such a measurement, he didn't know, but the measurement given by Taylor/Wedel is based on Sach's own measurements... Added! Also a bit about how the necks of elasmosaurs were still much shorter than those of sauropods. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the real length of the neck would have been somewhat longer, because you need to add the thickness of the cartilage (which is unknown). I can offer to do some edits here if I am allowed to. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems cartilage i already taken into account for the measurement I added: "For other plesiosaurs, Evans (1993) estimated that the thickness of intercervical cartilage amounted to 14% of centrum length in Muraenosaurus Seeley, 1874 and 20% in Cryptoclidus Seeley, 1892. Using the average of 17% for Elasmosaurus, we can estimate its total neck length as 7.1 m (Fig. 2.4)." FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the article are autapomorphies mentioned, or any information of how scientist differentiate this genus from related genera. Given the amount of detail, this really appears as a significant omission.

All diagnostic features are mentioned in the description, just in the paragraphs about the anatomical element they belong to. For example "The number of premaxillary teeth distinguished Elasmosaurus from primitive plesiosauroids and most other elasmosaurids" and "Elasmosaurus differed from all other plesiosaurs by having 72 neck (or cervical) vertebrae". I'm not too fond of seperated "diagnostic feature" lists, what do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, I missed that as well. You are right! All fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• To hide his mistake, Cope attempted to recall all copies of the preprint article, and printed a corrected version with a new skeletal reconstruction that placed the head on the neck (though it reversed the orientation of the individual vertebrae) and different wording in 1870. In a reply to Leidy, Cope claimed that he had been misled by the fact that Leidy had arranged the vertebrae of Cimoliasaurus in the reverse order in his 1851 description of that genus, and pointed out that his reconstruction had been corrected. – I found this slightly confusing. Did Cope publish the 1870 correction with reversed vertebrae because there was no time to redo the figure, or (this seems to be the case) because he assumed this was correct? If the latter is true, he wrote to Leidy that this "had been corrected". So, did he change his mind about the issue between publishing the corrected figure and his latter to Leidy? And what was he referring to in his latter to Leidy (it can't be the preprint figure, which shows the old idea)?

I also find it confusing that he would still reverse the individual vertebrae, but no source explains this (one only states he did so). It seems Cope may have been confused himself... On another confusing note, Davidson seems to have been unaware of a letter to Leidy where Cope explains the reasons for giving E. orientalis a short neck, and she goes into her own unfounded speculation... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is additional info in the first paragraph of the classification, written by User:Lythronaxargestes. Still, the reader is wondering how these two bits of information fit together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote most of that sentence on "Streoptosauria" also, but it doesn't really explain the mistake in Cope's corrected reconstruction... FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• The article does a good job in keeping the amount of detail consistently in the separate sections. However, the "Classification" section contains a lot of detail which is not strictly about Elasmosaurus itself but about the Elasmosauridae in general, but can be equally well or better placed in the article Elasmosauridae. Of course, as the nominal genus, the Elasmosaurus article should have a summary on Elasmosaurid systematics. But I would think about reducing the amount of detail here.

Yes, much of it could probably be summarised and relocated, want to give it a try, Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would also include a short note on endothermy, as this is an extremely important aspect of the biology of the animal.

Maybe LittleJerry has seen something about this in the sources. I wonder if this info would maybe instead be found in a source about pelsiosaurs in general? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• It seems a bit weird to state "The exact function of the neck of elasmosaurids is unknown" and than only mention a very outdated hypothesis (use of the neck to breath air). From my understanding, it is quite clear that the neck must have been related to feeding, and this is what other papers say. Maybe even combine the neck function and feeding sections, as they appear to be difficult to keep separated.

I'll leave this to LittleJerry. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not mentioned as is more important for plesiosaurs in general. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this answer is for the previous point, and not this one? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Oops. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As LittleJerry argued, this information is not specific for Elasmosaurus. Still, I would suggest adding a brief note here. The whole first paragraph of the "Paleobiology" contains general information on plesiosaurs only, and this paragraph appears incomplete without mentioning endothermy. But if you insist to keep it out: It is not a very big issue. An overview is provided here. I can add a sentence if you like to have this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think adding this information would be an improvement, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Will add something very briefly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Other invertebrates known to have lived in this sea include cephalopods (such as squids and ammonites), Baculites, and the crinoid Uintacrinus.[100] – There are much more than these, according to the Everhart book.

Also for LittleJerry, who is the only one with the book. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The book lists too many so I listed the major groups. We usually don't list the names of smaller organisms for articles like these. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• the western boundary, however, consisted of a thick clastic wedge eroded eastward from the Sevier orogenic belt – The wording seems to be unnecessarily complicated, and could be formulated much easier.

LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I just copied that text from the Interior Sea article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Still could need rewording? Maybe the Oceans of Kansas books has something, I am not familiar with these circumstances.

FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Everhart's book has very little on the geology. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking about some "translation" of this highly technical sentence in something simpler that people will understand, such as "the western border accumulated a thick pile of sediments eroded from the western land mass". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• So far my comments – I keep a couple of minor points for the FAC! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've answered what I could below, left the rest for co-nominators who may know more about the respective sections. I've also added a few questions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I answered the outstanding points above, and (sorry for that) added new points below that came to my mind (but which should be easy to fix). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

additional comments

• The citation "An elasmosaur with stomach contents and gastroliths from the Pierre Shale (Late Cretaceous) of Kansas" has two authors, but only the second is listed. Also, the link does not seem to work.
• In the paleobiology section, I would be very careful with stating speculations made by individual researchers as facts. It is important to always add an "According to xx, …". There are many statements of Everhart which should not come across as undisputed knowledge.
• Plesiosaurs probably used these stones to help in the digestion of food. – This is only one idea out of many. See review here. At the very least, I would suggest to replace "probably" by "possibly". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed to possibly. LittleJerry may want to list some of the further possibilities mentioned in that paper. I've also left the two other issues fro him, as he will be more familiar with the sources used there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. LittleJerry (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Jens Lallensack, with this edit[14] you removed Cope's revised Elasmosaurus description as a duplicate, but there are differences even in the text, in addition to the new restoration, so both sources should probably be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot about that. Would it be better to include "preprint" or something similar to make clear that these are two nearly-identical sources? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• All good now! I also allowed myself to do some additions, please feel free to delete, alter, or move the stuff around if needed. Will pass the article tomorrow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne I think it is important to be aware of the language used in the article to ensure that it is not too academic. WP articles need to be accessible (comprehensible) to the average Wikipedia reader. I already changed "a much increased vertebral count" to "a much increased number of vertebrae" (feel free to improve this. I wonder why you need to use the word "increased". Increased over what? When was this increase? Perhaps just use "a much greater number of vertebrae"; again, you are comparing. Greater than what?). I think "a vertebral count" is overly academic. Also, in the first paragraph of Elasmosaurus#Paleoecology, we find the following sentence:

• There was little sedimentation on the eastern shores of the Seaway; the western border accumulated a thick pile of sediments eroded from the western land mass.

In the first clause, you have "on the eastern shores of the Seaway". In the second clause, you have "the western border". I would guess readers might wonder between what this "western border" was a border. Border of what? Where? Why is it "eastern shores", but then "western border"? I suggest that you either use "western shores" or explain what the "western border" was.  – Corinne (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "western margin". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing Comment As the GA criteria are fully meet now, it will be promoted now. Good work, everybody. Nevertheless, I encourage the authors to consider the still-open point raised on the redundancy in the systematic section before submitting to FAC. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, we'll have to wait for Lythronaxargestes to show up so we can get the trimming and full names done... FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too sure when he'll show up. He's either gone dark intentionally across everything for a time, or he had a real-life issue that needs resolving. He himself said he had an issue, but from what I know of him I can't tell if he's serious or not. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hope all is well, I sent him an email last week, but got no answer. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Elasmoraurus discovered in 1988, Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada

This article suggests only one elasmosaur fossil exists. I do not see the Courtenay, Canada Elasmosaur mentioned.

See e.g. this news article

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/courtenay-curator-pushes-elasmosaur-for-b-c-s-first-ever-provincial-fossil-1.4179405

Can someone add this to the article?

"Elasmosaur" usually refers to the larger grouping (Elasmosauridae), it is not clear if Elasmosaurus itself is meant. We would need to wait for a scientific paper anyways, as news articles on paleontological topics are often not reliable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I did look for info on this back when we wrote the article, that specimen is an unnamed elasmosaur (nicknamed the Puntledge River elasmosaur, you can Google for more info), not necessarily Elasmosaurus itself. We have a Commons picture of a cast here[15] and the fossil skull:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been to courtenay and seen the fossil, its okay, and I believe its currently being described, and I don't think it will end up being Elasmosaurus itself. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Weight estimate

Pinging Junsik1223 for discussion: I remain unconvinced by the estimate of a 2.8 MT body weight, which is ultimately sourced to Everhart (2000). Everhart applied the result to a 9 m elasmosaurid in 2000, and then to a 10 m elasmosaurid in 2001, but either way these are not specific estimates for Elasmosaurus and only for indeterminate elasmosaurids from the Pierre Shale. Yes, Elasmosaurus is from the Pierre Shale, but so is Styxosaurus. Hence, I don't think that these estimates can be used. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well I am convinced of your rebut, so I’ll just remove that information, since I do understand that it may not be reliable. Junsik1223 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)