Jump to content

Talk:Glyptotherium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about Boreostracon?

[edit]

the same animal? Böri (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: [1] FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glyptotherium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source bank

[edit]

Late Pleistocene (Rancholabrean) Glyptodont and Pampathere (Xenarthra, Cingulata) from Sonora, Mexico

Damaged glyptodontid skulls from Late Pleistocene sites of northwestern Venezuela: evidence of hunting by humans?

The Pleistocene Glyptodontidae Gray, 1869 (Xenarthra: Cingulata) of Colombia and some considerations about the South American Glyptodontinae

Diet and habitat definitions for Mexican glyptodonts from Cedral (San Luis Potosí, México) based on stable isotope analysis

SuperTah (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Glyptotherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Hello, I'll be reviewing this article over the next week or so. While reviewing, I'll add comments and thoughts to this page. You can track overall progress using the above template. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section
  • Etymology in the first sentence is a bit much. You already go into detail in the article itself. What about "Glyptotherium (from Greek for "grooved or carved beast": γλυπτός "sculptured" and θηρίον "beast") is a..."
  • The sentence "The holotype (the specimen Osborn studied) included a nearly complete carapace, tail, or caudal, armor, and several additional postcranial elements that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA." needs a rewrite.
  • "Graviportal"? Can you use simpler terms in the lead section? Remember that non-biologists and people without technical backgrounds will read this article. Same with "osteoderms", although that one is more likely to be understood, and "hypsodont".
  • In general, the lead section needs to be a little bit simpler and easier to understand. Remember that you can go into all the nitty-gritty details in the body.
Prose
Sources
  • The sources are all to reputable journals—good work here! checkY
  • There is one major issue with the sources: The page ranges cited are too massive for verifiability. You can try utilizing a references list and then using {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, or similar for short citations indicating the pages for the individual claims.
Images
Other
  • Copyright spot checks revealed no close paraphrasing or plagiarism. checkY
  • Original research spot checks revealed only one very minor concern: The text "Another important find came in 1910..." claims that the find is "important", and, while I don't doubt that it is, the source does not back up this claim. It backs up everything else in the sentence. However, my inability to find the source for the importance part might simply be due to the missing individual page numbers as described above in the "Sources" section.

Will do prose review once these other issues are resolved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Augustios Paleo, are you still interested in this article? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Augustios Paleo, please let me know by December 1st when you will get to this. Otherwise, I will have to fail this due to a lack of response. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has stated elsewhere that they're on an indefinite Wikibreak. Perhaps someone else wants to take over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment


Failed due to lack of response after being open for more than 3 months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Glyptotherium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will begin implementing these suggestions later today. AFH (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not quite as much of an expert on the Neogene and Quaternary of the New World continents as the Old World continents, I think I can help out with reviewing the article. Note that this is my first time conducting a good article review, so if I make mistakes, let me know. Based on skimming the article, it seems the article fits the criteria well, it seems well-written, broad, neutral, and stable. Here's my review so far (mainly addressing the lead section). PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section:

  • Let's start with the caption of the lead image. According to the Flickr link where the image originated, it's from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, so make sure to mention it ("G. texanum, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History"). PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptotherium (from Greek for 'grooved or carved beast') is a genus of glyptodont (an extinct group of large, herbivorous armadillos) that lived from the Early Pliocene, about 4.9 million years ago, to the Early Holocene, around 7,000 years ago, in the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil."
  • "The genus was first described in 1903 by American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn with the type species being, G. texanum, based on fossils that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA. Glyptotherium fossils have since been unearthed from many more fossil sites, from Florida to Colombia. Another species, G. cylindricum, was named in 1912 by fossil hunter Barnum Brown on the basis of a partial skeleton that had been unearthed from the Pleistocene deposits in Jalisco, Mexico."
    • It's not exactly clear whether the two species overlapped long-term or were the direct result of anagenesis, try defining their geological period ranges to make clear the first occurrences and last occurrences of the two species if possible. The last sentence of the distribution section seems to hint towards anagenesis and mentions their first and last appearances, so make sure to reference that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also make sure to link the first mention of "Pleistocene" in the introductory text. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptodonts were typically large, quadrapedral (four-legged), herbivorous armadillos with armored carapaces (top shell) that were made of hundreds of interconnected osteoderms (structures in dermis composed of bone)."
    • I'm assuming that Glyptotherium fits these "typical" characteristics, but make sure that you indicate such since just referencing the Glyptodontinae subfamily instead of also Glyptotherium individually can make this unclear. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology:

  • I don't think this needs to be a separate section, I haven't seen any other article that does this. I would suggest that you merge the information with the taxonomy section, it appears to be using the original sources written by those who erected the genus and/or species anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History and taxonomy:

  • "Fossils attributable to Glyptotherium have been found as early as the 1870s, when civil engineers J. N. Cuatáparo and Santiago Ramírez collected a skull, nearly complete carapace, and associated postcranial skeleton of a glyptodont from a drainage canal near Tequixquiac, Mexico, the fossils coming from the Rancholabrean Pleistocene."
  • "Another species of Mexican Glyptodon was described in 1889, G. nathoristi, by German paleontologists based on carapace remains from Pleistocene localities in Ejutla, Oaxaca."
  • "The first Glyptotherium fossils to be described from the United States were described in 1888 by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope and consisted only of a single carapace osteoderm that had been collected from the Lower Pleistocene “Equus Beds” of Nueces County, Texas."
  • Sentences regarding synonyms:
    • "but Cope did not give the species a proper description that followed ICZN rules, making it a nomen nudum and it has since been synonymized with G. cylindricum."
    • "This species is now seen as a nomen vanum and synonymous with Glyptotherium cylindricum."
      • The species names were considered synonymized by who exactly? I know this requires too much digging, so I'll let this slide somewhat if you can mention at least early authors who considered them synonyms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skeleton was put on display in the exhibit hall of the AMNH where it remains today."
    • I'm not seeing any second source that mentions it being in an exhibit today as likely as I'd assume it'd be there still, so either find a source directly suggesting its continued presence or reword it in a way that may vaguely reference its continued presence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Simpson didn't designate a new genus or species for Glyptodon peltaliferus, but he still believed that they were from a separate form of glyptodont."
  • "In 1927, many Early Pleistocene age fossils were collected by the University of Oklahoma from a locality in Frederick, Oklahoma, including several fragmentary fossils of glyptodonts, horses, gomphotheres, and camels."
  • Rename the "taxonomy" subsection to "phylogeny." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptotherium is a genus in the subfamily Glyptodontinae, an extinct subfamily of large, heavily armored armadillos that first evolved in the Late Eocene (ca. 33.5 mya) and went extinct in the Early Holocene during the Quaternary extinction event (ca. 7,000 years ago)."
    • Ok, this is more the problem of the name of the Late Pleistocene extinctions article, something I'll address by suggesting a rename someday, but "Quaternary extinction event" is fairly misleading for various reasons already mentioned in its talk page and I would recommend against using that name and instead suggest using a redirect name like "Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene extinctions." This is also optional. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, link "subfamily." Additionally, you repeat "subfamily" in the same sentence twice, use synonyms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is usually considered its own family, but DNA analyses have reduced it to a subfamily with tribes instead of its own subfamilies."

The taxonomy section looks good, appears to comply with the good article criteria outside of a few specific issues relating to prose and grammar.

More to come soon (probably within a week or two), will review the other sections. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented all suggestions, thank you. I will see if I can also make some grammatical improvements AFH (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 of the GA Review:

[edit]

History and phylogeny:

  • "This species is now seen as a nomen vanum and considered a junior synonym of Glyptotherium cylindricum by Gillette and Ray (1981)."

Description:

  • "However, unlike the carapace of a turtle, the Glyptotherium shell was made up of hundreds of small hexagonal scales, with Glyptotherium preserving up to 1800 osteoderms or more in each individual. The axial skeleton of glyptodonts show extensive fusion in the vertebral column and the pelvis is fused to the carapace, making the pelvis entirely immobile."
  • "During the Pleistocene, the diversity of glyptodonts diminished but increased in size, with the largest known glyptodont, Doedicurus, evolving in the Pleistocene."
  • "Glyptodont dentition lacks caniniforms or incisiforms and instead have all hypsodont (high crowned teeth adapted for grazing) molariforms, the cheek teeth are some of the most hypsodont and homodont known from terrestrial mammals."
  • "In Glyptotherium, the occlusal lateral profile is slightly curved, whereas it is strongly curved in Glyptodon. In Glyptodon, the Mm1 is distinctly trilobate both lingually and labially, nearly as trilobate as the mf2; on the contrary, Glyptotherium shows a very low trilobation of mf1, which is elliptical in cross section, the mf2 is weakly trilobate, and the mf3 is trilobate. In both genera, the mf4 to mf8 are fully trilobate and serially identical."
    • I don't understand what these "mf/mm" abbreviations are supposed to stand for, and Google search won't help with that, so I doubt the majority of other people will understand them either. Address what these abbreviations mean. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The central and radial sulci are deeper and broader in Glyptodon (ca. 4–6 mm) than in Glyptotherium (ca. 1–2.4 mm)."
  • "Glyptotherium, and all other glyptodonts, had a large dorsal carapace covering much of the dorsum that was made up of interconnected osteoderms."

Paleobiology:

  • "Several interpretations of glyptodont posture have been made, initially by British paleontologist Richard Owen in 1841 using comparative anatomy. Owen theorized that the phalanges were weight-bearing due to their short and broad physiology, in addition to the evidence provided in the postcranial skeleton."
  • "Cedral specifically was an area with hot springs and open grasslands next to them, suggesting that Glyptotherium’s fed in grasslands nearby water sources, like the feeding habits of modern Capybaras."
  • Additional isotopic analysis of Glyptotherium and the giant ground sloth Eremotherium found the two to have similar isotopic levels to the extant amphibious Hippopotamus, indicating that they were semi-aquatic herbivores that fed on aquatic plants.
  • "Additional isotopic evidence from Brazil suggests that fruits were also part of Glyptotherium’s diets, though only around 20%."
  • "Owen (1841) opposed this idea, though pushback came from Nodot (1856) and Sénéchal (1865) who believed digging was possible for the genus."
  • "Immature individuals of Glyptotherium texanum from juveniles to adults found in Blancan localities in Arizona preserve a nearly complete growth series, one of the few known in glyptodonts."
  • "In G. cylindricum however, the osteoderms grow much faster and the sulci are much smaller. The osteoderms are also relatively thicker in juvenile Glyptotherium individuals compared to adults."

Paleoecology:

  • "Glyptotherium was primarily a grazer in forested grasslands and arboreal savannahs, though they may have preferred grasslands near water sources based on fossils from Mexico."
  • "During the Blancan, Glyptotherium texanum coexisted with many native genera from North America, as Beringia had not yet formed."
    • North America lacking much immigrant faunas prior to the Pleistocene because of a lack of a Beringia strait is a common misconception. It was certainly more difficult for Asian faunas to cross from Asia to North America than to Europe or Africa, but Asian fauna dispersals to North America and vice versa still occurred quite semi-frequently in the paleontological record. This is definitely provable since the mammutids, gomphotheres, bovids, ursids, machairodontines, and Chasmaporthetes of North America were either recent immigrants or descendants of Miocene immigrants that were of Eurasian or African origin, so they're not exactly "native." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally since the Great American Biotic Interchange (GABI) already occurred, it wasn't exactly cooccurring with just endemic North American faunas in North America anyways, and glyptodintines were technically from South America. I would also recommend discuss more about glyptodontines in the context of the GABI since that's really important for it and associated faunas, especially in discussing the origins of Glyptotherium. I believe the source you're already using, "A tale of two clades: Comparative study of Glyptodon Owen and Glyptotherium Osborn (Xenarthra, Cingulata, Glyptodontidae)," will help you out. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also as such, I discourage the usage of the word "native" in the general paleontological record since it's a tricky term in such contexts when continents like North America were subject to dispersal events even if not as severe in faunal turnovers compared to Eurasia and Africa. The alternate term for faunas that were always exclusive to one continent would be "endemic." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some isolated bird fossils have also been found of vultures, falcons, and possibly corvids.
  • "In the Brazilian Intertropical Region in eastern Brazil, Glyptotherium was a mixed grazer in arboreal savannahs, tropical grasslands, and other grassy areas near water sources."
  • "Restoration of the grassland ecosystem present in the BIR."
  • "The environment of the BIR is unclear, as there were both several species that were grazers, but the precede of the arboreal fossil monkeys Protopithecus and Caipora in the area causes confusion over the area's paleoenvironment."

Relationship with humans:

  • "The first report of possible human consumption or interaction with Glyptotherium or its fossils came in 1958, where several osteoderms that were possibly consumed by humans were described from the Clovis site in Lewisville, Texas, though there is little evidence to back up this assessment."
    • This is more a side note than a correction, but I'm honestly not sure what to make out of what happened to Glyptotherium in North America. We don't seem to have much of a confirmed latest radiocarbon date of a Glyptotherium fossil in North America, and the 1958 source "A Pleistocene Campsite near Lewisville, Texas" seems to suggest that the camp site apparently dates to 37,000 years B.P. (I think you should mention that by the way), so I guess we'll never really know how long it lived in North America or if it encountered humans on that continent like South America unless further research is conducted. This is honestly the problem with half the Rancholabrean faunas since they in paleoecological contexts of North America are so poorly researched that we have little indications of their paleoecologies and how they were affected by climatic and human dispersal patterns if several even encountered them at the time. North America Pleistocene is... amongst the most confusing and inconsistent in research, there's so much context missing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The jaws may have been removed for "hunters" to access and consumed masticatory muscles and tongue."

Distribution:

  • This is one of the more major suggestions, but as I said earlier, I highly recommend discussing more in detail the Great American Biotic Interchange and how Glyptotherium relates to the event as well as its apparent migration back down to South America. I believe sources such as "North American Glyptodontines (Xenarthra, Mammalia) in the Upper Pleistocene of northern South America" and "An introduction to cingulate evolution and theirev olutionary history during the great American biotic interchange: Biogeographical clues from Venezuela" will help you out. [2] [3] PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although commonly regarded as an exclusively North American genus, fossils of Glyptotherium from northern South America in areas like Brazil and Venezuela have been discovered."
  • "This referral is also based on the age of the fossils, as fossils from the Pliocene and early Pleistocene are from G. texanum while G. cylindricum is from the late Pleistocene."
    • I'd reword the second half the sentence to "as the age of G. texanum fossils are measured to range from the Pliocene to early Pleistocene while the age of G. cylindricum fossils are confined to the late Pleistocene." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Summary: Looks to be a well-written article! What I'd like to see incorporated is how Glyptotherium is related to the Great American Biotic Interchange and that it apparently migrated back down south during the Pleistocene (maybe that's part of why there's a scarcity of recent Glyptotherium fossils in North America compared to South America? I'm not sure), but other that, no major changes required. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns! PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the suggestions have been put in; will add section for GABI tomororw. Thank you AFH (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be good, if you have any more notes on the added section please let me know. Thank you. AFH (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 (Likely Final) of the GA Review:

[edit]

Since the Great American Interchange subsection of the paleoecology section was recently written, I'll be checking just that subsection since everything else is done. Also I checked all the article image permissions, and they should be good under Creative Commons permissions.

Paleoecology:

  • "South America, where glyptodonts originate, was isolated after the breakup of Gondwana at the end of the Mesozoic era."
  • "Marsupials likely got to South America prior to its separation from the rest of Gondwana in the Late Cretaceous or Early Tertiary, though groups like Xenarthra and Notoungulata ended up on the continent is a mystery."
  • "North America during this period bore its own unique fauna that was related to Eurasian fauna, such as gomphotheres, horse relatives, and bear-dogs, though many of these groups went extinct after the arrival of Eurasian groups like ursids, canids, and felids."
    • The phrasing's kind of awkward for those aware of the paleontological prehistory of mammalian dispersals since North America basically had a mix of faunas of North American origin that eventually left the continent by the Neogene (canids, camelids, equids, daphoenine amphicyonids), North American endemic faunas that never dispersed towards Eurasia (oreodonts, antilopcaprids), and faunas of African or Eurasian origin (amphicyonine/thaumastocyonine amphicyonids, nimravids, ursids, felids, gomphotheres, mammutids, etc). I recommend reworking this sentence a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use "equids" instead of "horse relatives," people are familiar with that term anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also canids were always endemic to North America from the Eocene up until the very late Miocene when Eucyon dispersed from North America to Eurasia and Africa, so they're definitely not a "Eurasian" origin group and therefore did not "arrive" to North America. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This period witnessed the extinction or extirpation of many groups, such as the loss of many endemic South American groups.
  • "Glyptotherium itself was part of this interchange, evolving in the Blancan of the USA after the formation of the Isthmus and its immigration."
  • "Though it evolved in North America, specifically in the Blancan, an emigration southwards to Central and parts of northern South America occurred after the evolution of G. cylindricum in the Rancholabrean."
    • I'd reword this sentence to "Though it evolved in North American into G. cylindricum in the Rancholabrean, it emigrated southwards to Central and parts of northern South America" for a more active and less redundant sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is also connected to ecological segregation, with Glyptodon living primarily in Andean and coastal sites whereas Glyptotherium known from grassland and lightly forested deposits near aquatic areas, motivating its dispersal to the tropical regions of eastern Brazil and Venezuela."
  • "The re-entrance of a group to South America from North America has also been observed in the related cingulate family pampatheriidae, possibly aided by low land routes formed from Florida to Mexico, Central America, and/or northern South America that would allow transport across the Caribbean."

That's all that's left! When you complete the rest of the recommendations, this article should be good for a Good Article promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with these final suggestions, thank you! AFH (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the last suggestions implemented, I am pleased to promote this article to GA status! Good job! PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Glyptotherium skeleton
Glyptotherium skeleton

Improved to Good Article status by Augustios Paleo (talk) and PrimalMustelid (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Glyptotherium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

withdraw. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction

[edit]

Great job @Augustios Paleo and @PrimalMustelid on achieving GA status with this article!

I was curious about the extinction date of 7,000 cal. BP- I tried to find a source, but only found this one in the Wiki article, which doesn't appear to give an end date for Glyptotherium (correct me if I'm wrong).

Ancient DNA from the extinct South American giant glyptodont Doedicurus sp. (Xenarthra: Glyptodontidae) reveals that glyptodonts evolved from Eocene armadillos

Might I suggest an extinction section discussing end dates for Glyptotherium? The end dating of South American megafauna is often a strongly debated topic. SuperTah (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing down good dates for the BIR. "Glyptodon in Colombia" article references a ~60kya date, but the "Damaged skulls" article argues that dispersal only occurred circa 15-20kya (although also only states fossils are not found in South America before the Late Pleistocene). SuperTah (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glyptotherium&oldid=1207446416"