Talk:Hughmilleriidae/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Will review this one as soon as we are done over at Herefordopterus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

General:

• I feel like the Hughmilleriidae is a bit of an uncertain group. Most phylogenetic analyses seem to conclude that Hughmilleria and Herefordopterus do not form a monophyletic group, you can see this in virtually every cladogram that features both of them, but yet the family seems to be retained. Do you think it would be possible to find any information on the status of it as a family or any comment what so ever on it being retained despite seemingly not being monophyletic?

I have to admit that this case is weird. I do not remember seeing any cladogram with Hughmilleriidae visible. Tetlie et al. (pp. 3) did not assign Hughmilleria in any family by (citing) "as it is clear that the two (genera) form a paraphyletic assemblage". But no author has considered Hughmilleriidae as an invalid as far as I know, so I suppose it can still be used.

If eurypterid researchers use it, we should of course use it as well even though it clearly (from a phylogenetic standpoint) should be invalid. Parastylonuridae appears to be a similar case, with researchers openly admitting that it is paraphyletic and invalid but continuing to use it. Strange indeed. I think you should note this somewhere in the article (maybe under classification?) based on what Tetlie says. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead:

• "possessed several Eurypterus-like characteristics, such as the lanceolate telson (the most posterior segment of the body)" I am not sure this feature is best described as "Eurypterus-like", you can see lanceolate telsons in Adelophthalmoidea, Carcinosomatoidea, Waringopteroidea, Megalograptoidea (Pentecopterus) etc. It is however clearly a feature more primitive than the flattened telsons of Slimonidae and Pterygotidae so maybe write that it this feature is shared with other eurypterid groups or something.

I suppose I copied that from Hughmilleria, based on a 1912 document (when none of the clades you mentioned were described). I changed the sentence.

• "swimming legs similar to those of the type genus, Hughmilleria (that is, 7th and 8th segment narrow and 9th segment very small" would be good to specify what the segments are of. I assume these are the segments of the legs?

Yes, it is now specified in the text.

Description:

• "ranged in size from 8 to 20 centimetres (3 to 8 inches)", H. wangi was 6 cm long.

Changed.

• "which was lanceolate and styliform, is distinctly a Eurypterus-like feature" see above.

Done.

• "The lanceolate shape of their telsons suggests they did not need to use it as a rudder to swim" not sure if the pterygotids and slimonids needed to use it to swim either, it's just that they did. Maybe remove "need to"?

Done.

• "swimming legs with the 7th and 8th segments narrow" see above.

Done.

History of research - not much to say here, looks good. Might be a bit short but this seems to be as long as it can be made without going into unnecessary detail better suited for the articles of the individual genera.

Classification:

• "The Hughmilleriidae has sometimes been interpreted as the sister-taxon of the Pterygotidae" it might be good to try and cite an older study that claims this and state on what grounds they were seen as more closesly related than the Slimonidae.

I will look more about this.

This is quite rare, I can not find any phylogenetic analysis that shows Hughmileriidae as the sister taxon of Pterygotidae. Is it possible that Slimonidae was considered doubtfully closer and that the description of Ciurcopterus only confirmed it? Or it is possible that I am not researching it well. Super Ψ Dro 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I also noticed that Slimonidae was not erected until 1962 (until then Slimonia had been classified as a Hughmilleriid) so maybe that has something to do with it. I will see if I can help out and find anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction of this paper (open access) discusses who supported Slimonia as closest and who supported Hughmilleria as closest and the reasons for doing so, should help you expand the classification part a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've had you wait and look for it. Done. Super Ψ Dro 18:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Might be good to specify the year of Sarle's interpretation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, done. Super Ψ Dro 08:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is a bit complex and there are some grammar mistakes;

• • "marginal rim of the carapace much broader anteriorly than posteriorly" -> "carapace being much broader anteriorly than posteriorly. Might also want to link "anteriorly" and "posteriorly".

Done.

• • "appendages II-V spiniferous (being spinous)" -> "II-V being spiniferous". Also not sure if "spinous" is the best explanation, seems like it would be just as difficult to understand as "spiniferous". Maybe "possessing spines"?

Changed.

• • "swimming legs of Hughmilleria-type". This is the terminology used in eurypterid papers but I think "swimming legs similar to those of Hughmilleria itself" would be easier to understand.

Done.

• • "used in the alimentation", think we agreed in Herefordopterus (?) that "feeding" would be better than "alimentation".

Done.

• • "It also shared with the adelophthalmid eurypterid Eysyslopterus the triangular anterior carapace margin, which is probably a plesiomorphic characteristic (of a common ancestor)" -> "The triangular anterior carapace margin present in Hughmilleria is shared by the adelophthalmid eurypterid Eysyslopterus, indicating that it might be a plesiomorphic trait (a trait present in a common ancestor)"

Done.

Paleoecology:

• "USA, China and England" these countries should be linked

Done.

• The second paragraph is a bit overly in-depth on the ecology of the individual genera and I think it is unnecessary. Removing it would make the paleoecology section really short however. Would it be possible to find some more information on the specific roles of either (or both) genera in their ecosystem or their ecological adaptations to use here instead?

I doubt I can find anything, the paleoecology of both is terribly obscure and their roles are unknown as far as i know. Maybe I could reduce it to the associated eurypterids and not deepen with the other animals? Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It would still be a bit odd as this section is to treat the entire group, but that would probably be better, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-eurypterid organisms removed. Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That should be everything, well done on this one! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this and Herefordopterus! Super Ψ Dro 16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)