Jump to content

Talk:Irritator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleIrritator is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2019.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2018Good article nomineeListed
November 27, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
January 17, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 13, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Irritator (model pictured), a spinosaurid dinosaur, was named due to the frustration of palaeontologists who discovered that its skull had been covered with plaster by fossil dealers?
Current status: Featured article

Tall Vertebrae

[edit]

I've seen a lot of illustrations of Irritator with a sail-like structure on its back, like Spinosaurus. Is this real, speculation, or a mistake? Benosaurus 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irritator was a spinosaurid, so it was likely had a sail-like structure. If it is Angaturama, it had tall neural spines.[1] Firsfron of Ronchester 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But just because it's a spinosaurid, doesn't mean it had a sail. Baryonyx didn't have a sail. And aren't Angaturama and Irritator considered to be the same? Benosaurus 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sample Baryonyx though seems to be a juvenile of a Suchomimus' close relative or even of a Suchomimus species. It could be that neural spines developed in size with age. And after all since both Suchomimus (mostly related to Baryonyx) and Spinosaurus had a spine sail, the fact most propably strengthens the view of Baryonyx having lost that trait secondarily to the lineage split from Spinosaurus and Irritator.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Angaturama?

[edit]

Shouldn't these articles be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would haveto say that they do look like the same dinosaur, and scientists are debating on if they are the same dinosaur.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they should remain separate unless and until the two are accepted as synonymous. XinaNicole (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

The Italian page on Irritator has this picture on the page. It shows Irrittator with its head crest for one thing. Should we includ it? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the crest is wrong and the eye is way too big. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymy of Angaturama and Irritator

[edit]

In the section discovery, it is said that "If Angaturama and Irritator are actually regarded as a member of the same genus, Irritator challengeri would be the valid scientific name under the priority rules". Indeed, Charig and Milner (1997: p 57) wrote: "It seems very likely that Irritator too is a spinosaurid, and even possible that it is a senior synonym (by one month!) of Angaturama." Likewise, Sues et al. (2002: p. 537) said: "Thus we follow Charig and Milner (1997) in considering Angaturama limai a subjective junior synonym of Irritator challengeri, which has priority by one month". Nevertheless, Angaturama and Irritator were both published in February 1996. Unfortunately, I could not find any information on the publication day for each publication. In Research Gate, it is even said that the publication on Angaturama appeared in January 1996 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282542666_First_Early_Cretaceous_theropod_dinosaur_from_Brazil_with_comments_on_Spinosauridae). Does anyone have additional information on that matter? Could Angaturama actually be the synonym senior of Irritator, and not the other way round? Cheers,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irritator. 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) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What?

[edit]

"The holotype fossil consists only of the front part of the head, which is kept today under the number USP GP/2T-5 in the University of São Paulo. "

^ Under "Description", this is an odd way to kick off describing Irritator, considering the sentence refers to Angaturama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.114.161 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section seems to be about it, actually... Lusotitan 01:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • On another what-note, I wonder why all of Megalosauroidea needs to be shown in the cladogram here? Spinosauridae is all that's relevant to the article. Instead, it could be updated to show more actual spinosaurids. FunkMonk (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do that but unfortunately I have no experience with cladogram templates. The whole process seems tedious to me and I'm not sure how to do it without messing up the format... ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 07:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it down to just Spinosauridae+Megalosauridae for the moment. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would also seem to confirm that the skull was in Germany during the Brazil Museum fire. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was in the midst of updating the page when I saw this, haha. Can't complain though! Nice to see so much good research being done on a very poorly-known clade. Already uploaded the free images by the way. More to add to an already image-packed article! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting suggestions on "pre-GAN" work

[edit]

I've done quite a bit of expansion at this point. The article has attained a size I hadn't expected and it looks like it's getting close to a GA nomination. However, given the amount of text that I've written (being a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor) I think this is a good point to ask for advice on some issues that I'm having trouble with. I've summarised these below after giving the article a look-over.

History of discovery

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Synonymy with Angaturama

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section as it is, but let me know if there's any other paleontologists that have opinionated on the synonymy issue, or if there's something else relating to it that should be adressed.
Best one can do is always just to look through Google scholar and Jstor for references that mention the taxon in question. And then just try to get all of it through WP:RX or scihub. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sources I can send you, I sent an email about it. This book also seems to have some info:[2] It seems to cover that skeleton too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recieved that email, will reply to it shortly! Thanks for that book as well, will certainly be useful. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, tell me if the links work, then I will send the last pdf. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]
  • I'd love to add something on postcranial anatomy here based on the skeletal material found in the Romualdo (especially MN 4819-V). But I'm having second thoughts on whether or not that constitutes as irrelevant or unecessary detail, since although these specimens were implemented into the Museu Nacional skeleton, they haven't really been "formally assigned" to Angaturama as much as implied to belong to it (See [3]). No paper from Machado, Kellner, Campos, etc. refers it to a genus and Aureliano and colleagues in 2018 considered all but the Irritator and Angaturama holotypes as Spinosaurinae indet. I admit this makes the most sense since the skeletons aren't associated with skulls, so we can't be sure whether or not they actually belong to either named genus or a completely new one. What are your guys thoughts on this? Personally I find it odd that an article on a dinosaur with images of its reconstructed skeleton has no information on body plan.
Has no source even suggested it might belong to Irritator? Even if it has not been assigned formally, if a source states they could belong, I think it should be covered. Also, if that's part of it shown next to the mount in the Brazil Museum, they must have at least considered it a possibility? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here[4] Darren Naish says "a near-complete pelvis, a partial hand and various vertebrae (some of these specimens are on display at the Museu Nacional) - are implied to belong to Angaturama. Some of these elements are clearly incorporated into the mounted skeleton shown above.", which should probably be fine to add, or at least shows there might be more info to find. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That bit from the Naish blog post is in the first para of the Description section. The only places I've seen the skeleton be mentioned to belong to Irritator/Angaturama are the aforementioned blog post and the various portuguese news reports from when the exhibit was opened,[5][6] where Kellner states that 60% of Angaturama's skeleton is now known, and that is what allowed the creation of the mount. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then it should be fine to state in this article that the connection has at least been informally implied... FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, should I remove dates from the length estimates? As suggested by Hendrickx for Baryonyx? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I just did so in the Baryonyx article (slowly chipping away based on his suggestions). FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of the holotype

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Anatomy of the Angaturama holotype

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Classification

[edit]
  • This is admittedly my least-favourite section to write in dinosaur articles, and right now it seems rather unwieldly and/or too detailed in some places (maybe that's just me). I'd appreciate some advice on how I can trim it down somewhat and if there's any other papers I should implement information from, perhaps there's a different way of handling those two cladograms as well.
If you want to save space, you could place the cladograms side by side, as in Elasmosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Done. I know nothing about formatting cladogram templates so it was mainly a copy-paste job. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

Paleoecology

[edit]
  • After the whole Paleoenvironment discussion on Baryonyx due to the WikiJournal peer review I'm having second thoughts on whether the third para on semiaquatic habits should go here or in Paleobiology, is there any consensus on that or should we wait for a more general discussion on the WikiProject talk page?
I'd say it's function/behaviour, so would belong udner biology. Keeping such info under palaeoecology, as in Oxalaia, would mainly be if there is too little infor for a separate paleobiology section. But who knows, maybe there is even enough behavioural info in Oxalaia for a separate section? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, placed under a new subsection under Paleobiology. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taphonomy

[edit]
  • Pretty happy with this section, not much to note that wont probably be dealt with during the GAR.

I mostly noted major issues that'd be better to fix before a GA review. There's probably some that I didn't notice. In that case, I'd appreciate it if they were pointed out! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 06:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few thoughts on image layout, but will have a look at the rest soon. As for images, it would seem more logical that the image that shows the two skull fragments combined would go under synonymy, instead of being ion a section that covers the two separately. Also, it would probably make more sense to show the map first in the history section. Finally, the maniraptoran reconstruction seems it would make more sense under classification, where that hypothesis is actually discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a general note, there is a lot of duplinking, which can be detected with this script:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
During FAC, you will most likely also be asked what the various restorations were based on, so best to link skeletals or list sources in all the file descriptions. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed duplinks and added references to images. Played around with the image layout, incorporating most of your suggestions. I left the historical reconstruction in the history section since that's usually where such images are placed, and also because the restoration doesn't portray it as a maniraptoran, but rather as a spinosaurid. Most dinosaur books and encyclopedias illustrated Irritator like that after it had been reassigned to the Spinosauridae by Kellner, while still using the outdated skull diagram as a reference. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things I noticed (I will save the full review for FAC), you have one title called "Anatomy of the holotype" followed by "Anatomy of the "Angaturama" holotype". There are a few issues with this, first, you should state which taxon is covered in the first title for consistency. Second, genera don't have holotypes, only species do, so the full binomials might have to be spelled out. Third, Angaturama should probably not be in quotation marks anywhere in the article, since it is unknown whether it is a synonym or not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to species name in all mentions of both holotypes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text mentions and shows a false gharial, but aren't spinosaurs mostly compared to "actual" gharials? The abstract for the cited text doesn't mention the false gharial, so I wonder if the text and image here should be swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, very little comparison has been made to false gharials, that text and image was there from before. Changed now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine no sources cover this, but it seems funny that the Angaturama skeletal mount clearly seems to include the Irritator skull too. This would seem to indicate that Kellner acknowledges the two are synonyms, yet still use the name Angaturama for it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well. But, as you said, there is no source that mentions it. Most people in Brazil seem to know this dinosaur by the name Angaturama, most likely because of the mount. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains the complete preserved skull known for a spinosaurid." Most complete? Also, the article body doesn't seem to state it. In what way is it the most complete, when the two holotypes are combined? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to the main article text under History of discovery. It's the most complete spinosaur skull by itself, even without the Angaturama snout. I thought it was a surprising fact at first, but then I remembered that we actually know very little of the braincase in Baryonyx, Suchomimus, and Spinosaurus, And even the completeness of Spinosaurus's snout has been questioned, with the Sigilmassasaurus debate going on and all. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Went with the second option. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, you can maybe get more opinions if you "advertise" at the dino project talk page, but you could also just GA nominate it now I think. One last image nitpick, I think maybe the image of the skeleton under diet could be swapped with the head restoration under paleoecology? Could look good juxtaposed with the gharial photo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I'll leave the images where they are. The closeup of the neck and skull, in my opinion, fits better with the adjacent discussion on the mechanical biology of the head. While the head restoration was created with the ecology section in mind, which is why the animal is depicted near a shoreline. I'll hold off on GA nominating it for now; there's still a few things I'm gonna do before that, such as adding more researcher's opinions on the synonymy discussion, cleaning up the Classification section, and adding a brief subsection describing the postcrania. The rest of the article looks good to go for GAN, though! I was surprised at the amount of research there is pertaining to this taxon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps a copy edit would also come in handy before FAC at least, they're getting a lot stricter on the prose there. As for sources, we were extremely lucky that revaluations of both Irritator and Thalassodromeus were published right before the Brazil museum fire (Thalasso was redesribed just a few months before!). Without that, it would probably have been impossible to ever write such definitive accounts here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the brief postcrania subsection, and a diagram of MN 4819-V's arm to go with it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now's as good a time as ever to nominate for GA. This is the most work I've done on any article, so a pair of fresh eyes is certainly needed. See you during the FA review, FunkMonk! When the time comes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, it certainly looks promising! FunkMonk (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that you will probably be called out during FAC for using blog sources, so it will maybe be good to state this outright in the FAC blurb, pointing out that the bloggers are respected in their fields, as I for example did in the Nemegtomaia nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I'll keep that in mind! There were also some minor suggestions in that review that I implemented in this article as well, which are always nice to find. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review! It's a long one, so take your time, I'm in no hurry to get this one through. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I welcome your choice of placing the history of discovery first. This way the succession of information is more logical (first you discover, than you describe, than you classify and only then you draw paleobiological implications), and will not overload the reader with anatomical details at the start.
Placing the discovery section first was actually Lusotitan's idea, but it was good move either way! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is known from a nearly complete skull found in rocks of the northeastern Romualdo Formation, belonging to the Santana Group in the Araripe Basin. – Not sure if the "belonging" is unambiguously referring to the Formation (it rather seems to refer to the skull). Maybe use "which belongs".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • northeastern Romualdo Formation – confused: can you really muddle political borders with parts of geological formations?
Hmm, Brazil itself is also a political border, but this is maybe cutting it a bit too close. Removed link from lead and put it to better use under History of discovery. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its hard to establish encyclopedic relevance for living paleontologists when there is a lack of independent sources. Recommend to unlink Martill.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the new genus Irritator, whose name reflects the feelings – I would add the etymology here (language and the exact word the name is based on).
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The epithet of the type species – this is correct, but for the lead, I would avoid technical terms like epithet as much as possible; here you could simply use "second part of the species name". Only a recommendation, its your decision.
Done, I think someone else added this in, I had a feeling it was too esoteric as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • honors Professor Challenger – how can you possibly honor a fictional character?
Changed, is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Conan Doyle's novels – I thought it is only one novel ("The lost world"), and I would also mention this novel.
Apparently he's a reoccurring character in many of his science fiction stories, The Lost World just happens to be the most popular of them. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, but in the first description the name is explicitly related to the Prof. Challenger from the novel "The lost world", and this should be reflected here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you already changed that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to preparation, the fossil had been mistaken for that of an early pterosaur, and later a maniraptoran dinosaur closely related to the feathered ornithomimids and troodontids. Later research identified the animal as belonging to the Spinosauridae, a family of large and likely semiaquatic predatory dinosaurs. – prior to preparation: do you mean prior to the restauration mentioned in the sentence before? Was it Martill who thought it was a maniraptoran, and only after the restauration it was considered a spinosaurid? You could make these connections to make it much more informative.
Done, I also noted in the lead that Kellner was the first to point out that it was a spinosaurid. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • spinosaurs – maybe use spinosaurid for clarity if this is what you meant.
Changed, even though both can be used interchangeably, like tyrannosaurids or tyrannosaurs. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is not unambiguous; who says it is not referring to Spinosaurinae, or to individuals of Spinosaurus? "Spinosaurid" is the safer choice imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A generalist diet, like that of today's crocodilians, has been suggested for Irritator; in which it would have – reads strange, is it correct form the grammatical point of view? Maybe replace the part after the ; with "it might have been preyed on …".
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both animals hail from the same stratigraphic units of the . – ?
Added Araripe Basin, don't know how that got deleted. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main text

  • Maybe worth mentioning that there is another species from the Santana Group hinting at Arthur Conan Doyle, which is Arthurdactylus conandoylei.
Interesting! And by the same authors as well. Added it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Martill reconstruction image, it can be misleading to have an outdated reconstruction as the first reconstruction in the article. Maybe it would be clearer if the outdated live reconstruction (does it really add much?) would be replaced a the current interpretation of the skull. But unsure, you decide.
I feel like we already have enough skull images in the article as it is, so doing that would be a bit redundant and/or repetitive in my opinion. I further emphasised the reconstruction's inaccuracy in the caption, will this do? Typically historical reconstructions go in this section anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a large skull with lower jaws, which were flattened somewhat sideways – seems a bit weird to have that degree of detail already here ("flattened somewhat sideways"); maybe move to discussion of the skull preservation, as it is not pertinent to the poaching history?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Rupert Wild of the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. – I would add Germany for clarity.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was named in honor of Professor Challenger; a character in – in honor of … I also think you should replace the ; by a ,
Both done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestions have been answered, with some comments. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The buyers were unaware of the modifications to the illegally collected specimen – Please make sure you cite all sources used in all instances. Here you lack a source stating that fossil collection (not just trade) is illegal. Just cite the nature paper again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Why wouldn’t osteosclerosis affect buoyancy in theropods?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77 It does, but according to Henderson, only to a very miniscule amount. To quote "exceptional evidence would be needed to demonstrate that the increase in body mass by a few percent by having denser limb bones would significantly affect the ability of a Spinosaurus to immerse itself.". Perhaps I should elaborate on this more in the article? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
is he saying the bones weren’t dense enough to make any impact? Does he give any reason why the bones are osteosclerotic if not for buoyancy?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History of discovery" section is very long and contains several different aspects: First the research history of the Irritator fossil, then the discussion regarding the possible discovery site, then a short mention of Oxalaia, and then a discussion of the possible postcranial material. 1) I would suggest to move the Oxalaia to somewhere else, perhaps the systematic section. It seems to be out of place in this section that focuses on the Romualdo Formation. Furthermore, it is irritating that Oxalaia is mentioned before Angaturama is, which was discovered earlier. 2) With Oxalaia moved out, I would include an additional heading for clarity (e.g., "site of discovery and postcranial material"). 3) I would name the section "History of research", as it includes much more than just the discovery.
Done, although I was a bit unsure on the most proper placement for the Oxalaia mention. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in all spinosaurids, the maxillae (main upper jaw bones) extended below the nostrils in a long, low branch that divided the premaxillae and nasal bones in that location. – Appears to be imprecise and confusing. The maxillae do not only extend below, but anterior to the nostrils? Do you mean they extend dorsally to contribute to the lower border of the nostrils, separating premaxilla and nasal?
Reworded, is this clearer? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales & Schultz 2017 is defined twice, and in one instance the link is pointing to a reference.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the paper twice in the references. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sinuses of Irritator's maxillae bore a large oval opening, as in Allosaurus. – Sinuses are openings already, you can't have an opening in an opening. If you want to keep this sentence, it would be good to explain where on the maxilla this opening is located.
Added location for the sinuses. I'm not certain about your other suggestion though. In Sues et al. it reads "The medial wall of the maxillary antrum is perforated by a large oval opening, as in Allosaurus" and that's what I wrote, am I misinterpreting something? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They say "the medial wall of the maxillary antrum has a oval opening", and you say "the sinus has a oval opening". Its like saying "the nostril has a oval opening" (in fact, it would be the nose, if anything). Furthermore, I would link "sinus" to a more general article on sinuses, not on the mammalian maxillary sinus, as I don't think that structure is homologous to that of theropods. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the wiki page, maxillary antrum is just another term for maxillary sinus. Is this incorrect then? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit too quick I guess: Never mind, you are correct. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator's nostrils were smaller than in Suchomimus and Baryonyx, but larger than those of Spinosaurus – proportionally smaller?
Actually, they're both proportionately and absolutely smaller, added that in. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was very large; while the – I think you use too many semicolons. When using while, you don't need one, just use a comma. Use semicolons as a weaker version of the colon.
Hehe, I think I've fallen into the classic trap of semicolon addiction. Typically I add them in to avoid too many commas, but there's a point I use so many of them that I forget how they properly function. Going to have to try and refrain from that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ellipse-shaped – elliptical?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others in its family, Irritator possessed a long and bony structure on the roof of its mouth called a secondary palate; a feature observed in extant crocodilians, but absent in most theropod dinosaurs – Could be more precise: why note state "separating the oral from the nasal cavity"? Also, I would use , instead of ;.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • only partially divided basipterygoid processes – what do you mean with "divided"? Divided into two halves??
Replaced with "diverging" as the orignal source states. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irritator's holotype is unique in that it is one of the few non-avian dinosaur fossils found with a preserved columella (equivalent to the stapes in mammals). – In dinosaurs you call it a stapes, and I would not introduce words here that are not used in the field ("columella").
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of this Irritator specimen's death, the hindmost tooth of the left maxilla was still being replaced, and only the tip of it was visible. – do you mean "was not yet fully erupted"? Why do you need the first part of the sentence at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another drive-by comment, while reworking Baryonyx, I noticed that Sales and Schultz discuss the implications of nostril size in Irritator for olfaction and hunting in or outside water, which doesn't seem to be mentioned here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I remember reading something about that, but forgot to add it in somewhere along the way. Thanks for reminding me! Will implement it soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on olfaction from Sales and Schultz. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lip region was curved at the sixth premaxillary tooth – not sure what this means (lip region?). Looks like the lower margin of the bone was concave, with the concavity reaching its apex at the sixth tooth, is this what is meant?
Done, that sentence was there from before. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The frontmost upper border of the premaxilla had a small bulge that overhung the base of the crest. – overhung the crest? So above the crest? Don't get that.
Nothing gramatically or physically wrong here. Take for example this photo [8], in which the rocks above are overhanging the base of the structure. The same thing occurs in Angaturama's snout, in which a small anterodorsal projection also overhangs the base of the crest, making the front margin of the snout somewhat concave. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's how I understood it. Still sounds like a taphonomic artifact. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • to tenth maxillary positions. – I thought only the first three maxillary teeth are preserved?
Whoops, changed to "third maxillary positions". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though no skeletal remains were discovered with the original Angaturama snout tip, one partial skeleton (MN 4819-V) from a different location may belong to the genus. – Why only Angaturama here and not Irritator? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the sources only state Angaturama, so I felt like that would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems that you already made a quite bold decision by covering Angaturama and Irritator in the same article, thus implying synonymy. This does not appear to be consensus. Would it be safer from a WP:OR point of view to keep them in separate articles for now? Alternatively, you could make clear that the article covers both, perhaps by having Angaturama in bold in the lead as well? I'm not sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having it in bold seems like a good idea, I did the same in Paraceratherium, as there are also conflicting views about taxonomy. As for splitting articles, since one type specimen is most likely destroyed, and recent sources at best consider them to belonging to different individuals, though perhaps of the same taxon, I think its best to keep them in one place. As I mentioned on the talk page, the fact that the Angaturama mount in the Brazil Museum clearly seems to incorporate the Irritator specimen, it seems they also considered them synonymous, despite using the "younger" name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bolded Angaturama limai in the lead. As for status of the holotype material, I thought that the Irritator skull was still in the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart and that Angaturama was in the University of São Paulo? Were the specimens moved? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irritator is in Germany, but there are rumous the Angaturama specimen was in the museum (not a good source):[9] Could be due to confusion with the mounted skeleton (which some mainstream/layman sources mention as if it was real), but who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I sure hope it was still in São Paulo. Spinosaurid taxonomy is already troublesome enough as it is, so the last thing we need is to be loosing more of the few fragile specimens we have. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to my information, Angaturama and Oxalaia were in the museum during the fire and probably got destroyed. Not sure about Thalassodromeus, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and synonymized Irritatoridae within that family – "synonymized with that family" or "placed within that family"?
Removed the "in", very contradictory statement indeed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • by having almost half as many teeth in the maxilla – not sure about the exact meaning: less than half or slightly more than half?
Looking at the source again with the original wording, it should mean slightly over half, changed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the snout of Angaturama limai is generally narrower than in baryonychines, some of the extreme sideways flattening of the holotype may be due to taphonomy (changes during decay and fossilization); given that the specimen appears partly crushed and broken, with some of the preserved teeth having been sectioned off along their length. – This sentence is somewhat too long, and the semicolon is out of place. Furthermore, I think the evidence cited in the second part of the sentence is quite week or not relevant; physical breakage ("teeth are sectioned off") and deformation ("sideways flattening") are different things that can occur at different times during diagenesis.
I took a closer look at the source again and rewrote the sentence appropriately, since it looks like I misread some things (it was a very long paper). Is this better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the Oxalaia does not quite fit into the systematics it seems … is there a better place to mention it? Maybe in its own little paragraph at the end of the "Synonymy with Angaturama", as that sections is about how many species have been present. I don't know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It actually it fits pretty well there! I also added in what autapomorphies Oxalaia has from Angaturama, since they're both known from snout tips. Should help make the paragraph a bit less "naked" and more informative as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2011 finite-element analysis study by British paleontologist Emily J. Rayfield suggested that Irritator's nasal bones may have chanelled certain bending stresses during feeding. The analysis, however, assumed that the sagittal crest was as thick as the rest of the skull, when it was in fact very narrow and fragile compared to neighboring skull bones.[51] – I would remove this whole thing, honestly. It sounds like you are criticizing this study. In fact, the study makes the point that crests in theropods, including those of spinosaurs, had no significant role in feeding (stress distribution). They acknowledge that the crest shape in Irritator makes this less clear, and that it is possible (more in the sense of "it can't be excluded") that the crest took some stresses, but then point out its small thickness. The short of it: They do not consider it likely that the crest had an effect at all. The short of it: they do not really give new information on Irritator.
Admittedly I had some doubts over whether or not this part was relevant and whether or not I'd worded it properly. This just confirmed my worries, removed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • consisting of diagenetic limestone concretions – why "diagenetic" here, what does the source say precisely?
Removed, don't know how that got there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • limestone concretions and calcareous concretions – best to use the same word for the same thing to improve comprehensibility.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and other uncertain forms – do we need a comma here? As is, the "uncertain" appears to apply to the whole preceding list.
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarities between the fauna of the Romualdo and Crato Formations to that of Middle Cretaceous Africa suggest that the Araripe Basin was connected to the Tethys Sea, though this link was likely sporadic, because the lack of marine invertebrates indicates the basin had a non-marine depositional setting.[75] – Only of the fish fauna, right? A non-marine depositional setting for a lagoon? Not sure if that is possible. I suspect that there are two hypotheses: that it was a lagoon and that it was non-marine? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack Hmm, Aureliano et al. (2018) don't mention a non-marine depositional setting for the Crato, Romualdo, and Ipubi Formations. Admittedly this is one of my least favourite things to work on in dinosaur articles, since sediment interpretations can differ wildly between the analyses of different researchers. Also, being much more familiar with biology than geology, these issues are a bit more difficult for me to sort out, so pardon me if I get confused about a couple (or various) things. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review! Your comments are always quite valuable and thorough, especially when it comes to anatomical details. The Guild copyedit should occur sometime in the next couple days I think, but in the meantime I'll submit the article for Peer Review. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angaturama separate Article

[edit]

It says here that Angaturama is distinct from Irritator, with a clade formed by MSNM V4047, and Irritator, and then a larger clade with Oxalaia, and then an even larger clade with Angaturama, and shows that Angaturama is much more basal than Irritator. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2021.2000974?journalCode=ghbi20 Savage Almond (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is one out of several contradictory studies. If a consensus emerges, we could do it, but that's not the case yet. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prematurely published Irritator osteology paper also keeps them separate. What do we think should be done about this, PaleoGeekSquared? FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's out, and seems it's more ambiguous: "Given the uncertainty in the tooth count, tooth positions given in the following always refer to preserved positions. Although our tooth position interpretation would invalidate the main argument used by Sales and Schultz (2017) to exclude Angaturama from being the same specimen as the holotype of Irritator, these authors provide further tentative reasons, such as relative proportional differences and slight differences in the preservational mode (Sales and Schultz, 2017). Based on our observations, we cannot provide any further information that could resolve this question."[10] FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irritator&oldid=1207741137"