Talk:Ohmdenosaurus

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ohmdenosaurus Restoration.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Finally! I'm currently a bit swamped in FAC reviews, but will return as soon as possible, but I have some comments in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And there is absolutely no rush, after me taking years to finish this little article … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• There are a bunch of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual script.
  • Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• If this is going to FAC, it will probably be asked that the restoration has sources. You don't need to know what the artist used, just something that confirms the anatomy and environment.
  • Hmm … not sure, just cite Shunosaurus? Is not a perfect match though. These egg clutches are a bit problematic though, sauropods didn't had open clutches … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe some source that states they were related? As for the eggs, I could make a version without them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Went for Tazoudasaurus now and added the info; hope this would work now? And yeah, removing these eggs would certainly improve it if you can do it? Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine, and as you saw, the eggs and signature have been removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• If Slate Weasel is around, we should try to see if we can get the size comparison diagram[1] more in line with published estimates so it can be used. Or we can make a new one?
  • I checked this, and Slates estimate makes more sense to me than the original one. Getting it down to 3–4 m would be quite a stretch. Not sure if there is anything we can do.
• Some citations use full names, some don't.
  • Fixed.
• The Taphonomy paragraph is pretty chunky and therefore hard to parse, perhaps split in two?
  • Yes, done.
• The intro could perhaps also be split in two.
  • Also done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "(fossil deposit of exceptional importance)" Or exceptional preservation?
  • "Exceptional importance" is correct, that was the original idea of the term "Lagerstätte". In this case, however, we have a "Konservat-Lagerstätte" – a fossil deposit that is important because of its exceptional preservation. There are, however, also "Konzentrat-Lagerstätten" that do not necessarily show exceptional preservation. (And yes, I think the definition in the Wiki article is not correct).
• "Together with his son, he opened a local museum in Holzmaden, the Urweltmuseum Hauff, to display the finds." Perhaps give a date?
  • Found and added.
• Link dinosaur in article body too.
  • done.
• "and conducted additional preparation" Link fossil preparation?
  • done
• Some measurements are abbreviated, others not.
  • Hope I got all.
• Link cartilage?
  • done.
• Link basal.
  • done, and explained.
• "argued that the Early Jurassic Ohmdenosaurus must have been a basal sauropod because its limb was clearly columnar" And because of its age, I guess? Implied, but not stated outright now.
  • I removed the "basal", because I think it is clearer to focus on the point that it is a sauropod for now.
• " Wild concluded that Ohmdenosaurus shows a mosaic of primitive and derived features and probably needs to be placed within a new family of sauropods.[2]" Why change in tense?
  • From my feeling, this sounds correct. The fossil shows this mosaic of features, and he argued that it needs to be placed in a new family. But please proof me wrong.
• "tentatively included Ohmdenosaurus in the Vulcanodontidae,[4] a group that later fell out of use" On what grounds was it assigned?
  • Added.
• "Although roughly contemporaneous with Ohmdenosaurus, they cannot be directly compared to the latter because they do not include elements of the hind limb." But what do they include?
  • Added.
• From reading the article, it doesn't appear Tazoudasaurus is very related after all? Compared to the image description "Animals reconstructed after the related Tazousasaurus".
  • Tazoudasaurus is just the only early sauropod that is complete enough to be reliably reconstructed. So I hoped it is close enough …
• "in an subtropical" In a?
  • done.
• "as an unique" A unique?
  • done.
• You mention many marine reptile groups in the history section from the same deposits, but not under paleoenvironment? Maybe you could go more in detail about specific genera there.
  • Under paleoenvironment, I thought we should restrict ourselves to the environment of Ohmdenosaurus – the terrestrial flora and fauna. The flying animals come from the landmass, as do the plants. We need to stress the point that this dinosaur does not belong where it was found. But let me know if you disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, but personally, following this text "Wild, however, considered it more likely that scavengers such as crocodiles or plesiosaurs brought the specimen to its final site", I'd like to know what kind of creatures it could have been, as they seemingly interacted with the carcass at least. You could say "marine animals known from the same sediments the holotype was deposited in include" etc. But it's up to you, it won't hold promotion back. FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The fossil has originally been identified as a plesiosaur." Was originally?
  • fixed.
• The last point is optional, so I'll go ahead and promote this now, nice stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Needed Corrections

I have been sampling data from the "Posidonienschiefer" formation for years. There are a few corrections needed in the article:

A) To begin with, the shales of the unit do not reach the "Middle" (Traditionally Bifrons-Variabilis Biozones) Toarcian. The right shale levels are part of the early (approx. 3 Myr) tenuicostatum and falciferum biozones. The Unterer Schiefer belongs to the lowest (Exaratum) subzone of the 2nd, which makes sense, as it correlates with one of the sea level maxs measured at nearby Dotternhausen.

The 2023 paper that summs that is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018223002377

B) Riegraf (1985) made a very detailed facies inventory of this unit, finding evidence of non-anoxic shallow-water carbonate sandstone ('Glaukonit und viel Feinsand'; demonstrated by increased oxygenic water biota, especially sponges and echinoderms) in the Black Forest Massif area at Obereggenen im Breisgau. The next coastal outcrop is at Regensburg, where carbonate sandstone platform is detected.

Riegraf, W (1985). "Mikrofauna, Biostratigraphie, und Fazies im Unteren Toarcium Südwestdeutschlands und Vergleiche mit benachbarten Gebieten". Tübinger Mikropaläontologische Mitteilungen. 3 (1): 1–232.

Recently was suggested that a Plesiosaur with quartz gastroliths probably went there.

• Vincent, P.; Allemand, R.; Taylor, P. D.; Suan, G.; Maxwell, E. E. (2017). "New insights on the systematics, palaeoecology and palaeobiology of a plesiosaurian with soft tissue preservation from the Toarcian of Holzmaden, Germany". The Science of Nature. 104 (6): 51. Bibcode:2017SciNa.104...51V. doi:10.1007/s00114-017-1472-6. hdl:10141/622228. PMID 28578532. S2CID 24957821. Retrieved 10 February 2022.

I will add another 2022 paper that summs nearby emerged landmasses and Palynology:

Galasso, F.; Feist-Burkhardt, S.; Schneebeli-Hermann, E. (2022). "Do spores herald the Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event?". Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology. 306. Retrieved 12 December 2023.

Yewtharaptor (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Paging @Jens Lallensack The Morrison Man (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yewtharaptor: Thank you for your input, and for discussing on the talk page. As you see, I only did a partial revert and kept your change regarding middle Toarcian vs early Toarcian. Regarding the landmasses, I did not quite understand the text you added to the article. Do I understand correctly that the Black Forest is now considered to be the closest landmass, and not the Vindelician High? If so, then I don't see how this is supported by the source you provided (the source needs to state this explicitly; we are not allowed to do WP:Synth). If it was something else you wanted to correct: Please let me know, precisely, what the errors are, what the correction would be, and where (ideally with page number) these corrections are supported by the sources. Thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The Black Forest Massif is the closest, closer than the Vindelician Land and the Bohemian Massif: "The nearest regions where such environments may have existed during the early Toarcian were the Black Forest, Vosges and the Jura Massif, which were presumably emergent at this time" (Vincet et al., 2017 quoting Riegraf 1985). Then, the Allemanic high and finally the Vindelician High Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to replace the Vindelician Land with the Black Forest Massif. However, the source (Vincent et al.) state that their Black Forest site is "about 200 km from Holzmaden", but it is in fact only 100 km when I measure on the map? Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct, is a typo of the paper, the Riegraf profile with sand is 97 km from Holzmaden-Ohmden area. Yewtharaptor (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Changed. Anything else? Note that I had removed the ammonite zone you added because its base does not seem to precisely match the base of the Unterer Schiefer. For the plesiosaur gastrolits, I think they are not strictly pertinent to this article, and I like to keep the text on-focus. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)