Talk:Ornithocheiridae

Anhangueria?

So what to do with this new clade in relation to this one?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anhangueria appears to be more inclusive than Anhangeridae/Ornithocheiridae and less inclusive than Ornithocheiroidea/Pteranodontoidea, so it should be discussed on one of those pages or given a separate article. It doesn't seem to be a synonym of any pre-existing clade. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Then separate pages for Anhangueria and Anhangueridae should be created if new discoveries in England, Morocco, and America further reinforce the separation of Tropeognathus and Uktenadactylus from Ornithocheirus and Coloborhynchus respectively. As a side note, Agnolin and Varrichio don't place Piksi in Ornithocheiridae; they place it in Ornithocheiroidea, but don't say if it is a pteranodontid or a nyctosaurid. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@JurassicClassic767: Thanks for taking hand on our neglected pterosaurs. You did choose, however, a very difficult article which needs considerable effort to bring to GA level. Articles about newly named genera are easiest, but this is a whole group, and a group whose taxonomy is a complete mess. I'm happy to help as I can, but it is still some way. Lets start with the History section. Here I see, for now, two general issues on which we could focus first:

• We cannot give a single information that is not covered by the source we cite. Exceptions may be explanation of terms, or something very obvious.
  • For example you say: However, in 1870, he found out that the generic name Ptenodactylus had been considered a nomen nudum, and therefore he reassigned P. cuvieri to the new genus Ornithocheirus, creating Ornithocheirus cuvieri – I really doubt that the source covers the part "he reassigned it because he "found out" it is a nomen nudum". I also doubt that this is true, at least it is certainly imprecise.
  • Or this one: Finding out that Seeley had assigned at least 27 species of pterosaur to Ornithocheirus, and even publishing a book about his conclusions had made Owen consider the name Ornithocheirus invalid, or at the very least inappropriate. – He considered it invalid because he didn't like Seeley? And he states this in his own paper (the only source given)?
  • There are other examples, most of them less evident. For now I would suggest the following:
    • 1) Remove all information that is not directly covered by the source.
    • 2) For the editorial information, context, and impact of the individual discoveries on research, and to decide what information to include and what not, stick to secondary sources. This could be books or, sometimes, introduction sections of journal articles. Witton's book has a good overview to start with.
• The article mostly contains information on the individual genera, but very little on the group itself. We should only include information that has direct relevance for this group, and not simply write a compilation of summaries from the individual genera articles. And we should always place the different bits of information within the larger context (the Ornithocheiridae), i.e. making clear what their impact is on our understanding of the group.
  • For example: Some of which included its crest being placed far back on the premaxilla, at the level of the seventh tooth pair, but begins before the large skull opening; there is a density of three teeth per 3 centimeters (1.2 in) at the front of the upper jaw and of two teeth at the back of the jaw. These distinguishing traits made it unique, and therefore Rodrigues & Kellner erected a new genus called Cimoliopterus, and created the new combination Cimoliopterus cuvieri. The generic name combines Κιμωλία, Kimolia (meaning "chalk" in New Greek) , in reference to the white clay of the island Kimolos, and the Latinised Greek word πτερόν, pteron (meaning "wing"). – this is also an example for a genus article summary piece as I mentioned above. This is certainly not relevant here, this is context for the Cimoliopterus article. We do not learn anything about the Ornithocheiridae as a whole here.
  • For now I suggest this:
    • 1) Remove information that does not really help the reader to understand the group Ornithocheiridae. The article might get shorter, but this is usually a good thing. What matters is conciseness and logical flow of relevant information. Length is usually something bad! Quality matters.
    • 2) Try to bring the group into the focus, not the individual genera. The "History of discovery" barely mentions Ornithocheiridae at all! We need more information here: When was the group first used, and what genera did it include? What other pterosaur groups were recognised at that time, and how did this new group fit in? How has our perception of this group evolved since, and how did its classification change over time? What are the taxonomic problems we still face? Again, Witton's book is a good start.

Also consider listing the article at the Paleo Peer Review (by including this discussion), so that others may give additional input (we do not regularly write group articles, so it might be good to discuss what precisely the best approaches are). This GA review can stay open for a while. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: For now I've removed several paragraphs that were potentially unreferenced or confusing (and potentially irrelevant); mostly in the description and classification sections, but yeah, the history section is the one that we should work on the most (and the one that is mostly a mess); I definitely agree with all that you've said above, and I'll definitely make an effort for the article. Also, after removing the unhelpful info, would listing this article to Paleo PR as in right away would be the best idea? The whole article would still be a mess, and we (at least me) would also need to work on the sources and citations, so it would take some time before it would really be ready? But yeah, Witton's book does contain a lot of info on pterosaurs, and if we would want to talk about the history in particular, I do know several papers that mention (at least brief) info about the history of the family, like who named it, or what genera were included. However, many of these are outdated, since there are new papers on new pterosaurs (and new conclusions of course), for example Ferrodraco or Targaryendraco, and then it affects the classification and placement of other genera, so introducing large bits of info that are now outdated is also something that we should consider. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as you know what to do and my input is sufficient, there is no need to list it at the review. We can consider it once we are done, or once we get stuck; in any case it is always good to have more eyes on it. Let me know, then, when you need anything from me, when you got any problems, or when you are through with above comments! And btw., another good source seems to be Unwin 2003 On the phylogeny and evolutionary history of pterosaurs, p. 178: Here you find the definition of the group, which is very important to mention! It also lists distinguishing characters (synapomorphies), at least some of these could be included (but in a comprehensible way) in the description I think (hopefully they are not too outdated, if you have a newer source for the synapomorphies than it is even better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all the support! And I think I've seen a PDF for the Unwin 2003 paper; it is already cited in the article itself, but only links to the abstract of the paper, so its not that useful for now. So yeah, I think I'll start with the easier segments first. Again, thanks for the support! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: It's been a few days since I was last active on the article page, my apologies. For now I've finished with the history section, also put some extra relevant details about the group. I'll make some major changes to the description section soon, so let me know if I need to add more or remove info about the history section. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, this looks much much better. A few quick points here:
• may have belonged to this family – Taxonomy is always in present (e.g., "Ornithocheiridae is a group", "they belong to this family"). This is because the taxa are modern concepts, the Ornithocheiridae didn't exist unitl it was named by Seeley.

 Done - Changed to present tense.

• I personally would try to work in some general information/assessment from Witton's book. For example, he has stated that this is one of the best known pterosaur groups; that the taxonomy is convoluted; is estimates on the number of species; and that more has been published on this group than on many other groups. You have the complete book, do you (I can scan something in if needed)?

 Done - Added some brief info about how the taxonomy is convoluted, and also how the group is popular within pterosaur groups.

• However, back in 2001, Unwin considered the name Anhangueridae a junior synonym of Ornithocheiridae,[5] a concept that was later followed by several paleontologists such as Mark Witton.[1] Later phylogenetic analyses however, contradict this name synonymy, meaning that Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae are classified as different families. – According to Witton, Seeley pointed out that Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae are synonymous, two names for the same group (people can sometimes not decide which name to use). The later analyses you cite seem to establish Anhangueridae as a separate group distinct from Ornithocheiridae, which is something very different. Please check.

I forgot to put that the analyses cited in the end of the paragraph follow the 2014 analysis by Andres and colleagues, not Unwin (2001). So what I've done is that I added a small sentence that says this, which is also stated in the citations themselves. But it may still be confusing though?

• The internal taxonomic history of Ornithocheiridae is well discussed. But how the group was classified within Pterosauria in the past is not discussed. I think first was the basic concept Rhamphorhynchoidea vs. Pterodactyloidea; then the first elaborate classifications (Young 1964, see [2] p. 252); etc. See also Unwin 2003 (Introduction) for an overview. You could, of course, also discuss this in the "Classification" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be better discused in the Classification section. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, @Jens Lallensack:, would you consider failing the review for now? I don't think it's good to have a GA review open for many weeks, and I still need to do some fixes to Paleobiology and Paleoecology. I've also been quite busy these past weeks to do bulky edits and changes. I'll probably re-nominate this article sometime next month. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

All right, I'm a bit short of time myself as well at the moment. Just re-nominate (or send to the review) when you feel ready. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Morphs?

In the description section (third sentence at time of writing), the article mentions "giant morphs" when the previous clause of the same sentence refers to the size difference of species. "Morph" is usually used to describe differences in form between individuals of the same species, so the sentence as it stands doesn't really make sense.

Given the difficulties of classifying fossils, it seems unlikely that it means that some species are known to have, within one species both four foot and eight foot sized forms! But if it means that there were separate species of different size, the use of the word "morph" is at best confusing.

Could this be clarified/corrected? I'm not certain enough as to what is meant to correct it myself. FloweringOctopus (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)