Talk:Thylacosmilus

Canine length

And... How much long were it's fangs aproximately?

In a children's book about dinosaurs I was reading when I was young it is said that its fangs were about the same lentgh with its skull.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Body length

Just to compare, their principal measurment, length I guess or height if you prefer, what was it? long were it's fangs aproximately?

Well, from my sources I say that Thylacosmilus was 1.3 m long and had a skull 0.22 m long. I don't know about its' fangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.84.73 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Thylacosmilus virtually never cohabited with Toxodon, then the picture it is not representative of any ecosystem.

What indicates it is Toxodon specifically? There are dozens of other toxodont species known. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about the Toxodon? That picture looks more like a Thylacoleo, with shopped in teeth and 'jaw', than anything else. 220.233.34.248 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because it has stripes? FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Anatomically, I don't see a great problem with the image mentioned above... what resemblance have it to Thylacoleo? But I'm actually intrigued for the toxodontids of the image... they are not the same of the series "Prehistoric Park"? [1] We can use here, even if are in a modified image?--Rextron (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's the exact same image, then we have a problem... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the toxodontids were taken fom some shots of the program... and the glyptodontid appears be this figure: [2] Also, the image is a earlier version of this [3] that replaces the animals in the background. I guess that only the Thylacosmilus itself is usable?--Rextron (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hahah, wow, but is there any chance that he could have made those images for the programmes? FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The toxodontids, you mean? Roman Uchytel is not cited in the crew of Prehistoric Park, at least accoding to IMDB: [4] --Rextron (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the image could be fixed by cropping or painting them out? FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so a couple of yearss ago I joined Wikipedia for the specific purpose of ixing that awful picture displayed on the left-hand side of this article. Now I see it's back on there. That picture is not even remotely accurate - the skull is too short, the rhinarium is unlikely at best, and the stupid skin scabbards on the mandibular process are something that has NEVER been demonstrated to have been present in any saber-toothed species that had this process on its lower jaw. So why is the picture back? And as long as we cite sources for the artwork, there are two images by Mauricio Antón available for use floating around the internet already, and a third by another artist I happen to know named Viergacht that we might be able to use from deviantart. All three of which images are a lot more accurate than that piece of crap... no offense. - Zirojtan.

Are you talking about the head? First, we cannot use any random image off the web, only free ones. Second, can you demonstrate with sources that any of the issues you mention are inaccurate? What is inaccurate about the rhinarium, and how would you in any way falsify some soft tissue feature from animals only known from bones and with no close relatives? FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Extinction

Only one recent study is cited as evidence for the new view on the species' extinction; is one study alone really enough to overturn the previous view? Can we really assume that there are no sufficient gaps in the fossil record to account for divergent dates between last known appearance and first known arrival of competing species?

Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I left an answer in the talk section of Sparassodonta.--Rextron (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This article presents inferences based on fossil evidence as though they were proven facts. It is my understanding that science does not deal with absolute proof, but rather the most likely explanation among several possible explanations (see Scientific evidence#Concept of "scientific proof").

--Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not repeat the same questions in two separate talk pages.--Rextron (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

New paper

Just leaving this new paper about the skull of Thylacosmilus - will be interesting to review some characteristics and the head posture of the animal.--Rextron (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, didn't see that! I'm still planning on getting this to GAN/FAC, feel free to add anything in the meantime. I'll focus on the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

About taxonomy, this new study also says something interesting: "Goin and Pascual (1987) have shown that the numerous Late Miocene/Pliocene thylacosmilid species named in the 20th century cannot be meaningfully distinguished from one another and should therefore be regarded as synonyms of Thylacosmilus atrox, the earliest valid name apart from an unused senior synonym (Achlysictis lelongi, now suppressed; see Goin and Pascual, 1987) coined by Ameghino (1891)."--Rextron (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool, sometimes it does pay off to wait a bit before expanding an article, because significant papers might come out soon after... FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, also I hope to reassume the expansion of the article soon.--Rextron (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe good we didn't work on this yet, Rextron, new paper out dismissing it was convergent with other sabertooths in ecology:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just read the "terrible" news ;). I couldn't work on this lastly, however I remember that Argot mentioned that the animal also had a poor binocular vision and maybe it was a an ambush predator. Well, this study will be a good addition to the article. (Also, to the Thylacosmilidae page).--Rextron (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok Rextron, I think I'm ready to go all in on this one (I've finished some other projects), and will finish taxonomy first. How is your time lately? Any sections you want to focus on? FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have some more time lastly, and I've finished with Pyrotherium, so we can collaborate again on this. I think that with the new paper about Eomakhaira you would have more information for taxonomy and evolution, I could return to the expand those paragraphs that only says "a study was developed in X aspect".--Rextron (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, so that would be Palaeobiology? By the way, I'm unsure what would be the best taxobox photo, a photo showing the skeleton, like the current one, or a photo of just the skull? I think it's good to show a whole animal, but our current image is of course a bit confusing at thumbnail size because there are so many details in it, with two skeletons and so on. But maybe we can just replace it if we ever get a better photo of a skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered the drawings in the 1934 description are in the public domain, so that's nice! But while our article gives an etymology for the genus name, I see none in the papers. Have you come across any? FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, basically paleobiology and feeding. I hope that there are more images of the Museo Egidio Feruglio, or some the skull images would be fine. About the etymology... wow, I never thought about that, and I just have seen the two original works of Riggs and the meaning of the name is not given there, neither in any paper that I've read. Fortunately the recent book Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys gives the etymology of the genus and species, and since that it was written by the paleontologist Darin Croft should be a reliable source.--Rextron (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Great! Does it say anything about the meaning of atrox? Otherwise we can maybe use a dictionary for that and lentis... FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

According to this blog on the American lion The name atrox is a Proto-Indo-European word meaning “atrocious”, “fierce”, “savage”, or “cruel”. The reptile database as something similar for a snake The specific name, "atrox," is a Greek word meaning "cruel, harsh, or merciless". —  Jts1882 | talk  11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, we may need a more conventional source I imagine, like a paper or dictionary. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Like here. here or here (via Wiktionary). Leidy doesn't explain the name in his orginal description of Felis Atrox but presumably he used Latin which got it from the Greek. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Croft gives for atrox only the meaning of "cruel". He didn't wrote about another species, so for lentis the dictionaries would be necessary.--Rextron (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find lentis on that same dictionary site, but it seems it means lentil, for some reason:[6] You could argue we don't need it because it's just a synonym, but I think it would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would interpret "lentis" as derived from "lentus"; slow, sluggish. But a definitive source would be best, either not include it imo. Tisquesusa (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if there is any doubt, and an authoritative source specifically about the given taxon can't be found, I'll be interpretation close to WP:OR. Now you're here, Tisquesusa, you're welcome to join in expanding this article, if we're successful I think it'll be the first FA about an exclusively South American prehistoric mammal (oh, forgot about Ferugliotherium, but that's so obscure as to be invisible). Hemiauchenia has also expressed interest in working on mammal articles, if they're interested (though of course has a lot of other stuff on their hands). FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Rextron, I just got a paper through WP:RX I couldn't find online, tell me if you want it too: Riggs, E.S. and Patterson, B., 1939, Stratigraphy of the late Miocene and Pliocene deposits of the Province of Catamarca (Argentina) with notes on the fauna. Physis., 14: 143–162. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that paper could be useful for paleonvironment. --Rextron (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yikes, already yet another relevant paper:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

And another:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• By the way, Rextron, what do you think about our available restorations? I don't think they've ever been reviewed, but I've just added those I thought looked best. There are also these on Commons:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Thylacosmilus Amerika.jpg plagiarized the Toxodon in the background   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe even the glyptodont too. They should probably be removed... FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the (copyrighted?) glyptodont, the modern looking horses & what appeared to be a cow in the far right. I considered leaving the horses, but I don't think equines showed up in South America until the late Pliocene. Monsieur X (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

We talked about the image with the toxodont some time ago, but we don't decide anything about it, hehe. Certainly the herbivores should be removed to avoid copyright... About it [10] well, is inaccurate considering the backfeet of Thylacosmilus (they should be plantigrade) and the prey animal looks like a proterotheriid, but with a strange anatomy (proterotheriids were trydactyls). This [11] is of course an improved version, but maybe the feet are bigger than they should be, Thylacosmilus have fewer postcanine teeth and the prey item it's Mesotherium, which as far I know was not coeval, although it could be the mesotheriid Pseudotypotherium. In any case it looks too thin, the face and body of these animals should be more robust: [12]. About this [13] my main concern are the fingers, considering the semiopposable thumb of Thylacosmilus and the claws maybe looks too small?.--Rextron (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

So I guess those images just need to be tagged as inaccurate. And we don't really need any of them anyway, are the ones in the article accurate enough? I removed the worst of those copyrighted toxodonts with Photoshop's content aware deletion tool, the glyptodont toy is a bit trickier... FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, about the rest, it [14] is inaccurate, the hindfeet are digitigrade and in overall, the body is too slim, although cleary the digital model that is in use currently in the article [15] is the improved version, I don't have any issues with it. This image [16] is also good, I only have a doubt, would a marsupial relative as Thylacosmilus greenish eyes? usually marsupials tend to have brown eyes, although is just nitpicking, I think that anatomically is ok. About the image with the glyptodont, I wonder if could be found the original image of the background or maybe a similar landscape? --Rextron (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sparassodonts are so far removed from marsupials that I'd believe anything is possible? Eye colour mutations aren't exactly uncommon in other groups, compare humans with other primates... Our closest relatives, the chimps, have black sclera! The original BG image of the other one could maybe be found through Google Image search or something. But if it is itself a composite of different images, that would of course be impossible... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, also I was looking for the original image but I found anything, just more copies of our image.--Rextron (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I just so happen to e-mail alphynix about uploading some of their artwork & properly crediting them as most of their work is published under CC BY-NC 4.0. (Some of their work was improperly uploaded here with the wrong CC licences in the past.) If they reply back, we could also use their Thylacosmilus restoration , if you think it's accurate.

It seems to maybe lack the domed/convex shape of the forehead? The head looks kind of flat on top? FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting reconstruction, I will review the shape of the head, certainly looks somewhat flat...--Rextron (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it was made two years before the recent paper. Although, they did do a Thylacosmilus with a more domed/convex shaped head in an older paleoart piece. I won't upload either them if they're both deemed inaccurate. Monsieur X (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, well, the shape of the skull has been known since it was described, this 1934 diagram shows the sloping forehead well:[17] It is caused by the teeth growing from well past behind the eyes[18], and therefore the head has to have such a curve, it's pretty crazy... The second illustration is much better, but the first looks a bit too much like a Tasmanian devil... FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I made a comparison of the image of alphynix, I used the 3d model of the skull of Thylacosmilus from this page: [19], and I made an overlay: [20] Of course is not an exact match, is difficult to know the exact angle in which it's positioned, but apparently the dome shaped skull looks right, maybe the canines are a bit off and should be thinner (again, depends of the perspective). But in overall, is anatomically correct.--Rextron (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, it seems a bit too broad compared to the skull, though, with those extensive brow ridges? FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that it's a more broad and longer than the skull, and as I said, maybe is the same situation for the upper canines. --Rextron (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So basically the head is only problematic thing about the restoration? Also, should there be a Thylacosmilus restoration with some kind of "keratinous soft tissue structure"? Monsieur X (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh, that sounds odd, it isn't in the recent source cited. But if it's from the 1930s source, we can probably disregard it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering what is known of the skeleton of Thylacosmilus [21], the body of the animal in the image looks right.--Rextron (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• What do we think about this overcrowded size comparison[22], by the way? Should we request a new one with only this genus? FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That's definitely overcrowded & messy. I personally think the article need a new one that either solely focuses on the genus or one that features it & some other major members of Sparassodonta. Monsieur X (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • i agree, I think that the better option is only the size comparison for Thylacosmilus, preferably in a SVG format. Other relatives could be added, in any case there are few sparassodonts with postcranial remains.--Rextron (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll request a new one at WP:paleoart. One with more sparassodonts could maybe be made separately, if we can find sources for their sizes. What are the most accurate estimates for Thylacosmilus? FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

In body size I only remember that Anton gives it a shoulder height of 60 cm... --Rextron (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I made a section here[23], but I botched your ping first time around. I found an estimate in another book. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No Mention Of Chin

How is it possible that an animal with possibly the tallest chin ever and the highlight of its features manages to have no remark upon it? Is everyone just embarrassed to mention that it has a large chin? Why is there a chin? Why are we talking about how it has a possible horn on its upper lip without remarking that it has a ginormous cushion for its saber fangs? What possible reason did this ancient creature have to evolve a chin between its teeth? Wacape (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is by no means complete yet, but that feature is already mentioned: "They were protected by the large symphyseal flange". These are not "a chin". FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)