Jump to content

Talk:Woolly rhinoceros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hooves

[edit]

A rhinoceros doesn't have hooves. I'd change it but I don't know what part of the rhinoceros was missing: its toenails, toes, or feet? pen-15

Yes, they have hooves, they're ungulates.211.72.108.19 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rhinos are in the same order as horses and more closely related to them than sheep or cattle. Although not all ungulates have hooves, many, including rhinos, do. CFLeon 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mannatien

[edit]

One of the sentences in the text reads: "The Woolly Rhino also had thick fur & a thick fat coating like that of a mannatien to keep it warm from the cold conditions it endured." I have been completely unable to find what a mannatien is. I left it in the text for further searches and replacement with some similar term. The meaning of the sentence is quite clear: fat and fur for insulating purposes. I cannot think of a living terrestrial animal that presents this kind of configuration, but there are sea otters with fat for insulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.125.103.181 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It may have been a reference to the manatee or sea cow, which is a sea mammal, quite fat indeed. [unsigned]

Physiology

[edit]

I think the physiology section is not very clear.

This plant-eater was about 3.7 m (11 feet) long. It had two horns on its snout, the anterior one larger than the one between its eyes about 1 m (3 feet) long;

Do we mean the anterior horn was that long, or the one between its eyes?

both were made of matted hair.

Do we mean kerotin?

It had thick, long fur, small ears, short, thick legs, and a stocky body. Cave paintings suggest a wide dark band between the front and hind legs, but it is not universal and identification of rhinoceros as woolly rhinoceros is uncertain. The woolly rhinoceros used its horns to sweep snow away from vegetation so it could eat in the winter.

Oh c'mon we're not kids here. We know rhinoceroses today use horns for fighting and to attract mates. Mac Davis (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the modern types are limited to that, doesn't mean that the ancient forms didn't find others uses for their horns. Evolution is about Adaptation. CFLeon (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coelodonta

[edit]

The genus Coelodonta should not redirect to this page as it currently contains three different species of which C. antiquitatis is the most commonly known. Coelodonta nihowanensis from China and Coelodonta tologoijensis from the Transbaikalia region should have pages created and the genus page used to link the three species together.--Kevmin (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same is true for Hydrodamalis (gigas and cuestae), and other genera too probably. And there's a similar problem with Homop sapiens. Since other sub-species than Homo sapiens sapiens are known and have articles, Homo sapiens should not redirect to modern human. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this the rather well publicized description of another species Coelodonta thibetana and the creation of a species page for Coelodonta tologoijensis. --Kevmin § 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the page for the genus Coelodonta is done, although it's still a stub. Also we need info about C. nihowanensis.--Rextron (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]


Overhunting what?

[edit]

Other cold-adapted species, such as reindeer, muskox and wisent, survived this period of climatic change and many others like it, supporting the 'overkill' hypothesis for the woolly rhino.

I don't see how this can be 'rationale'. Someone can proof that wholly rinos was extensively hunted and that primitives liked more it to the relatively inoffensive deer or muskox?

Given how the extant rhinos are not extacly neither 'easy kill' (unless you have a good rifle) nor a 'good meat' to eat, this is still a very controvertial and unproof statement. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing during the Holocene?

[edit]

Hi, according to this article of 2014 on the fauna of Urals (in Europe) during the Holocene, it evokes the survival of woolly rhinoceros (and even irish elk and bison steppe). But this other article in 2012 does not validate the persistence of the species during the Holocene. Who to believe? --Ellicrum (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article focused on the species is probably more credible than an article that just mentions the species in passing. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
@Thylacinus cynocephalus: Did you respond to my comments below? It's been almost 2 weeks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you resolved one of my comments below you should tell me because I'm not watching the page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a comment and you did something to the article to resolve it, could you respond to my comment telling me you resolved it? Right now it feels like you've gone inactive   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thylacinus cynocephalus: I don't think you understand what I'm saying (mainly because you're not doing it). So I make a bullet point about what you need to do. Once you have done that, tell me you did it by directly responding to every comment, or at the very least, put a bullet point saying you've responded to all the above. As far as I can tell, you've stopped responding and I'm about ready to fail it for inactivity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Did all of that. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general drive-by comment, the lead section is way too short, it should summarise the article, not it's just a few sentences. THe article certainly needs expansion if it is going to FAC some day, there is a lot of info left out. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I haven't even started checking for completeness yet. The article still probably needs expansion to even get to GA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • fix ref 40
Also replace all the website refs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

[edit]
  • The first paragraph of doesn't really talk about evolution, and the first sentence is kind of unnecessarily complicated with terms like "derived" which isn't really used to say any important phylogenetic information which is really the only context it should be used in. What you could say is something more direct like "The wooly rhinoceros is the most derived of its genus"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 2nd paragraph needs a little bit more explanation. Were the ancestors tropical or adapted to the alpine climates of the Himalayas? Were the Himalayas alpine yet? How does its evolution in humid areas speak to its absence in the Miocene?
  • The parts about Stephanorhinus could probably be condensed into a single sentence so it's easier to catch onto your train of thought. Something like "A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may represent the ancestral stock/whatever you were getting at to Coelodonta". Also, I'm not really understanding how Stephanorhinus was identified as the ancestral stock because they seemed to have lived contemporaneously   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it say the ancestors of the wooly rhino evolved 2 mya but the taxobox gives a fossil range from 3.6 mya?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third par doesn't have a source, and it could be heavily condensed. Something like, "The wooly rhino is thought to descend from either the Eurasian C. tologoijensis or the Tibetan C. thibetana. It evolved at the end of the Early Pleistocene nearly 300 kya, and spread into northern and western Europe."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The members of Coelodonta turned out to be more adapted to a variety of conditions compared to elasmotheres" How is this related to evolution?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"A 1.77 million year old Stephanorhinus hemitoechus rhino mummy may also represent a sister group to Coelodonta" you didn't word this right. Why is only Stephanorhinus hemitoechus the sister group? What about other Stephanorhinus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part of what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Evolutionary arena". Didn't add indentation. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The closest extinct relative to the woolly rhinoceros is Elasmotherium. These two lines were divided in the first half of the Miocene." This is only 1 viewpoint of rhino evolution. There're other hypotheses. Go find them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]
It's still there "The hump also contained a fat reserve to aid survival through the desolate winters of the mammoth steppe"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use a lot of big words unnecessarily like "extant" instead of "living" or "modern day"; "deciduous teeth" instead of "baby teeth" or "milk teeth"; "dental arch" instead of just not putting it in there at all; and "inginual region" instead of "groin". Also, are you sure it had nipples in the groin? It's not sourced either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unique to the woolly rhinoceros was the adhesion of the forward rounded nasal bone with the premaxilla" I'm pretty sure all rhinos have round noses so you don't need that part, so you can say it as "Unique to this rhino, the nasal bones were fused to the premaxillae"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know they used their horns for defense and to attract mates, we assume   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. You can condense the entire first paragraph into 1 or 2 or 3 sentences with a lot less words. "The front horn reached a considerable size. Its length reached a meter or more" these 2 statements are redundant. Why do you mention the Kolyma specimen?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You better address it then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "The second premolar was shaped in an especially gracile manner" I feel like the source just said this more or less verbatim and you more or less copy/pasted it in. If you don't understand something, then odds are the general reader won't understand, so what you need to do is understand it, and rewrite so it's easier to understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The preserved wear indicates that they were used for combat, probably including intraspecific combat as recorded in cave paintings, as well as for moving snow to uncover vegetation during winter" The preserved wear cannot tell you what they were used for, it can only tell you that they were used for something. So, you can say "Woolly rhinos may have used their horns for..." but can't say this. Also this info belongs in Paleobiology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Distribution

[edit]
What exactly is the point of the 2nd paragraph? Why do you zero in on the English Channel specifically? Why do you mention the mammoth and Elasmotherium here? The 3rd paragraph could easily be condensed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically in articles about extinct creatures, there's a section entitled "Paleobiology" which talks about the animals' behavior and diet and predators, and "Paleoecology" which talks about the environment the animal lived in and other animals it lived with   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]
  • Instead of "and were often interpreted as the remains of species from folklore", maybe "and were the basis for some mythical creatures."
That's probably because you're talking about Unicorn Cave and looking for a newspaper article from the 17th century. Use a different source than a blog   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should cite Bronn, and Bronn will most likely give a justification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology

[edit]
  • "which easily allowed it to pluck vegetation" → "which allowed it to easily pluck vegetation
The source says, "they must have been stopped by the numerous glaciated mountain ridges of Alaska". WolfmanSF (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final remarks

[edit]
  • This review is on its away to reaching the 2nd month mark, and we've made very little headway. The article is still not very up to GA standards. Even with all the small grammar and style comments above, this article doesn't cover all relevant aspects of the woolly rhino. You should definitely include more sources and use only academic journal and book sources, and while you're expanding, make sure to avoid page filler and unnecessary wording and padding. Good luck   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Humans

[edit]

Humans aren't mentioned AT ALL on the Extinction section. 82.151.166.49 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woolly_rhinoceros&oldid=1223964617"