User talk:William Harris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dire wolf - Copy Edits

Hello, William Harris - You can see that I have completed a copy-edit of Dire wolf. It is an excellent article, and I enjoyed reading it. A lot of my edits were simply adding a no-break-space template between single letters or numbers and what follows them, such as in C. dirus. I think it looks better if the single letter or number does not end up alone at the end of a line. You'll also see that I re-worded some sentences. Occasionally, I added an explanatory phrase to help readers (hope you don't mind). I hope you will read through the article and be sure I did not inadvertently introduce any errors. I'd be glad to discuss any of those changes (in fact, any edit), and I am open to further modifying the sentences or undoing any change or addition I've made. There are a few things I'd like to ask you about:

1) It seems to me that the variant of English used in this article is American English. I don't see British English spelling (but, in a glance at your user page I saw the user box indicating the time where you live, and I couldn't quite figure out where that might be; I thought it might be Australia or New Zealand). However, I see both "sabre-toothed cat" and "saber-toothed cat", about equally divided, throughout the article. The WP article is titled Saber-toothed cat. I think the spelling in the article should be consistent, don't you? "Saber" is, of course, American spelling, and "sabre" is British spelling, but perhaps "sabre-toothed" is more common in the literature. If you'll tell me which spelling you prefer, I'll go through the article and make the spelling consistent. Being an American mammal, let us go with the American "Saber-toothed cat", please.

2) In the process of re-wording the last sentence in the article, I realized that there is some inconsistency in the wording whenever you give "dated", then a year, then "YBP". Sometimes you have:

(a) "dated at + year YBP", sometimes you have:
(b) "dated to + year YBP", and sometimes you have
(c) "dated + year YBP" (no preposition).

You also have "dated between + year YBP + year YBP". I know using "between" to express a range is different, but if you use "at" or "to" (consistently), perhaps you should use that preposition before "between": "dated at between..." (doesn't sound right) or "dated to between..." (unless it is customary in the literature to leave out the second preposition and just use "dated between"). So, if you agree this should be consistent, which pattern do you prefer, (a), (b), or (c)? (c) please. I think "dated 10,000–12,000 YBP" should be understandable enough.

3) At the beginning of the Dire wolf#Taxonomy section, you have this sentence:

• From the 1850s, the fossil remains of extinct large wolves were being found in the United States, and it was not immediately clear that these all belonged to one species.

This is one of the first things that struck me when I first started reading articles on Wikipedia. I had never before seen "from + date" used in this way. I think this must be a British or Australian construction. American usage would be: "Beginning in the 1850s", "Starting in the 1850s", or "From the 1850s onward". However, if you are comfortable with "From the 1850s", I'll leave it as it is. I'm sure readers can figure out what it means. You are correct, it is one of those Australian "clipped speech" things that we do down here. I would be happy with a compromise of "From the 1850s onward"

4) In the fourth paragraph in Dire wolf#Evolution is the following sentence:

• One study found that C. dirus was the most evolutionary derived genus Canis species in the New World, and compared to C. nehringi was larger in the size and construction of its lower molars for more efficient predation.

Grammatically, I should think the word before "derived" (after the pipe in the link) should be an adverb: "evolutionarily derived", but you've got an adjective: "evolutionary derived", which is puzzling to me. That was the term the researchers used, however their field is mammal morphology and not English expression - please amend to "evolutionarily derived".

5) The first sentence in the second paragraph of Dire wolf#Description is the following:

• A comparison of leg size shows that the rear legs of C. d. guildayi were 8% shorter than the Northwestern wolf due to significantly shorter tibia and metatarsus.

If "tibia" and "metatarsus" are singular nouns, we should add "a" before "significantly". Yes please!

6) The very next sentence is:

• It was also slightly shorter in the lower bones of the front legs.

It is not clear what "it" is. The animal? Which animal? The rear leg? If possible, the sentence should be constructed so it is closer to the pattern of the previous sentence. I have extended the sentence to read "..., and was also slightly shorter in the lower bones of the front legs compared to the Northwestern wolf."

7) I'm sure you know your subject matter, but I just have to ask you about the section heading Dire wolf#Adaption. Is "adaption" significantly different from "adaptation"? if it is, that's fine. I see the first sentence uses the word "adaption", but it doesn't give any idea of what "adaption" is for the non-expert reader. Is there any way you could add a brief explanation of what it is? I have changed it to "Adaptation", which my Oxford English Dictionary informs me is the correct biological term. A quick introduction to the term is now reflected in the article.

8) The last sentence in the second paragraph in Dire wolf#Behavior is:

• Large and social carnivores would have been successful at defending carcasses of trapped prey from smaller solitary predators, and thus the most likely to become trapped themselves, which indicates that both C. d. guildayi and Smilodon fatalis were social predators.

If you look in the article's revision history, you'll see that I slightly re-worded this sentence in an effort to make it clearer. However, it is still not completely clear. The clause "which indicates that both C. d. guildayi and Smilodon fatalis were social predators" does not, in my opinion, logically follow what precedes it. I think something is missing. Isn't it the fact that so many fossil remains of C. d. guildayi and Smilodon fatalis were found in the La Brea tarpits indicate that they were social predators? Excellent reasoning, now fixed.

I saw the change you made. Here is the sentence as it is now:

The saber-toothed cat and C. d. guildayi are the two most common carnivorans found at La Brea, which indicates that both were social predators.

It's fine, but:

(a) a form of the verb "indicate" appears twenty-six times in this article, and

(b) "Indicates" is a stronger, more definite word than "suggests". Do researchers feel that this is a definite conclusion? If so, leave it, but you might want to consider changing it to "..., strong evidence that they were social predators" just for variety. (You might also go through the article and look at every instance of "indicate/indicates/indicated" – you can use the "Find" tool – and see if there are a few you could change to "suggest/suggests/suggesting" or "evidence of/evidence that", to add variety to the verbs.) This has more to do with my interpretation of the works. When a study uses the term suggests, I use suggests. When they are fairly sure and state something almost as a matter of fact, I use indicate - we do not know for sure. I will now review the 22 major works that form the backbone of this article and clarify the researchers' intentions and make amendments over the next week or so as you have proposed.

William, I was more concerned with introducing some variety in the verbs than I was with questioning whether a conclusion was definite or not. "Indicate" is fine; I just thought some of the instances could be changed to synonyms (not suggests, unless that's warranted).  – Corinne (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC) I understood your advise Corinne, however I believe a quick review is warranted to ensure that I have captured their intentions correctly. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

9) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in Dire wolf#Tooth breakage is:

• In carnivores, the solitary hunters depend on a powerful bite at the canine teeth to subdue their prey, and these have a strong mandibular symphysis, while the pack hunters that deliver many shallow bites have a relatively weaker one.

I'm a little puzzled by some things in this sentence. The sentence begins, "In carnivores, the solitary hunters...." This suggests that not all carnivores are solitary hunters, and your sentence will focus on only the solitary hunters. However (and I may be wrong about this), you haven't really spent much time in this article making a distinction between solitary hunters and pack hunters, at least not to the extent that your readers will immediately know which carnivores you are now talking about with the phrase "the solitary hunters". If you are indeed focusing on a distinct group within a larger group of carnivores, I recommend adding a phrase that would make it clear to which animals you are referring ("such as..." or "including..." or "which include..."). I have broken up the sentence and rephrased - I hope it is now fixed.

10) In that sentence, you use the demonstrative pronoun "these" in "these have a strong mandibular symphysis". Since you have three plural nouns before this pronoun – "carnivores", "solitary hunters", and "their prey" – it would be clearer if you added a noun after "these": "these hunters", "these predators". Also, instead of just adding a clause with "and" ("and these..") you might consider re-wording the sentence to indicate the relationship between the method of hunting and the possessing of "a strong mandibular symphysis". The link between the two should be better seen now. If not, please let me know.

I'm going to copy the first few sentences of the paragraph as they are now for easier reference:

Carnivores include both pack hunters and solitary hunters. The solitary hunter depends on a powerful bite at the canine teeth to subdue their prey, and these have a strong mandibular symphysis. In contrast, a pack hunter delivers many shallower bites with a comparably weaker mandibular symphysis.

I like the first sentence where you explain the two types of carnivores. There is still a bit of a problem with the second sentence. You have begun the second clause with the demonstrative pronoun "these", but right before it you have "prey", which is kind of plural, and the subject of the sentence is singular – "solitary hunter". So, the reader might go back to the previous sentence, which contains two plural nouns, and of course you don't mean both of those. I'm going to suggest this re-wording:

• Carnivores include both pack hunters and solitary hunters. The solitary hunter depends on a powerful bite at the canine teeth to subdue their prey, and these have thus exhibits a strong mandibular symphysis. In contrast, a pack hunter, which delivers many shallower bites, with has a comparably weaker mandibular symphysis.Now included, thanks.

I notice that you are kind of leaving it up to the reader to make the connection between the differing strengths of the mandibular symphysis in the various fossil specimens and the type of animal (i.e., pack hunter or solitary hunter). I wonder if you would consider adding a sentence here that spells it out a little more, something like:

• Thus, researchers can use the strength of the mandibular symphysis in fossil carnivore specimens to determine what kind of hunter it was – a pack hunter or a solitary hunter – and even how it consumed its prey. Now the grammar is better and the logic well-developed!

or:

• ...and to a certain extent how it consumed its prey.

11) The first sentence in the second paragraph of Dire wolf#Extinction is:

• One study has proposed that a number of extinction models should be investigated because we know little about the biogeography of C. dirus and its potential competitors and prey, nor how these all interacted and responded to the environmental changes that occurred at the time of extinction.

Again, you use the demonstrative pronoun "these" (in "nor how these all interacted and responded"). Since you have several plural nouns in the early part of the sentence – "extinction models", C. dirus, and "potential competitors and prey", it is not completely clear to what the pronoun refers. I assume you mean C. dirus and its potential competitors and prey, so I recommend adding a noun: "nor how all these animals interacted and responded" or "nor how all these species interacted and responded". Done, thanks.

12) You'll note that I removed commas after initial time phrases such as "In 1901". In my opinion, the comma is necessary neither for clarity nor as a pronunciation guide; I think it is old-fashioned and unnecessarily clutters up the article. If you strongly prefer the commas, I'll be glad to put them back in. Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I am a bit old fashioned, but let us leave those commas out, thanks. It will be interesting to see how long it takes some user called "EnglishBob" or similar to put them back in again!

Hello Corinne, thankyou for your copy edits, which are greatly appreciated and helps prepare the article for FA nomination. To explain some of the grammatical inconsistencies, I am a South Australian (which was once a freely-settled colony that has its own way of saying things) who prefers British English but my sentence structure is based on the US English of the 19th Century (Strunk & White) because I like that style, I have tried to base the Dire wolf article on (what I believe to be) American English as it was an American mammal, and on top of that the word usage and grammar of the researchers slips in! Now you know where the mess has come from. I have been following your edits and have no issues with them, and have learned a few things along the way. I will shortly address your points above and get back to you with a ping here. Your contribution to advancing this article - which should be important especially to American readers - is valuable. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Corinne, my comments above in green. I have now actioned some of these, and others I have left for you. Let me know if anything still does not look quite right. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you changed the link at "mandible teeth" from linking the entire phrase to linking just mandible before "teeth". Since all the other links just previous to this were names of teeth, I wonder if you would consider changing the link to a piped link: mandible teeth. Then "mandible teeth" will be highlighted, but the link will still go to the "Mandible" article.  – Corinne (talk) My mistake, now changed back again.

I'm still thinking about the following sentence:

The difference between the male and female of a species apart from their sex organs is called sexual dimorphism, and in this regard little variance exists among the canids, regardless of their group size.

If you look at the revision history, you'll see that I slightly re-worded this sentence, and in that process I introduced "and in this regard". I still think this wording is the best, but I'm concerned about the appearance of both "regard" and "regardless" in the same sentence. I'm wondering:

(a) if "regardless of their group size" is really necessary. The non-expert reader will not miss it.

(b) if you want to keep that information, perhaps we could change it to one of these:

• ..., independent of group size
• ..., no matter the size of the group
• ..., and this holds true independent of group size
• ..., and this holds true no matter the size of the group

or something else.  – Corinne (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I have taken it out. If someone wants to dig deeper, they can refer to the cited study.

I was hoping to be able to add the type of illustration to the caption of the image in the Dire wolf#Prey section, so I asked an image expert at User talk:Crisco 1492#What kind of image?, and he referred me to another image expert but also offered an alternate caption, which looks good. I am puzzled by the caption given in the image file. If you click on the image, you'll see a description at the bottom of the page. It says two dire wolves and a smilodon on the carcass... whereas Chris (Crisco 1492) had written a dire wolf. Then I looked carefully at the illustration and saw that, indeed, there are two dire wolves, but one is in what looks like water but may be tar. Only one of the wolves is actually on the carcass, so the caption accompanying the image in the image file is not accurate. Do you like the caption that Chris suggested, or do you want to somehow include the information that there are two dire wolves?  – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Good point, I have changed it to something else.

Thanks Corinne, I greatly appreciate your time and effort. Matters addressed above in green. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, William Harris - I just looked at your admirable efforts to reduce the use of the verb indicate in the article. (I hope you didn't eliminate all instances; it's a useful verb.) I'd like to make a few suggestions regarding some of them, and correct the form of the verb in one or two of them (where you have a plural subject so need the plural form of the verb), but I can't work on this until later today. I'd also like to suggest one more synonym that you might be able to use once or twice: "yielded evidence of/yielded evidence that". This works especially well when referring to a study or an archaeological dig (and works best in past tense). Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, no - there are a number of times when "indicates" is the right word to use. Please feel free to amend as you suggest. The article is now opened for Peer Review. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tibetan wolf v Mongolian wolf

Hello Mario, you have shown a past interest in the Tibetan wolf based on its View History, however few people appear to visit that page and I would suspect even fewer with any informed contribution on the subject. "There has been a disturbance in The Force." Please see my Talk:Tibetan wolf#Tibetan wolf vs Mongolian_wolf. I am leaning towards a new article on the Mongolian wolf listed as C. l. chanco. Apart from Wozencraft's separation, it is fairly clear where the Tibetan wolf is ultimately heading - the massive DNA sequencing effort by Thalmann 2013 REJECTED the 2 Tibetan wolf sequences from the study as possibly not representative of lupus! Then from Zhao 2014 we find a gene sequence in them that is not found in any other canid. Wozencraft was brilliant in MSW3 because he combined C. l. filchneri Matschie (1907) wolves from Gansu province, China with C. l. laniger Hodgson (1847) from Tibet based on their morphology - that is exactly what Ersmark 2016 just discovered in their DNA sequences as they fall within the same phylogenetic clade! In support, I have 2 heavy-weight secondary references stating that the wolf population of Qinghai, Gansu and Xichang (i.e. Tibet) regions is filchneri, and populations in northern and central China is chanco. Wozencraft would have based his MSW3 decision on the first of those references, and he was one of the several editors on the second.

I intend to:

• create a new Mongolian wolf (C. l. chanco) from the current redirect (the Mongolian wolf redirect to Tibetan wolf)
• relocate the appropriate material from the Tibetan wolf article to it
• classify the Tibetan wolf under C. l. filchneri as per MSW3
• then adjust the Subspecies of Canis lupus article

and you're invited! I would appreciate your opinion on this issue, if you have one. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mario, if you look in my Sandbox you will find chanco. It was based on the Tibetan wolf article but with all of the "excitement" regarding the Himalayan wolf removed, and the actual Tibetan wolf material removed. It is a bit light on but it is a start. I am sure others will add to it over time but we must ensure that what is added is actually about wolves from chanco's range and not other wolves badged as chanco by mistake again. If you have anything to add to it then now would be a good time. Soon I will launch it and turn my attention to the Tibetan wolf article. (Then after that, the Himalayan wolf article is going to become even more taxonomically confused!)

It is interesting that Wang 2003 found two populations of unknown wolves in China. One was in southern China and the other in Inner Mongolia. I assume that the population that can be found in Inner Mongolia might be the Beringian descendants discovered through DNA sequences by Ersmark 2016. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well M, tonight is the night. I will see how these two articles go overnight in the Western hemisphere. I will now predate on the "Subspecies of Canis lupus" page! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT. That appears to have gone well, M. I have uploaded range maps for both wolves. For your info, Fan 2016 looked at the entire mitochondrial genome (62,000 base pairs of sequence, which is a large amount of data) and found that the wolves of Tibet (laniger Hodgson ) and Qinghai (filchner Matschie) cluster closely together compared to all other wolves, however there were still some differences between their two sequences. It is not enough to impact on the Tibetan wolf article, but it does highlight how good those two zoologists were at spotting differences over a century ago. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Coonhound

I found a book reference for the citeless and problematic sentence, and I think sources for the rest of what's there can be lifted from coon hunting. (Currently up for GA review; I wrote almost all the content and was surprised by just how many books and other valuable sources were out there.) Anyway, I may get around to moving them over to the shorter article, but I wanted to let you know if you or anybody else from Project Dogs was interested. The sources are already formatted and can be copypasted to the sentence they verify. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, and good work on the Coon hunting article. We need to get it tightened up, as the info is used as a source for possibly misinforming another article. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf copy-edits, continued

I created a section break to make things easier. (William, let me know if you'd rather I just leave the article alone.) I hope you don't mind if I ask you about a few things:

1) The first sentence in Dire wolf#Evolution is the following (minus the ref.):

• The three noted paleontologists Xiaoming Wang, Richard H. Tedford, and R. M. Nowak proposed that C. dirus evolved from the large wolf Canis armbrusteri(Armbruster's wolf), with Nowak stating that there were specimens from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, that appear to be C. armbrusteri diverging into C. dirus.

I'm wondering why you used past tense for the first part of the sentence: "proposed". It looks like the Nowak sources (Note 23 and 24) say they were published in 2002 and 2003. That's fairly recently, isn't it? You could say "have proposed", which brings it up to recent times. (Normally, when we use past tense, we indicate when it occurred.) Also, in the phrase beginning "with Nowak stating", you use the past tense: "there were specimens". The past tense kind of suggests either that the specimens no longer exist or that this was a find in a specific dig, but no dig or time is mentioned here (unless this construction is standard for this field). Also, you then switch to present tense ("that appear to be"). Would you consider the following re-wording for the first clause?

• The three noted paleontologists Xiaoming Wang, Richard H. Tedford, and R. M. Nowak have proposed that C. dirus evolved from the large wolf Canis armbrusteri (Armbruster's wolf),...

and, for the concluding phrase, one of these? --

• with Nowak stating that there are specimens from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, that appear to be C. armbrusteri diverging into C. dirus.

or:

• with Nowak stating that specimens found in Cumberland Cave, Maryland, appear to be C. armbrusteri diverging into C. dirus.

2) You changed this:

• In the following year, a study indicated that C. dirus and C. nehringi were the same species, which supports C. dirus having migrated from North America into South America.

to this:

• In the following year, a study provided evidence which supports C. dirus and C. nehringi being the same species, therefore C. dirus had migrated from North America into South America.

It's a good idea to avoid using "being" if possible, and "which" should be "that" (it's a restrictive, or limiting, adjective clause). Besides the fact that there should be a semi-colon before "therefore", it should be made clearer that the conclusion in the last statement also proceeded from the evidence. Finally, this would be a good place to use "yielded evidence", cutting down on the use of "provided evidence". Would you consider the following re-wording?

• In the following year, a study yielded evidence that supported the conclusion that C. dirus and C. nehringi were the same species and thus that C. dirus had migrated from North America into South America.

or:

• In the following year, a study yielded evidence that led to the conclusion that C. dirus and C. nehringi were the same species and thus that C. dirus had migrated from North America into South America.

3) I changed a few "provides evidence" back to "indicates". From an original count of 26, you had left only five instances of "indicate(s)" in the article; I think a few more would be all right for this type of article.  – Corinne (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. Part of the problem is that anything that occurred in the past, I once used past tense. I no longer do that but this article has been caught between my change in usage. For instance, "the study indicated" - not only did the study once indicate something, it still indicates it today! I am happy with all of these changes and will implement. I certainly over-purged "indicated". Please feel free to amend as you think fit - I love your work! Regards, the grammatically-challenged William Harris • (talk) • 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not annoyed. I understand what you just said regarding a study still indicating something. You could say, regarding a study, that specific results indicated, showed, proved, etc. I think you might be able to make a distinction between a study that took place a long time ago (use past tense) and a more recent study (use present tense). There must be some guidance on this in style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style, or style guides for a university press. I have a few links on my talk page in the section "Helpful External Links".  – Corinne (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, you have been most thoughtful, respectful and helpful - I am certainly not annoyed. Thanks for this advice; I may need to do some "further education". :-) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed some inconsistency in the formatting of YBP date ranges: most year ranges had just an en-dash between them, but a few had a space, an en-dash, and then a space between them; when I looked in edit mode, I realize I had placed the template for a spaced en-dash (possibly there had been a space, an en-dash, and a space and I was just replacing it with the template, which ensures that it will not break at the end of a line before the en-dash; if it has to break, it will break after the en-dash), but I realized that it looks better without the spaces around the en-dash, so I replaced them with a simple un-spaced en-dash. While there, I added "in a manner" before "similar" ("similar" is an adjective, so must modify a noun; without "in a manner" or "in a way", we'd have to change "similar" to an adverb to modify the verb), but I wanted to ask you about that sentence:

• The dire wolf probably used its molars to crack bones in a manner similar to the gray wolf, but due to their larger size it could crack larger bones to give access to bone marrow.

There is some ambiguity in the second half of this sentence. In the phrase, "due to their larger size", the plural possessive adjective "their" seems to refer to the only plural noun before it, "molars", but it might also seem to refer to dire wolves, even though it doesn't appear in the plural. Also, the pronoun "it" probably refers to "the dire wolf", but you've also got "the gray wolf", another singular noun. Does "due to their larger size" mean "due to the larger size of its molars", or "due to the larger size of the dire wolf"? If it refers to the molars, perhaps it would be a good idea to make this more explicit, to completely avoid any confusion:

• ...but due to the larger molars,... (but then "it" is still ambiguous)

If it refers to the larger size of dire wolves when compared to gray wolves, perhaps we could word it:

• ...but due to the dire wolf's larger size,... (then "it" would more clearly refer to the dire wolf).  – Corinne (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I went back to Anyonge 2006 - it related to the dire wolf's relative size. Thanks Corinne! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at your most recent edit to the article Dire wolf, and I had an additional thought. (I hope you don't find this too nitpicking.) Here is the sentence as it is now:

• The dire wolf probably used its postcarnassial molars to crack bones in a manner similar to the gray wolf, but due to the dire wolf's larger size it could crack larger bones to give access to bone marrow.

By placing the phrase "to give access to bone marrow" at the end of the sentence, it makes it seem as if it were only the dire wolf that cracked bones to give (or gain) access to bone marrow, when I believe the reason for cracking bone on the part of both the dire wolf and the gray wolf was to gain access to marrow. I believe the main point of this sentence is to point out that due to the dire wolf's larger size, it could crack larger bones, so there should be no distraction from that. What do you think of the following wording?

• The dire wolf probably used its postcarnassial molars to crack bones to gain access to marrow in a manner similar to the gray wolf, but due to the dire wolf's larger size it could crack larger bones to give access to bone marrow.

or:

• Like the gray wolf today, the dire wolf probably used its postcarnassial molars to gain access to marrow, but due to the dire wolf's larger size it could crack larger bones.

or, to avoid any possible ambiguity with "it":

• Like the gray wolf today, the dire wolf probably used its postcarnassial molars to gain access to marrow, but due to the dire wolf's larger size it was able enabled it to crack larger bones.

• Like the gray wolf today, the dire wolf probably used its postcarnassial molars to gain access to marrow, but the dire wolf's larger size enabled it to crack larger bones. (Here, "it" is unambiguous. I think this is the best wording.)

By the way, are you sure "postcarnassial" shouldn't be hyphenated?  – Corinne (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, I have gone with your final recommendation. As for postcarnassial, I was leaning towards hyphenation however the article did not. Let us put it in! I am about to expand a paragraph and would be pleased if you looked that over as well. Regards, William

O.K. I forgot to bold the pertinent phrase in the first version, above (which I don't recommend since I figured out better wording below that, and I'm glad you approve). I also added the missing second square bracket just above, even though it's not necessary now. I'll look again at your new sentences.  – Corinne (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) I see you removed your new sentences, here, which is, of course, fine, but I don't see the new version of the other sentence. Did you want me to add it?  – Corinne (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry! I didn't scroll down far enough in the diff, so didn't see that you had already added that sentence containing the word "post-carnassial". It looks good.  – Corinne (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! William Harris • (talk) • 01:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) William, I hope you don't mind; I started to read the article through again and found a few small things that I fixed or changed. (As always, feel free to put them back or modify them.) I came across something I've got to ask you about. It's at the end of the Dire wolf#Dentition and bite force section:

• The dire wolf canines had greater bending strength than those of extant canids of equivalent size. These differences indicate that the dire wolf was able to deliver stronger bites and that, along with its flexible and more rounded canines, was adapted for struggling with its prey.

If you look at the revision history, [1], you'll see the changes I made to the second sentence in an attempt to make it flow better (hope I didn't introduce any factual errors). However, while I was working on the sentence, I noticed something (which I'll explain), but I decided to go ahead and save my edit. Assuming that I didn't introduce any errors, I noticed that in the second sentence you've got "along with its flexible and more rounded canines", and in the first sentence you've got "The dire wolf canines had greater bending strength...". Doesn't "greater bending strength" mean "more flexible", and aren't both sentences about the dire wolf's canines? The phrase, "along with its flexible...canines", makes it sound as if it were something different from what was mentioned in the first sentence, whereas it actually sounds like it is repeating the first sentence. Perhaps if you just leave out "flexible and", it would work, because "more rounded" is different from "greater bending strength". I don't know. Let me know. I hope I haven't messed up the sentence.  – Corinne (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(For goodness sake Corinne, stop working and go and enjoy an Easter Egg or something! Relax a bit - Wikipedia will still be there tomorrow. My excuse? I am overseeing a convalescing dog, so this is a quiet undertaking next to her.) The last sentence in the paragraph was to be an overall summary of the contents of the paragraph, however it did not do so clearly. You have prompted me to add further to the second-last sentence and to clarify the final one. I think it works? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 02:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I made a few small changes. Hope you approve. I like to take out all unnecessary, extraneous words. Clean, tight prose is easier to read than wordy prose. I just looked at your latest edit to your user page. I know I shouldn't interfere with that, but I was puzzled by this:

• and the domestication of the first undisputed dog remains found at Bonn-Oberkassel...

Don't you mean, "...and the first undisputed domesticated dog remains...? How can anyone domesticate dog remains? Regarding my frequent editing, I find it fascinating and relaxing, but I know I should get out and get some exercise on this lovely day.  – Corinne (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne: Dire wolf now reads much better, User page changed to "...with the discovery of the first undisputed dog remains..." (I trust that you enjoyed that egg..........) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Did you see all the nice eggs in the Easter egg article?  – Corinne (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

William, I fully expect you to be annoyed with me by now, but this needs work:

• Specimens of the same wolf were retrieved from the Rancho La Brea tar pits by the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam. The wolf was represented through these fragmentary remains until 1912, when Merriam had retrieved enough of a complete skeleton to formally recognized all of the specimens previously found under the name of C. dirus (Leidy 1858) because Leidy's use of this name for the species in 1858 preceded his use of C. indianensis in 1859.

(1) It's not clear what you mean by "the same wolf".

(2) "to formally recognized" should be "to formally recognize" (typo).

(3) In the second sentence (starting "The wolf"), you are making (at least) two separate points but running them together in an overly long sentence. I would separate them:

• something important happened in 1912, and
• Merriam was able to use the name C. dirus for a particular reason.

(4) For the non-expert reader, it may not be clear what this means: "The wolf was represented..."

(5) There may be a slight confusion for the reader in the phrase "had retrieved enough of a complete skeleton"; the reader may wonder whether the complete skeleton was what was missing from the "fragmentary remains" found earlier by Merriam or a separate skeleton.  – Corinne (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, I have cut it back from what it was - Howzat? (as we say in Aussie cricket). I am not annoyed, and you are needed at this critical stage of the undertaking. I am well-aware that the biggest risk to the article is......me! I am too close to the work to be able to see "the forest for the trees". (I am actually trying to finalise the Description section but keep finding other distracting "goodies" - not unlike those Easter eggs in that article - along the way.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again. After your revision, it is better. Here it is now:

• From 1908, specimens of a large wolf were being retrieved from the Rancho La Brea tar pits by the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam, and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the specimens found under the name of C. dirus (Leidy 1858). Merriam used this name because Leidy's use of C. dirus in 1858 preceded his use of C. indianensis in 1859.

May I suggest the following wording for the first sentence?

• From 1908, specimens of a large wolf were being retrieved fro the Rancho La Brea tar pits by the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam. In 1912 he formally recognized all of these specimens under the name of C. dirus (Leidy 1858).

I still don't understand the second sentence ("Merriam used this name...").

(a) It's not clear who "his" (in "preceded his use") refers to: Merriam or Leidy; and

(b) Regardless of who "his" refers to, to the non-expert reader the significance of the use of C. dirus preceding the use of C. indianensis is not evident.

(c) Also, is it "Merriam used this name", or "Merriam was able to use this name"?  – Corinne (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, this has inspired me to bring back some pre-GA material because I believe that it is useful. Howzat? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Much clearer. What do you think of my additional changes? (I don't think it's necessary to say when Leidy used C. indianensis because it is mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the only thing that is pertinent here is that Leidy had used the name C. dirus before he used the name C. indianensis).  – Corinne (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Corinne. Have you stopped to ponder the hypothesis about the Ice Age hypermorphs, and that there evovled a hypermorph ape during that period? The tallest ape to have ever existed; guess who? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

King Kong!!! Maybe also Bigfoot!  – Corinne (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We humans. William Harris • (talk) • 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. We're that much taller than the other apes, then, that we could be considered a hypermorph ape? I guess I thought a hypermorph was much taller/bigger than the regular size of a species. Now I feel silly about my suggestions. I made a few small copy-edits; hope you approve. I saw FunkMonk's comment about the word "extraordinary", so I hope you don't mind that I changed it to "significant". I thought it carried pretty much the same meaning but was less hyperbolic. I wondered why you changed "Parts of a vertebral column" back to "Parts of the vertebral column" (I had earlier changed "the" to "a"). When you use "the vertebral column", it sounds as if you are referring to a specific specimen, or skeleton, when I don't see that you are. I thought this meant, simply, one – a single – vertebral column. What am I not understanding?

Corinne, we have been working off two copies - the original was undergoing your changes while another version was being developed in my sandbox - that amendment slipped through my audit, thanks.

I removed "compared with" from the sentence about the geographic differences because you've already got "between", so it should be "between X and Y". Also, this sentence needs some attention:

• A comparison of leg size shows that the rear legs of C. d. guildayi were 8% shorter than the Northwestern wolf due to a significantly shorter tibia and metatarsus, and was also slightly shorter in the lower bones of the front legs.

The subject of the verb "was" in the last verb phrase is not clear. What was slightly shorter – "a comparison", "leg size", or C. d. guildayi? Here are some possible arrangements of the sentence:

• A comparison of leg size shows that the rear legs of C. d. guildayi were 8% shorter than the Northwestern wolf due to a significantly shorter tibia and metatarsus, and that the lower bones of the front legs were also slightly shorter.

• A comparison of leg size shows that the rear legs of C. d. guildayi were 8% shorter than the Northwestern wolf due to a significantly shorter tibia and metatarsus, and that the front legs were also shorter due to (their) slightly shorter lower bones.

Your second sentence is my preference.

I was reading the third paragraph in Dire wolf#Description, and it seemed to me that, as a paragraph, it is not very cohesive. The first sentence is about geographic differences between the specimens west of the Continental Divide and those east of it. The second sentence says one of those species experienced a general reduction in size over time. The rest of the paragraph compares various species as to size. However, it is not clear that those details are illustrating either of the first two sentences of the paragraph, and it seems that the first two sentences do not have any supporting or illustrative details. If those size comparison details are really supposed to be illustrating either of the first two sentences, the connection needs to be made clearer. If they are not there to illustrate either of the first two sentences, then I think something is missing, or the paragraph needs to be broken up, or both.

Size reduction has already been covered under evolution - thanks again - so it has been removed. The first sentence has been restructured and the language of the paragraph has been changed to "limb" - I hope that the link is better conveyed now? I am open to further suggestions.

By the way, I usually don't use the no-break space template in the first 5–7 words of a paragraph because I know they will be at the left margin so will be unlikely to break at the end of a line.  – Corinne (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your point on no-breaks, however you never know when someone will come along and restructure the sentence! In your role with The Guild, have you any software tricks that detects multiple uses of the same hyperlink to other articles, please? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 01:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I know of two ways to look for duplicate links:

1) First, the low-tech method: I use the "Find" tool (in a drop-down menu in the upper right-hand corner of my screen, a feature in Google Chrome) and, one by one, search for words or phrases that I think might be linked. You can search for these in regular article view or in edit mode. If you search in edit mode, you can easily and immediately change, add, or delete links that need to be changed, added, or deleted. The nice thing about this method is that, in addition to easily seeing duplicate links, you will see all mentions of the word or phrase. That way, you can see if the first mention of the term, or the first mention after the lead, is not linked as it should be.

2) Now, the high-tech method: If you have not yet enabled Visual Editor, you can enable it. Click on the "Preferences" tab. Then click on the "Editing" tab. Then, under a small heading, "Editor", you will see "Editing mode" and a white bar. In that bar is a small black arrow facing down. If you click on that, you will see several options. I clicked on "Show me both editor tabs". Then click "Save" at the bottom of the page. If you don't have Visual Editor enabled, when you want to make an edit you click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the page or section. When you enable Visual Editor (and "Show me both editor tabs"), the "Edit" tab (for regular editing mode) changes to "Edit source", and the new "Edit" tab becomes the one for Visual Editor. When you click on that "Edit" tab (for Visual Editor), the page will load. Then look at the menu at the left-hand side of the page. Under the "Tools" section, you will see "Highlight duplicate links". Click on that, and then look at the article. I believe duplicate links are highlighted with a red box around the word or phrase. Since the links are duplicate, you should see more than one of the same word or phrase with a red box around it. (I see, unfortunately perhaps, that my "no-break-space" templates are also shown, but not in a red box because they are not links.) Then, if you see a link that you don't want to be there, I think you click on the word or phrase, and a little window opens up that gives you options; I think you can click "Cancel" to cancel the link, but you'll have to experiment to see how it works. The one thing I don't think you will easily find with this method is a term that is not linked but maybe ought to be linked because it appears before an instance of the same term that is linked.

Thanks, I will toy with it a little later! Later: absolutely superb instructions, Corrine, you should be writing computer manuals. Unfortunately, I do not have the hyperlink tool on the left side of the screen. I will need to refer to the manual!

I hope this helps. Also, I will take a closer look than I did earlier of your most recent edits, but I saw that you added one sentence that I had suggested, above, and to which you replied, "Your second sentence is my preference". I'm glad you liked the wording, but I wanted to point out that I put the word "their" in parentheses because I thought the sentence would work either way, with or without the word. I left it up to you to decide whether you thought "their" was needed, so you need to re-read the sentence and decide. If you think the word is needed, then take out the parentheses. If you think the sentence is clear enough without "their", then take out the word and the parentheses.  – Corinne (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that it was some type of advanced grammatical construct......

O.K. Now I remember what I wanted to discuss with you when I looked at this group of edits earlier today. I see you twice changed "with" to "largely provided by". (Your edit summary says, "Peer review edits", but I couldn't find any mention of this in the on-going peer review.) Unless a more knowledgeable editor recommended this phrase, I have to say I do not like it, for the following reasons:

It flows from the discussion about getting the numbers right in the table.

(a) It's a little long;

(b) I cannot fathom how it is "largely" and not "entirely" (not that you have to say "entirely"). Aren't limbs longer precisely because the component bones are longer? Is "largely" really necessary?

The difference in total limb length were also contributed to by other "foot" bones not in the table, therefore it does not "quite add up".

(c) I don't think "provided" is the right verb. I'm going to copy the first sentence here, the way it is now written, for ease of reference:

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi largely provided by 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.

I think "due to" might express what is needed here:

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi due to 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.

Another possibility is to use "made possible by":

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi, made possible by 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.

If you really want the qualifying adverb, I suggest adding "mainly" to "due to" and "largely" to "made possible by".

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi, mainly due to 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi, largely made possible by 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.

So that the two sentences are not almost identical, you can use "due to" (or "mainly due to") in one and "made possible by" (or "largely made possible by") in the other:

• The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi, due to 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals. The forelimbs were 14% longer than C. d. guildayi, made possible by 10% longer humeri, 15% longer radii, and 15% longer metacarpals.  – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, I have gone back to my original "due to" and see if any questions are asked during FAC. It can be amended if required. (Nice grammatical discussion, though! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of annoying you once again, I'm re-reading the article. I noticed that in the Dire wolf#Taxonomy section, you use the term "type specimen" twice, each time linked. The first one has a mini-definition right before it ("The first specimen"), and the second one is followed by a more complete definition in parentheses ("the first of a species...").

(a) Do you want both instances of the term linked?, and

(b) Do you want the second instance, rather than the first, to have the more complete definition? If so, that's fine. I won't change anything.  – Corinne (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You could never annoy me, Corinne, and your suggestions are critical right now. I am giving thought to how to better say this, but am having trouble:

"From 1908, specimens of a large wolf were being retrieved from the Rancho La Brea tar pits by the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam, and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the previously found specimens under the name of C. dirus (Leidy 1858)."

I need to encapsulate that Merriam found enough specimens (bits and pieces) from the wolf that he was extracting from the tar pits to assemble most of a skeleton that he matched with the smaller parts that had been found by the earlier paleontologists, to be able to declare these as belonging to the one wolf. Help please? Regards, Now Under Pressure. William Harris • (talk) • 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf, more copy-edits

Hi, William - I decided to start a new section since the last one was getting a little too long. I'm going to copy the second paragraph in Dire wolf#Taxonomy here for ease of reference. I've also numbered the sentences.

(1) Canis indianensis (Leidy 1869) was first associated with C. dirus (Leidy 1858) by the zoologist Joel Asaph Allen in 1876 along with his discovery of Canis mississippiensis. (2) As there were so few pieces of these three specimens, it was thought best to leave each listed under these three provisional names until more material could be provided to show their relationship. (3) From 1908, specimens of a large wolf were being retrieved from the Rancho La Brea tar pits by the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam, and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the previously found specimens under the name of C. dirus (Leidy 1858). (4) Under the rules of nomenclature, the name of a species should be the oldest name applied to it. (5) Merriam therefore applied the name given by Leidy to Leidy's 1858 specimen – C. dirus – because it preceded Leidy's use of C. indianensis. (6) In agreement with Merriam, C. indianensis (Leidy 1869) was declared a synonym of C. dirus by the paleontologist Edward Troxell in 1915. (7) In 1918 Merriam studied these fossils and proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos:terrible and cyon:wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus; however, not everyone agreed with this wolf departing from genus Canis, and the opinion of paleontologists remained divided. (8) Canis ayersi (Sellards 1916) and Aenocyon dirus (Merriam 1918) were recognized as synonyms of C. dirus by the paleontologist Ernest Lundelius in 1972. (9) All of the above taxa were declared as synonyms of C. dirus in 1979, according to Ronald M. Nowak.

I see some problems here and there, but before we change anything in the article, I've got to ask you whether this has already been nominated for FAC. I see you closed the peer review, but I wasn't sure whether you had nominated it yet for FAC. I believe stability is one criteria the FAC reviewers look at, and if it has been nominated, we shouldn't change much. That said:

Sentence (1): The phrase "along with" doesn't really say much. It is not very precise. Can you be more precise here? Was Canis indianensis associated in some physical way with Canis mississippiensis? Or was this association more a mental or analytical move on Allen's part? What I guess I'm trying to say is what, exactly, do you mean by "along with Canis mississippiensis?

Sentence (2) is fine.

(3) May I ask, did you write this article using American English? If so, I have to tell you that "From 1908" (From + year) is not colloquial American English. The first time I ever saw it was when I started editing on WP. It means absolutely nothing to an American. It is possible, of course, that American paleontologists use this in academic writing, but I wouldn't know about that, and anyway, I think WP articles should be accessible to the average reader, not just academics. Americans would write, "Beginning in 1908,..." "Starting in 1908,..." or "From 1908 onward..." or "From 1908 on..." But, I can understand if you want to leave it as it is.

I did intend to use American English, which for me is a second language :-)

Regarding Sentence (3),

(a) What do you think of being slightly more specific than "specimens of a large wolf" (see possible wording below)?

(b) Would you consider putting this sentence into active voice? I also suggest breaking this long sentence up into two sentences:

• Starting in 1908, the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam was finding numerous fossilized bone fragments / [choose one] was retrieving fragmented specimens of a large wolf in the Rancho La Brea tar pits. By 1912 he had found a skeleton sufficiently complete to be able to formally recognize these and the previously found specimens under the name C. dirus (Leidy 1858).

The first part of Sentence (5) is a little awkward/convoluted (perhaps it is my wording). I'm wondering if we could combine Sentence (4) with Sentence (5). I think it would flow better. Right now, Sentence (4) stands out as a Paleontology 101 lesson.

• Because the rules of nomenclature stipulated that the name of a species should be the oldest name ever applied to it, Merriam therefore selected the name of Leidy's 1858 specimen, C. dirus. (I wouldn't use "applied" twice in the same sentence.)

I would leave out "because it preceded Leidy's use of C. indianensis. You already gave the date of 1869 for C. indianensis, and an alert reader will see that 1869 is later than 1858. If they don't notice that, then they're not that interested in the details.

Regarding Sentence (6), I find "In agreement with Merriam" (a) a little awkward/stilted, and (b) a little unclear. Was Merriam in actual discussions with Edward Troxell? Why is Troxell declaring something that Merriam already said earlier? If Troxell is merely expressing his agreement with Merriam's earlier statements, then I would change the wording of the sentence to something like:

• In 1915 the paleontologist Edward Troxell expressed agreement with Merriam when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus.

I think active voice works here. Also, it's not good to go back and forth between active voice and passive voice throughout the paragraph.

Sentence (7) is all right, but you might consider re-wording it to something like this:

• In 1918, after studying these fossils, Merriam proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos:terrible and cyon:wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus. (End the sentence here.)

Where did you get the idea of putting a colon after Aenos and cyon? I would use either no punctuation or a comma: (from Aenos, terrible, and cyon, wolf).

It seemed to be a good idea at the time, however the comma does look better.

So now the second half of Sentence (7) will be a new sentence beginning, "However,...":

• However, not everyone agreed with this wolf departing from genus Canis, and the opinion of paleontologists remained divided.

Instead of just "this wolf", would you consider writing "this extinct wolf"?

I know that paleontologists will instantly understand "with this wolf departing from genus Canis, but to the average reader, a wolf departing is a wolf leaving a place. Would you consider using another phrase instead of "departing"?

• However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being separated from the genus Canis.

or:

• However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being put in a genus separate from the genus Canis.

Sentences (8) and (9) are fine. If Sentence (7) is broken up into two sentences, they will become the ninth and tenth sentences.

 – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Bless you! FAC has commenced Corinne, but I will be able to get away with an update as a commenter has mentioned the hard going of the taxonomy section. Please have a look in my Sandbox to see our proposed draft (go to the top of this page, top left hand corner just below User talk:William Harris, select the tab for Sandbox - my stuff is open to the world!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSED DRAFT - transferred from sandbox 22/4/17

In 1876 the zoologist Joel Asaph Allen discovered the remains of Canis mississippiensis (Allen 1876) and associated these with C. dirus (Leidy 1858) and Canis indianensis (Leidy 1869). As there were so few pieces of these three specimens, Allen thought it best to leave each listed under these three provisional names until more material could be found to reveal their relationship. Starting in 1908, the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam was retrieving numerous fossilized bone fragments of a large wolf in the Rancho La Brea tar pits. By 1912 he had found a skeleton sufficiently complete to be able to formally recognize these and the previously found specimens under the name C. dirus (Leidy 1858). Because the rules of nomenclature stipulated that the name of a species should be the oldest name ever applied to it, Merriam therefore selected the name of Leidy's 1858 specimen, C. dirus. In 1915 the paleontologist Edward Troxell expressed agreement with Merriam when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus. In 1918, after studying these fossils, Merriam proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos, terrible and cyon, wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus. However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being put in a genus separate from the genus Canis. Canis ayersi (Sellards 1916) and Aenocyon dirus (Merriam 1918) were recognized as synonyms of C. dirus by the paleontologist Ernest Lundelius in 1972. All of the above taxa were declared as synonyms of C. dirus in 1979, according to the paleontologist Ronald M. Nowak.

1) Regarding this sentence, "As there were so few pieces of these three specimens, Allen thought it best to leave each listed under these three provisional names until more material could be found to reveal their relationship," I think the wording right after "Allen" is a bit inelegant, so difficult to get through. Also, regarding the word "pieces" at the beginning of the sentence, would you consider either:

(a) changing it to "fragments", or

(b) rewording the phrase to something like:

• As so little remained of these three specimens,... or

• As so little was found of these three specimens,...

For the next part of the sentence, how about:

• Allen though it best to leave each specimen listed under its provisional name until...

2) Regarding this sentence, "Starting in 1908, the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam was retrieving...", what do you think of this wording instead:

• In 1908 the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam began retrieving numerous fossilized bone fragments of a large wolf in from the Rancho La Brea tar pits. (Do you really prefer "in" the tar pits?)

3) Regarding this sentence, "In 1915 the paleontologist Edward Troxell expressed agreement with Merriam when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus," what do you think of this wording:

• In 1915 the paleontologist Edward Troxell expressed indicated his agreement with Merriam when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus.

4) Regarding this sentence, "However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being put in a genus separate from the genus Canis," what do you think of this wording:

• However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being put placed in a genus separate from the genus Canis.

Do you think "placed" might sound a bit more elegant than "put"? If not, then leave it as it is.

(Also, minor question from someone ignorant about this: if C. dirus was the only species in the new genus, is it still accurate to say "put (or placed) in a genus"? Of course, I don't know if it was the only species in the genus, but if it was...)

5) Regarding this sentence, "All of the above taxa were declared as synonyms of C. dirus in 1979, according to the paleontologist Ronald M. Nowak,"

throughout the paragraph (and possibly also throughout the article), (and we discussed this earlier), you did not use "as" after "declared". You'll see it is not in the sentence I copied above in item (2): "...when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus". For consistency, you might want to remove "as".

That's all.  – Corinne (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In 1876 the zoologist Joel Asaph Allen discovered the remains of Canis mississippiensis (Allen 1876) and associated these with C. dirus (Leidy 1858) and Canis indianensis (Leidy 1869). As so little was found of these three specimens, Allen though it best to leave each specimen listed under its provisional name until more material could be found to reveal their relationship. In 1908 the paleontologist John Campbell Merriam began retrieving numerous fossilized bone fragments of a large wolf from the Rancho La Brea tar pits. By 1912 he had found a skeleton sufficiently complete to be able to formally recognize these and the previously found specimens under the name C. dirus (Leidy 1858). Because the rules of nomenclature stipulated that the name of a species should be the oldest name ever applied to it, Merriam therefore selected the name of Leidy's 1858 specimen, C. dirus. In 1915 the paleontologist Edward Troxell indicated his agreement with Merriam when he declared C. indianensis a synonym of C. dirus. In 1918, after studying these fossils, Merriam proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos, terrible and cyon, wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus. However, not everyone agreed with this extinct wolf being placed in a new genus separate from the genus Canis. Canis ayersi (Sellards 1916) and Aenocyon dirus (Merriam 1918) were recognized as synonyms of C. dirus by the paleontologist Ernest Lundelius in 1972. All of the above taxa were declared synonyms of C. dirus in 1979, according to the paleontologist Ronald M. Nowak.

Thanks Corinne, this is now looking much better. I have transferred it from my sandbox as I do not want to lose it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it reads better. Two possible small changes to smooth out the prose even further:

1) Regarding this sentence:

• By 1912 he had found a skeleton sufficiently complete to be able to formally recognize these and the previously found specimens under the name C. dirus (Leidy 1858).

I feel it reads slightly awkwardly. I'm bothered by the two "to" phrases in a row. How about this?

• By 1912 he had found a nearly complete skeleton that enabled him to formally recognize these both this and the previous specimens (or: both this and the previously found specimens) and the previously found specimens under the name C. dirus (Leidy 1858).

2) Regarding this sentence:

• In 1918, after studying these fossils, Merriam proposed consolidating their names under the separate genus Aenocyon (from Aenos, terrible and cyon, wolf) to become Aenocyon dirus.

I think the first two phrases should be reversed:

• After studying these fossils, in 1918 Merriam proposed...

 – Corinne (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, I think it best not to make any further edits, until a chance avails itself with the next tranche of FAC comments, then slip these in. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

When I saw this I immediately thought you might be interested

Parker, Heidi G.; Dreger, Dayna L.; Rimbault, Maud; Davis, Brian W.; Mullen, Alexandra B.; Carpintero-Ramirez, Gretchen; Ostrander, Elaine A. (April 2017). "Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development". Cell Reports. 19 (4): 697–708. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.079.

Hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67 (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, I shall never forget the kind help that you gave to me in getting my first article, Canis variabilis, published. I trust that you are enjoying your new ADMIN role - its probably no different to what you were doing before but with some extra tools thrown in! (Not to mention extra problems...) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You have one of the most interesting sandboxes on en.WP, even as a subject specialist. I've been taking occasional looks at it ever since that first draft, so when I came across a mention of the article in a news report I thought to drop you thisnote about it. I'm still getting used to operating the mop. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I know that there are some editors who have a Watch in place on my Sandbox and Talkpage, because they drop in and comment almost immediately on new subjects from time to time. I don't mind at all, that is why I have made the sandbox available. I enjoy keeping up on the latest research on the dog ancestor and Late Pleistocene wolves; sometimes I even keep up years in advance of the due publication date! There are some amazing things about to be revealed later this year relating to where the modern wolf came from, plus another on a separate domestication event in North America. No wolves have ever been found in "Suid Afrika", sorry, but I do love your Ridgebacks - a "rascally" one is asleep at my feet right now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

My favourite native canid is the bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis). BTW I don'treally agree with the "Conservation threats" section of the article - in my local area they are predated by domestic dogs and also subject to severe periodic population crashes due to rabies and parvovirus "epidemics". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

An attractive-looking canid, Roger. The assessment has not changed but it needs to be updated in the taxobox; the latest is 2014 by Hoffmann, M. The assessment appears to have been based out in the wild rather than in areas close to humans, where the "domestic wolf" still attempts to "protect" us from wild canids. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf

Hello FunkMonk, it has now been half a year since I finished my overhaul of the Dire wolf article. I note that it is still rated as C-class - do you assess it as worth B-class, and if so would you mind doing the honours, please? You mentioned some time ago that it might be worth GA status with some more work. It is coming up towards the holiday period in my part of the world, we are not going anywhere and my personal circumstances have changed: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-best-friend/201612/mourning-canine-companion
Therefore, I now have a little more time on my hands to begin moving it in that direction if you have some guidance for me. Regards,  William Harris |talk  09:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Awww, that was a great tribute to your wolf! I put a B on the talk page, and looking over the article again, I think it's ready for a GA nomination, though I see that some sentences at the end of paragraphs throughout the article lack citations. So those three or four statements are basically unsourced as is, and should probably have some sources stuck to them first... Note that the GA reviewer will probably have a bunch of changes they want made, but that is the norm. FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk; how about references? I assume they will all have to be in WP:CITET format? Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for Featured Article Candidate, you'd want to use templates for all the citations to keep them consistent, but the requirements for citation layout are much laxer at GAN. So might be good to get that out of the way already. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I found this photo on Commons and cleaned it up[2], seemed too nice not to use... FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They are looking a bit thin due to climate change! I will include them later. Regards,  William Harris |talk  12:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I popped it in before I wrote here. One thing I was wondering about, doesn't the palaeoecology and competitors sections overlap in scope? Seems like the sections are a bit far from each other, though they are rather interconnected? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree, FunkMonk. From what we have learned from the Evolution of the wolf regarding lupus, "Ecological factors including habitat type, climate, prey specialization and predatory competition will greatly influence gray wolf genetic population structure and cranio-dental plasticity." There are a mass of references supporting that statement, and I believe that it equally applies to dirus. I will shortly make that restructure. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK FunkMonk, the Dire Wolf article is now up to scratch and I have applied for candidacy with template on Talk:Dire wolf. Now we wait. Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Without having read it all in detail, I think it's ready for GA by now. You should maybe be consistent in abbreviating bi and trinomials after the full name has been spelled out the first time. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will address that soon, plus linking to another article only once in the text. Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk, I have taken this about as far as I can go for now. I have attempted to address the reviewer's comments, I have removed a plethora of mammal eras, I have provided lead-in sentences on key paragraphs (although this is not called for by WP:MOS) and have supported the reasoning for my suggested structure of the article with references - it was certainly deficient in that respect! I believe that every sub-topic under the "Adaption" chapter is interconnected, with references. Any further thoughts, please? Regards,  William Harris |talk  04:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good work, now it's just a matter of the reviewer approving the changes, and probably bringing up more issues. It's not uncommon for these things to take a week or more to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Basically, I have had to take on the mantle of being the "expert" and then gently guiding readers through the topic, not unlike a tour guide at a museum or art gallery. This has been an illuminating experience for me. Enjoy the festive season! Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it was nice down there too in spite of lack of winter! Yeah, these articles have to take into account that most readers will be "laymen" trying to learn more about a subject (not that we have to pander to the lowest common denominator). In this case, you can expect a lot of Game of Thrones fans wanting to know more, hehe... So it's good to explain things as plainly as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking a bit longer than usual, but I guess it's the season. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not concerned. Adam has contributed widely to Wikipedia and deserves some time away from it. No doubt there will be further review shortly. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations with the promotion! FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk, thanks for putting the idea into my head about six months ago! It is a very satisfying outcome, and now for the next one......... Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I was reading FunkMonk's latest comments at the review page, and I hope you don't mind that I made two corrections suggested by FunkMonk: I changed "it was thought" to "it is thought" in the lead, and "coyotes...an omnivore" to "coyotes...are omnivores". While I was there, I was reading nearby sentences, and one didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I re-worded two sentences to make them a little clearer and more concise. I hope I got the facts right and that you approve; if not, feel free to change them back or re-word. I also wanted to ask you about something. It seems to me that the second sentence I revised and the one right after it that starts "The study" are saying pretty much the same thing. Here they are:

Thanks Corinne, I fully agree with you.

• It is known that, during food scarcity, competition among carnivores is high, causing them eat faster and thus consume more bone. The study proposed that the tooth breakage was due to increased carcass consumption, including bone, due to low or seasonal prey availability, greater competition, or both.

I know that the first sentence is a general truth known by zoologists and/or paleontologists and the second sentence is a finding from a study, but they read so much alike that the reader might be puzzled why they are both mentioned. I wonder if you would consider consolidating these two sentences. Also, a few sentences back you've got "A 1993 study proposed" and then here, "The study proposed", and they're both about the same thing. If you read from "A 1993 study proposed" to the end of the paragraph, I think you will see that the sentence beginning "It is known that" interrupts the flow of ideas:

A 1993 study proposed that the higher frequency of tooth breakage among Pleistocene carnivores compared with extant carnivores was not the result of hunting larger game, something that might be assumed from the larger size of the former. It is known that, during food scarcity, competition among carnivores is high, causing them eat faster and thus consume more bone. The study proposed that the tooth breakage was due to increased carcass consumption, including bone, due to low or seasonal prey availability, greater competition, or both. As their prey became extinct around 10,000 years ago, so, too, did these Pleistocene carnivores, except for the coyote (although coyotes are technically omnivores).

I suggest that you take out that "It is known" sentence and use something like the following wording:

• A 1993 study proposed that the higher frequency of tooth breakage among Pleistocene carnivores compared with extant carnivores was not the result of hunting larger game, something that might be assumed from the larger size of the former, but rather It is known that, during food scarcity, competition among carnivores is high, causing them eat faster and thus consume more bone. The study proposed that the tooth breakage was due to increased, and faster, consumption of carcasses, including bone, due to low or seasonal prey availability, greater competition, or both. As their prey became extinct around 10,000 years ago, so, too, did these Pleistocene carnivores, except for the coyote (although coyotes are technically omnivores).  – Corinne (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, now integrated with less words. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• The FAC is going very well, one of the smoothest first-time nominations I've seen, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk, a number of skilled people have contributed to it prior to FAC plus I have most of their answers covered from memory, so we are progressing steadily. Regarding the use of citations in a numerically ascending order (the words the boys were lost for), I have spent some time last night looking at the work of my favorite evolutionary biologists and they all do that. So it would be wise for me to now "go with the flow" and make 8 changes. (To quote another editor during the Smilodon FAC: "Fixed that one, though I never heard that was a requirement before.".....he he!) As FA status approaches for Dire wolf, you may have noticed that the Beringian wolf has been beefed-up and is now almost ready for commencing the GA process. This one will be different - the reviewer will have to contend with the complexity of genetic analysis, which I have toned down quite a bit over the last week in order for it to jump the GA hurdle. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, I've never given source order a thought, and it has never been brought up during any of my nominations... I guess it depends on the individual reviewer how important they think different aspects are. For example, I was sure someone would demand consistency in author name abbreviation, but no one has even mentioned it... FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Haha, turns out that "another editor during the Smilodon FAC" was me, I've just completely forgotten I did that edit! FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, on Wikipedia, you can run but you can't hide! William Harris • (talk) • 09:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit histories never forgive and never forget... FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations, it's a wolf! FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being my mentor through this process, FunkMonk. Gray wolf was once the only wolf FA but it lost that title, now taken up by Dire wolf. The difference being that Dire wolf should retain its FA status because the "dire wolf pack" is much more sociable and cooperative compared with "the gray wolf pack". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for the massive work! This article is the main source of information about the species for most laypeople, so it is great to see that it is now so comprehensive and well-written. As for wolf, there's a list of problems at the FARC[3], if you ever feel bored... The original FA was featured back in 2005, when the standards were much less defined, and it seems the original editors did little to keep it up to snuff... Look at that, 15 supports, but little to no critique:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I try to give Gray wolf a wide berth, FunkMonk. There are too many individuals who frequent that article who are hard to deal with. It reminds me of Dingo about 18 months ago, until I went in there recently and was absolutely brutal - I had to do some biting to get the agreement going. Now its sections on Etymology, Taxonomy and Lineage are all my work. Next step - Beringian wolf to GA. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the downside to working on popular articles, a lot of strong opinions, and a lot of drive-by-editors... I'm currently having a bit of an issue a the Giganotosaurus article, for example. Luckily, there's a lot of more obscure, but important articles to work on... Strangely, the most popular article I worked on, dodo, has had few disputes, but it seems dinosaurs and canids stir the emotions of more people for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving FA status for Dire wolf!  – Corinne (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, I regard it as a team undertaking - we have all helped achieve FA status and this includes the reviewers. I have nominated the Beringian wolf for GA status. It may take some time to be actioned, so I will take the "Corinne Guide To Good Grammar" on this talk page and begin applying it while I wait. Once that hurdle is over, I trust that I can call upon your considerable talent again. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Himalayan wolf

Hello Mario, in addition to the new Himalayan specimens Werhahn et al collected, they also collected these:

"Another unique canid haplotype was found in three samples collected in Humla (Nepal), of which two samples were deliberately collected as domestic dog. From this putative domestic dog mitochondrial genome, we found one unique D-loop ‘Domestic dog D-loop Nepal 1’ (NCBI GenBank accession KY996526) and one unique cytochrome b haplotype ‘Domestic dog Cytochrome B 1’ (NCBI GenBank accession KY996532). This dog haplotype clusters with domestic dog C. lupus familiaris and Holarctic grey wolf C. lupus spp. haplotypes from around the globe in both D-loop and cytochrome b phylogenies (figure 2a,b)."

Yes, these 3 "putative" dogs do cluster within the wolf-dog clade, but what is not elaborated on in the study - but is clear from the figures - is that they sit only one mutation away from the gray wolves. None of the other dogs do - they have discovered a basal dog in the same region as exists a basal wolf. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally M, if you refer to Koepfli 2015, Figure 1, mDNA analysis (female lineage) and turn the chart on its side and magnify it you will see at the top that there are two branches from the same beginning. One branch ends in the green shaded section that represents the African golden wolf (going under its previous names) and also shows that they were among some of the specimens from Israel, indicating that the African golden wolf is also in Israel. (NB: also the golden jackal exists in the specimens from Israel.) The other branch ends in the pink shaded section that represents lupus, and includes C. himalayensis, C. lupus laniger, and C. lupus chanco (that I assume is the Qinghai wolf - all of these have earlier been proposed by Wozencraft as C. filchneri). However, that branch does not link with lupus but with anthus. I assume this is what prompted Werhahn et al. to explore further, to mention Koepfli by name in their study and to reuse his sequences. You might also note in that diagram that the Ethiopian wolf and the Coyote are split from the same branch, which indicates a common female ancestor - with one population located today in east Africa and the other located in mid-latitude North America until the end of the ice age, I wonder how that occurred? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)