Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 6

Assessing Labyrinthodontia

I have edited the article Labyrinthodontia on an off for a couple of years, and it has now come about as far as I'm able to get it. When I started working on it (revision as of June 2008), it was not assessed for importance and rated C in quality. I now feel it can safely be reassessed (bout for importance and quality), and I would like some input, particularly regarding language (English is not my first language).

Some notes: I have used traditional paraphyletic taxons without hesitation in the text, partly out of necessity, partly because Labyrinthodontia itself is paraphyletic, though I have made sure to note the paraphyletic groups as such. I have also elected to put emphasis on non-cladistic taxa like Ichthyostegalia as means to make the text understandable rather than using phylogenetic nomenclature. I chose to used the vernacular "reptile-like amphibians" rather than opting for choosing either either of the scientific names (Anthracosauria or Reptiliomorpha) in order to not to force the issue of what to call the group. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to emphasize that this is a paraphyletic group, and that the name Labyrinthodontia is rarely used anymore. I'd say that because of this, the article isn't as important as the articles we have for the valid groups, such as Temnospondyli and Reptiliomorpha. That being said, this article is a good place to talk about general anatomy of early tetrapods and the history of study of labyrinthodonts. Maybe we could add more information about its taxonomic history and recent disuse. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bout the paraphyly of the group and and how the term Labyrinthodontia is used is mentioned bout in the lede and in the last section. Do you think I need to point it out in more places? I have tried to find a balance, and I feel the article would suffer in readability and appeal if it started off by explaining phylogenetic nomenklature and changing focus of classification rather than discussing ancient amphibians. The section at the end (The name Labyrinthodontia in cladistics) could use some attention. It is more or less kept from the original. Another aspect that could be addressed is whether to merge the article with Stegocephalia which is essentially the same group, the only real difference being how Laurin (who likes re-using old terms in cladistics) have decided to use it as a synonym for the conventionally defined (i.e. apomorphy-based) Tetrapoda.

If you read through (it is rather longish, that's one thing I was hoping to deal with), you will see that I have only given a short summary of each of the main groups, and directed to the relevant articles for details as you suggested. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could the term paraphyly maybe be mentioned and wikilinked earlier in the text, in the intro? As is, you have to read all the way down to "Groups of Labyrinthodonts" before it is even mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like evolutionary grade better, since that's what we are talking about here, but I have added it as an alternative term. Do you think it looks OK now?

Also, I was wondering whether "Groups of Labyrinthodonts" should be moved up before "Evolutionary history". The question is what will be most interesting to the reader who might find the article useful.Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the groups probably should be explained earlier in the article. Right now, group names are mentioned earlier in the "Labyrinthodonts in life" and "Evolutionary history" sections. It would be better if the different groups were detailed before their evolution and lifestyle were discussed. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! I also wonder if it would be a good idea to add a chapter on the origin of the group, in that the fish-tetrapod transition is now one of the best understood of the major transitions in vertebrate evolution. I have had a look at the tetrapod article, but it does not have any overview of the transition, nor is it particularly well sourced. I am tempted to consider Labyrinthodontia article the main article for the amphibian grade of the tetrapod evolution.Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried fixing up the tetrapod article a while back, but it's still far from perfect. I'm not so sure Labyrinthodontia would be a better place to describe the transition, though. Since early labyrinthodonts are more commonly (and correctly) called "stem tetrapods" nowadays, I'd think it would be better to discuss their origin in Tetrapod. Plus, the origin of labyrinthodonts is also the origin of tetrapods, so why focus the origin of all tetrapods in an article that only pertains to the earliest tetrapods? Now that I think of this, it might be a good idea to describe the fish-tetrapod transition in its own article (Origin of tetrapods?), sort of like how the dinosaur-bird transition is described in Origin of birds. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A separate article seems like a good idea to me. As for the Tetrapoda article, I find it has a very strange angle. It is all about the early labyrinthodont stage of the group, but completely neglect the higher groups. I would expect to find details on the evolution of the heart, skull, branchial arches, urogenital system etc across the whole group in that article, not just labyrinthodonts. I will happily help out to expand the article if you want to.

A note on naming: Stem tetrapods is not equal to Labyrinthodontia. Stem tetrapods is a lot of fish and may be just Ichthyostegalia, Ichthyostegalia and Temnospondyli or possibly Ichthyostegalia and Lepospondyli or even include the Anthracosaurs, depending of whom you base your systematics on. This is why I have stuck to fashion "fuzzy tree" language in the article, because this is a fuzzy part of the tree. Not only is "Stem tetrapoda" useless as a term as long as a phylogenetic consensus is not even on the horizon, it is entirely unknown outside a small circle of experts. I work in a natural history museum, and i can assure you the term "Stem tetrapoda" is not more commonly used for this group than "stem birds" is used for dinosaurs (i.e. never).

Edit: The term being almost unknown, there really should be an article for it.

Edit edit: Done, the article Stem Tetrapoda is now up.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that stem tetrapods were all tetrapods that aren't part of the crown group Tetrapoda, but now I realize it includes finned osteolepiformes, too. I still think that "stem tetrapod" has become a relatively common term in scientific literature recently, along with the similar "stem-lineage tetrapod". Smokeybjb (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not, I am just saying it is not a common term outside that specific circle, a circle which isn't all that big. The museum I work in is the closest thing we come to a "national" natural history museum for Norway (it is part of the University of Oslo). If it was one place in Norway you would expect to hear the term in a conversation, it would be there. Rather, when the group is discussed (which isn't that often I must admit), the common term is "panserpadder" (no: "Armoured toads", toad here in the wide sense to mean amphibian). The great thing about cladistics is that it is extremely precise, the drawback is that it require a intimate knowledge of the phylogenetic tree to be of any value. I guess you see where that leaves us with regard to "Stem Tetrapoda". Even Laurin (who is the president of International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature) uses Stegocephalia in stead, and interpret the term loosely as a synonym for trait-based Tetrapoda. Thanks for adding Tetrapodamorpha BTW!

What do you think of the suggestion to expand Tetrapoda to be about all tetrapods, not just the early ones? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maybe some of the information on early tetrapods could be moved to other articles, just so the Tetrapoda article doesn't become unreasonably long. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started by changing the lede and added a new picture. Should we continue on Talk:Tetrapod?

_________________

I have put the article importance as "high" and quality as B. I don't know if I am supposed to do this myself, but there seem to be no formal system for assessing articles below the A-level. I this is wrong, please feel free to revert my assessments. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ulna measurements

I have a question which I hope somebody is able to answer. On page 111 of this article, in the chart which contains ulna measurements, what units are the measurements in? I'm assuming millimeters, but can anyone verify this? Also, what do the commas mean in the measurements? This is probably a stupid question, but I'd be very grateful if someone could help me out. —out^offocus 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It must be mm, given that the modern birds in their entirety are a few cm long. The commas are a continental European convention for decimal marks (instead of 13.3 mm, you'd have 13,3 mm). J. Spencer (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I figured out. —focus 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of Kangaroos

Hello people, I am wanting to do a page on this subject. I have mind the material on the Palaeontology project but am wondering if anyone could help, or have information they could provide. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dating Pelycosaurs

Acording to the List of pelycosaurs, the genera Angelosaurus, Caseopsis, and Ctenorhachis are dated "Upper Permian." In the individual articles for them, however, they are dated "Early Permian," i.e. Lower Permian. It would be well if someone knowing more about pelycosaurs than I do would straighten this out. Peter M. Brown (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First I want to thank you for pointing out the error. Second, I was unable to find another discussion of Ctenorhachis, but Angelosaurus and Caseopsis, according to Palaeos, were from the latest age of the Lower Permian/Cisuralian Epoch. No clue if that's correct. Was a source given for the Upper Permian claim? Abyssal (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Template talk:Geological range#RfC: Rewording of "fossil range" for a proposal to modify the fossil range template. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Extinct turtles

{{Extinct turtles}}

Hi, I'm from WikiProject Turtles and I don't know much about extinction but I thought it would be helpful to gather up the extinct turtles and make a navigation template {{Extinct turtles}}. I've made the above, please feel free to amend, correct etc. I would like to separate the Paleogene and Neogene period sections but there is not enough information to determine that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see there is a new WikiProject! I don't know much about turtles, but there seems to be a lot of them for a single navbox. It might be better to include only larger taxa like families, and then have a separate navbox for each major taxon to include the genera. Or better yet, a single navbox could be divided into sections (check out Template:Selachimorpha for an example). Right now, a few of the genera included in the navbox have fossil ranges that span multiple periods or stages (Chisternon, Glyptops, Sinemys, Palatobaena, Psephophorus, Meiolania, etc.). There are also larger groups like Paracryptodira mixed in, which might cause confusion. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Belemnoteuthis -> Belemnotheutis

There are two articles currently seeming to be referring to the same genus, Belemnoteuthis and Belemnotheutis.

Like probably everyone, I assumed Belemnotheutis was the misspelling. I was wrong. It seems it actually has a quite colorful story behind it and the accepted name is the original misspelling - Belemnotheutis - not the corrected Belelmnoteuthis. Anyway I'm merging the two stubs (Belemnoteuthis into Belemnotheutis) and probably expanding them in the near future. Since I'm no paleontologist, I thought I'd post here, just in case I'm wrong and it's actually Belemnoteuthis not -theutis nowadays. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, the discussion is here: Talk:Belemnotheutis#Merger proposal. And a side-note. This genus was the cause of the scandal around Richard Owen (he failed to acknowledge Chaning Pearce, the original authority of the genus and the guy who misspelled it, and 'corrected' the spelling to Belemnoteuthis).--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Help! I am a little turtle, not a big dinosaur...

Hi Paleowikis!

I am looking for a fossil picture of Chyrsemys picta (the painted turtle). Have been all over the net. Can't find a free one. Can't even find many unfree ones. It supposedly is a very common fossil. I corresponded with a professor at the Indiana sinkhole dig who had one on the net, but he refused to allow license (or even let another picture be taken). Any help appreciated!

1. Obviously if you can find another image (even unfree, I can write and request permission). There is one from Smithsonian of the fossil being stolen, but you can't really see the shell. And I can find some of other turtles, but I don't want to "lie" by putting wrong species down.

2. If you can do a search of museum collections or samples or the like (I lack the expertise or the database ability). I think there is one at Michigan State Uni as Holman wrote papers on C.p. fossils and was museum director there. But I can't tell for sure. They said we could photo it, but won't do searches for us or photo it themselves.

3. If there is anyone actually near a specimen who could take a photo for me, that would rule!

Thanks in advance and go turtles!

TCO (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I found one from the Gray Fossil Museum. http://www.grayfossilmuseum.com/?BISKIT=7442597&CONTEXT=cat&cat=23 You could try writing them maybe? Not sure if the fossil also pictured here from the same site is also of Chrysemys: http://www.npd.no/en/Publications/Norwegian-Continental-Shelf/No-3-2007/Mass-grave-from-the-remote-past/ But the text mentions both Chrysemys and Trachemys --Obsidi♠n^Soul 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

YOU RULE! I'm totally writing both of those places and asking for permission. I was doing a bunch of other crap. Should have come here first!TCO (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes and Speciesboxes

Hi all,

I know that there's a lot of article creation about taxa in this Wikiproject; I've been working on a way to make it easier to add taxonomic information to taxoboxes.

The solution is Template:Automatic taxobox, which is now ready for use, and its accompanying template Template:Speciesbox. The templates can replicate any existing taxobox, but with much less template coding required. The taxonomy is linked to a database within Wikipedia, so doesn't need copying, pasting and completing every time you start a new taxobox. You can see an example at Belemnotheutis.

The template provides the following benefits:

• Automatic generation of many parameters, meaning:
  • Less code in the Wiki source
  • Consistency between articles
• Reduction of duplicate data
  • Taxonomies are generated by reference to a series of templates within Wikipedia, meaning that all articles using the Automatic Taxobox will use the same taxonomy - this only needs updating in one place
• Automatic generation of subdivision lists
  • Again, a change in classification can be reflected across Wikipedia in a single edit
  • Full taxonomy browsing: child taxa aren't "missed off" lists, and can be easily found

I hope that you find the template useful, despite it's steep learning curve - once you've got the hang of it it makes things much quicker, now and in the future. See rudimentary instructions detailing how to perform the upgrade. Let me (or others at Template talk:Automatic taxobox) know if you need any help! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Automated taxoboxes for labyrinthodondts?

Currently, the various Labyrinthodnts have a rather widely diverging taxonomy in the taxo-boxes, with a mix of Bento's, classical and phylogenetic taxonomy, perhaps reflecting that we don't really know how the labyrintodont tree really looks. Would anyone mind terribly if I switched to automated taxoboxes? Notice that this will only affect the content of the taxoboxes as a navigational aid, the phylogeny listed on the different pages will be unaffected. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there multiple phylogenies in practice? If so, they need to be presented here and a system needs to be set into place. Keep in mind that if there is disagreement on how to handle the phylogeny, we have a few tricks up our sleeves that can allow several schemes to function harmoniously without disrupting one another. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For the moment there isn't much taxonomy on offer. The reason is that even the most ardent cladisticians will admit that there really is no consensus tree. Most workers have opted for the solution I have used in the Labyrinthodontia article, describing the broad groups without making bold statements of phylogeny. As per now, the taxoboxes uses Carroll's system for some groups and Benton's for others, or even Carroll's units but with Benton's ranks! I was largely thinking of making the teaxoboxes all Benton's or all Carroll's (as their taxonomies are the most consistent systems at the moment, though not necessarily the most "correct"). A problem is Anthracosauria, which Carroll (and most older workers) uses for Reptiliomorpha, while Benton uses it for a grade of the primitive reptiliomorphs, thus making Carroll's/Romer's taxonomy and Benton's incompatible. I'd like to stick to Benton's system (as it is used for a number of other groups), but I'll have to find another name for Anthracosauria. The only real alternative to the traditionalists is using Michel Laurin's TOL-web taxonomy, but he's really a minority and do not use ranks, making his taxonomy difficult to use in the taxoboxes. Apart from that, most is about making the taxonomy consistent. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been implementing the automatic taxobox for some smaller labyrinthodont groups where at least their monophyly is pretty well established. For larger and possibly paraphyletic groups like Anthracosauria, it might be a good idea to make automatic taxoboxes for them, but not include any child taxa. That way, the name would only appear in its article's taxobox, and not cascade into the taxoboxes of all its possible child taxa, like amniotes. Smokeybjb (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking allong those lines. paraphyletic units require a steady hand and a few skip-templates. Thank you for the automated boxes you have put in! Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Might automation be useful throughout WP:Palaeontology?

It sounds like the automatic taxobox worked well for labyrinthodonts, and I gather that it's reasonably well used in dinosaur articles. It strikes me that palaeontology articles are the best poised to take advantage of the automatic taxobox scheme:

• Palaeo editors are thinly spread, and classification of fossils quite fluid, so it would be great to minimize taxobox maintenance, and the automatic system makes it easier to keep things up to date
• Many fossils are classified in stem groups or clades, because Linnean taxonomy doesn't work so well for "missing links"; these can be handled easily in the automatic taxobox (e.g. Nectocaris, a "stem-group cephalopod"), whereas the "unranked_familia" type of parameter in manual taxoboxes is less elegant
• The automatic taxoboxes have a neat way of standardising the display of extant taxa, which are very inconsistently displayed in manual taxoboxes
• They're consistent with Template:Ichnobox and Template:oobox, the templates used for fossilized traces and eggs, respectively.
• (see Template:Automatic_taxobox/doc/use for more info]])

I've tried the automatic taxobox out in a range of palaeo taxa and it seems to be able to handle even the more complicated cases. Now that the template's been around for a while, the bugs have mostly been ironed out, and it's reasonably user-friendly (although I admit that there's still scope for improvement here). In my mind, there's a strong case for replacing taxoboxes on (at least) palaeontology stubs with automatic taxoboxes, so that these smaller articles can remain up to date. Am I overlooking a strong argument for retaining manual taxoboxes on our less-maintained pages?

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In Nectocaris, the current taxobox strikes me as misleading at best, since it suggests that the rank of the Cephalopoda is "Stem-group", which is nonsense. What is meant must be that Nectocaris is a (possible) stem-group cephalopod, but for that you'll need some better convention than making "stem-group" a rank. Ucucha 20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's probably something better discussed at Nectocaris (or perhaps template talk:Automatic taxobox). Since stem groups don't have names, it hadn't struck me as misleading. What would you suggest: something like "stem group to"? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Perplexicervix

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Journals/18093/1537_complete.pdf Anyone willing to create a page and write about this new fossil species. Birds are not my strong point. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Prehistoric mammals

A new portal has appeared, Portal:Prehistoric mammals

65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Palaeos.com

Anyone know what happened to Palaeos? The site has been down for a while, and I'm thinking it might be down for good (although I certainly hope not!). The site is used heavily as a reference for many of our paleontology articles, so this might mean we have to get rid of a lot of dead external links. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kazlev has a semi-active user profile here, I could e-mail him and ask what's going on. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The wiki is still operational, [1]]. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Palaeos wiki is allowed as source, per WP:V (section RS). For palaeos.com links, you should use the Internet Archive - it's saved my bacon many times. --Philcha (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mfd Wikipedia:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals. Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this project would be willing to consider a joint task force between WikiProject Palaeontology and WikiProject Mammals, this would mean the user who created the Prehistoric Mammals project would then have the support of two projects and instead of "crushing" their enthusiasm we could put it to good use with perhaps the user bridging a gap between our two projects. Just a suggestion. ZooPro 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is ever going to start up, we're going to need a lot of users who are willing to build it up into a respectable wikiproject. I'd be willing to join if we can get the initiative. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I just suggest a task force, no need to create a whole new project, one or two members is sufficient for a task force. ZooPro 05:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just think that this subject matter needs to be developed. Almost every member of this project seems to ignore well-known prehistoric mammals in favor of obscure dinosaurs. I wish I could just search for Entelodon, or Hyaenodon, or one of many, many others, and recieve large amounts of referenced information. Instead, I find a stub-class article with maybe one or two unreferenced facts. If you're lucky. The problem with many of Wikipedia's top editors is that they refuse to contribute themselves and try to stop others from contributing. I'm not an expert on this subject. I just wanted to attract editors who were. Pinguinus (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I also wish to point out that turtles have their own portal apart from Portal:Reptiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinguinus (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oronosaurus

Crappy photo I took of a cast in Copennhagen

Any info on this mosasaur? It was initially described as Prognathodon currii, now it's referred to as Oronosaurus, but is this perhaps a nomen nudum? There isn't much info on the web. The specimen seems to have been described in the article "Bonde, N (1997): Mosasaurer - et stort kranium fra Israels Øvre Kridt, samt nogle fakta om dyrene og deres marine faunaer", as mentioned here[2] Some DML coverage:[3][4] FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was originally thought to be a distinct genus (as revealed through some early news coverage), but was later referred to Prognathodon in its 2002 description (see here[5]). I can't find any mention of the name Oronosaurus after that paper, just Prognathodon currii. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, according to that Danish article, it was actually first thought to belong to Prognathodon, then to a new genus, and then apparently to Prognathodon again, according to the Bio one article. But I'm not sure if "Oronosaurus" was ever properly published, and therefore not whether it is a junior synonym or just a nomen nudum... FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange... If "Oronosaurus" was published, I'd expect the BioOne paper to mention the name, instead of treating it like a completely new taxon. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Oronosaurus now redirects to Prognathodon in any case... FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC):::

The Danish article linked to is from a semi-popular magazine. It states that their analysis (of which no details are given) places the Israeli specimen as the sister group of Mosasaurinae, thus they have given it a new genus. I have so far not been able to track down the 1997 Bonde article mentioned as source. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oreodont mess

The Oreodont article seems to be a huge mess, with outdated taxonomy mixed with modern taxonomy in an incomprehensible way, and is Oreodont eve the correct name anymore? See also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oreodont#Taxonomy FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Eurypterida - Class or Order

I was wondering if anyone had any access to journals/sources showing the most recent accepted classification of Eurypterida. Traditionally classified under Merostomata, it seems that it is now treated as a class, closer to arachnids than to horseshoe crabs. Wikispecies classifies it as thus. Does this mean reclassification of all the eurypterid and xiphosuran articles in Wikipedia? Or is Merostomata still valid?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tolweb also classifies them as separate classes directly under Subphylum Chelicerata: http://tolweb.org/Arthropoda/2469

In addition to other sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

I'm thinking of revising all the related xiphosuran and eurypterid articles. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated. Don't want to step on anyone's toes.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, seems like all related articles on the two groups are confused as to what to use. Blegh. Compare taxoboxes of Eurypteroidea and Merostomata. This is when autotaxoboxes would really help.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My advice: Go with something conservative and orderly in the taxobox, and make sure to give room for the alternative phylogeny in the article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is the approach I took at Merostomata. It was re-written last October; an oldish classification is presented in the taxobox, but the text discusses alternative hypotheses (albeit without mentioning ranks). Eurypteroidea is a new article, but based only on very old works, and I am not surprised that its taxonomy may be outdated. Also note that automatic taxoboxes are only one possible means to the (desirable) end of consistency among taxoboxes; there are plenty of others.

Good luck with the updating work. The eurypterid articles are in general a bit of a mess at the moment, with many of them relying on that single, offline, 1955 source. I would love to see them spruced up, and I would be happy to help in any way I can – I have access to most journals through my work, for instance [although I'm away for a bit from tomorrow]. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@Petter: using a conservative system is a bit problematic when Wikispecies so obviously contradicts the current classification. Palaeos wiki also explicitly separates eurypterids and chasmataspids from Merostomata. One good thing about it though is that the xiphosurans would basically be unaffected, we can remove Eurypterida from Merostomata and just place mention of them in-text about how they are sometimes classified under it. I think using Wikispecies as a basis for consistency might be the best way for now, but... dunno. I'm currently renovating the Eurypterus article but will move on to the rest once we can agree on a system. I won't touch them until we have consensus.

@Stemonitis: Yep, noted the textual descriptions in Merostomata.

Autotaxoboxes make it far more flexible though (at least for the family levels and below). When somebody else decides to reclassify Eurypterida as an order, they can quickly be unlinked and relinked to Merostomata without having to go through the individual articles. Hopefully the number of Eurypterid-related articles should be relatively few. The higher levels should probably be manual though (like Merostomata itself).

And yes, there is one journal I'd dearly like to get my hands on. I can only verify it secondhand at the moment (hopefully it's in two languages):

P. Weygoldt & H. F. Paulus (2009). "Untersuchungen zur Morphologie, Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Chelicerata† II. Cladogramme und die Entfaltung der Chelicerata". Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 17 (3). Wiley-Blackwell: 177–200. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.1979.tb00699.x. ISSN 1439-0469.

Any help would be appreciated, as I only know the very basics about eurypterids. I'm actually learning as I go.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikispecies is a decent guideline. Wether Eurypterida is a class, subclass or order is really a matter of taste, and something is going to be paraphyletic no matter how you twist it. Wikispecies can be edited too (did so myself with Labyrinthodontia) to match whatever you find is the most useful classification. "Learning as you go" is not a bad way to start clearing up a group. Darwin did it, surely we can too. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That reference is not from 2009, it's from 1979 (but put online in 2009), and it will be entirely in German, except for the English abstract, I suspect. I could help translate, but it's 32 years old, and I am surprised to see that I haven't got access. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got access, and can confirm it is all in German and from 1979. It is scanned, so you can't run it through Google translate either. It does however seem to be very thurough, and the taxonomy is basically understandable. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's that old and in German to boot, it probably won't be that useful. Just curious though, how does he classify it in there?

Googling (frustrating how many sites mirror Wikipedia and how often they show up) for other systems, I found Tollerton (1989), which is happily accessible. But yeah... 1989, that's 22 years old and he does not address its placement within Chelicerata, only dealing with internal classification.

There's Sepkoski (2002) of course (followed by paleodb), but his compendium is a bit generalized. An uncited system by a eurypterid specialist, which is purportedly updated with the most recent revisions, also directly places Eurypterida under Chelicerata, but retains its status as an order. Tetlie (2007) also seems to omit any mention of Merostomata and proceeds to directly attach Eurypterida to Chelicerata.

There seems to be previous attempts to make the wikispecies entries coincide with Wikipedia here in the talk page of Eurypteridae as well.

At this point, I'm just trying to find the system most followed by specialists of the group, heh. Or should we just follow paleodb for convenience?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar to look for recent papers, I find explicit use of "Order Eurypterida" in James C. Lamsdell, Simon J. Braddy & O. Erik Tetlie (2010). "The systematics and phylogeny of the Stylonurina (Arthropoda: Chelicerata: Eurypterida)". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 8 (1): 49–61. doi:10.1080/14772011003603564. (PDF available to anyone who emails me). Braddy and Tetlie are names that come up again and again, and that paper is from just last year. From that alone, I would say that the current scientific consensus is for Eurypterida to be an order. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a more recent and more comprehensive list from an unlikely source - Platnick's World Spider Catalog, haha. Dunlop et al. (2011) with additional contributions from Anderson, Braddy, Lamsdell, Selden & Tetlie (that means it probably takes the 2010 revision by them into account), and the pdf is freely available. What do you guys think?-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you have found the motherload. I can e-mail Tetlie and have his oppinion if yoy want to. He worked part time at the educational department with me back wne he was taking his doctorate. Nice guy. All I really know about sea scorpions (it isn't much I'm afraid) I learned from him while drinking beer. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice, hehe. If it won't bother you (and him) too much, that would be awesome. The burning question is really just: where do specialists of eurypterids place Eurypterida under? While the taxonomy within the group is well documented enough, its relationships with Xiphosura and/or Arachnida/Pycnogonida/Merostomata aren't actually mentioned (maybe that's intentional?)-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just off the phone with Tetlie. Him, and a number of others have sea scorpions as an order rather than class. While consensus is hard to come by this day, his impression is that an order anchored directly in Chelicerata is more common. The problem is that the logical class, Merostomata, is paraphyletic, but on the other hand there's no alternative class to anchor it in, unless you want to make Chelicerata a class, and that will bring no end of other problems. Sea scorpions themselves may possibly be paraphyletic too (forfathers of arachnids), though there's again no consensus. Tetlie prefers a two way split (sea scorpions and arachnids). The horse shoe crabs are likely a bit more primitive than either (5 rather than 4 gill pairs), so that Xiphosura in the wider sense is likely paraphyletic as well. The relationship to sea spiders is really anones guess. They range from the sister group to all arthropods to basal cheliceratans. Oh, and scorpions are paraphyletic as well. And possibly a few other of the arachnid orders.

Thinking about what Tetlie said, I think the situation is comparable with that of the vertebrates. You can split them into aquatic (finned) and terrestrial (four legged) forms, but no matter how you split up the aquatic ones, you will get paraphyly, and some of the primitive terrestrial ones are still about making a coherent phylogenetic approach difficult. The same really goes for the cheliceratans, with one aquatic and one terrestrial class. The tree is well enough mapped out that you will either have to change the traditional groups drastically, or accept paraphyly. Unlike in vertebrate palaenthology, where temperatures generally run high, sea-scorpion research is done by a small bunch of peaceful and mild mannered workers. It seems to me they stick to the lower end taxonomy and no-one really want to be the one setting off the bomb.

This is a really small field with few workers and slow progress. In other words: It's really up to you and what you find most practical. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. :) Now we have two choices: we either classify it still under Merostomata, or we do what they usually do - skip the class rank altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter. Thoughts? I think leaving the article on Merostomata as Stemonitis has done it should be good as well.

And yep, saw a paper on the proposed Class Scorpionea to hold Eurypterida and Scorpionida on Lamsdell's site.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 08:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lamsdell's view is only held by him according to Tetlie, but we should make sure it is mentioned.

As for the phylogeny, it eats me to see an "unaccounted for" order not properly anchored to a class. I personally would prefer an annotated taxoboks, where Eurypterida is anchored to Merostomata, but with a note describing this as a "provisionary arrangement" or something to that effect. While we know the experts deal with paraphyly by simply skipping the class, we are not writing for the experts, but for the common man on whom such considerations is of little consequence (after all, Wikipedia have an article on Dinosaurs dealing dinosaurs, not birds, so paraphyly isn't really that much of an issue). However, you are the one doing this (and I'm really happy, the Eurypterida are sorely neglected, despite being the "dinosaurs" of the Arthropoda), so ultimately it is your call. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you're right, it does look weird without a class. I'll anchor them to Meristomata for now. Easier that way, heh. Once I finish Eurypterus, I'll begin updating all the other eurypterid articles based on Dunlop's revision.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And won't be touching scorpions for now. They're living, too messy to deal with. :P -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When you are done, I'm going to translate your work into the Norwegian wiki. I'm very happy to se someone making an effort into these critters. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, appropriate, two species of Eurypterus seems to have been named after Norwegian paleontologists. :P -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The type specimen of Mixopterus kiaeri hangs in our museum, I'll see if I can get a picture of the original rather than the cast. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Traditional vertebrate classification

A number of articles on the more contentious groups where Linnaean and phylogenetic taxonomy differ, refer to "traditional taxonomy/classification/systematics". This is mostly in vertebrate articles. Would it be an idea to make an article on traditional classification for this group? As of now, the term is treated in a rather vague way, though the classification in question is concrete enough. Having been through quite a few older works, I have found the classification forwarded by Alfred Romer for his 1933 Vertebrate Paleontology was essentially identical with what I was taught as a lower grade biology student in the early 1990'ies. The only large scale change change came with phylogenetic nomenclature, though the traditional scheme is still in use. This make for an 80 year period of remarkable stability, which I find sufficient reason for an article.

The current article on vertebrate paleontology has a section devoted to the classification, which I think would serve well as a starting point. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If this were its own article, what would it be titled? I don't know of any articles devoted to the "traditional" classification of any large group of organisms. Usually the old taxonomy is described within the group's article. Vertebrate already has a small section called Traditional classification, so maybe it could be expanded with details of Romer's classification and those found in specific textbooks. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the vertebrate article is a natural place to put it. The problem is that a section listing the traditional classification, together with text on it's history, use and philosophy will make the section quite long, dominating the vertebrate article. We risk running unto WP:WEIGHT if a very large section of the article is devoted to one particular way of splitting the cake. I think the phylogenetic taxonomists and Benton's fans among us would object. Besides, shouldn't the vertebrate article primarily deal with the typical traits and variation of vertebrates, rather than classification?

The reason no other article devoted to traditional taxonomy exists (with the exception of the article Systema Naturae which details Linnaeus taxonomy) is that vertebrates are the only group to be traditionally well understood and have a very stable and well known classification for generations. As for title, I would go with "Traditional vertebrate classification". It is about as descriptive as I can get it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that. As it is now, the vertebrate article doesn't have much information, so a long section on different classification schemes would look strange next to a very small section on the group's defining characteristics. There's certainly enough information to make a new article about traditional classification, so I think it's a good idea. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. If it doesn't turn out well, we can always ask a mod to delete it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pterosaurs

Pterosaur has been requested to be renamed Pterodactyl, see Talk:Pterosaur. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)