Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 4 May 2020

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Palaeontology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:PAL WT:PALEO WT:PALAEO

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Palaeontology Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 January 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Palaeontology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Burmese amber

I have created the article for Burmese amber, which if you're familiar with paleoentomology you'll know is long overdue. The list of taxa includes 42 classes, 108 orders, 569 families, 1017 genera and 1379 species described as of the end of 2019, with over 300 species described in 2019 alone.. However this presesents a problem of coverage, as I have no idea how to cover a topic as broad as the entire paleobiota of the burmese amber in depth, as there is so much to go through. Kevmin has created the Paleobiota of Burmese amber page for a complete list, but I think he's bitten off far more than he can chew and it will never be satisfactorily complete if over 300 taxa are coming out every year, which is close to one a day, never mind the over 1300 already described. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to cover the topic adequately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there an online database of every species? Instead of listing them all on wikipedia, you can just leave that as an external link, and only talk about general trends and patterns in biota like what Ediacaran biota does. With that many taxa, it's not very practical to make a list (especially with tables as you seem to be doing right now), and it wouldn't be very user friendly unless you're planning on splitting it up into family or order sub articles (like Paleobiota of Burmese amber is left as basically a disambiguation page, which lists articles like Hymenopterans of Burmese amber and Angiosperms of Burmese amber), but even then, that's a really mammoth task   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For an online database of species? Fossilworks/PaleobioDB has all the species as entries in the database, but these are all split up over separate collections, and are not all in one place. It's worth emphasising that I haven't contributed to the Paleobiota article at all and it wasn't at all my idea. I think it's a fool's errand with the volumes of taxa coming out right now. The two refs I have cited are two PDFS by Andrew J Ross, which includes a full list of all taxa described up until 2018, and an additional supplement for 2019 containing new taxa and corrections, both of these include full reference lists. These are the most complete lists of burmese amber taxa online, that actual researchers use. Obviously new papers that have come out in the last couple of months aren't on the list, but instead can be found at 2020 in arthropod paleontology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Geee thank you for denigrating my efforts @Hemiauchenia:. Paleobiota of... lists are done for a number of the major fossil localities, and there is no reason not to have one for Burmese amber. 300 taxa seems massive until you look at that having happened over the course of 12 months and not all at once. We shouldnt just be pointing off into the internet if anyone asks whats been found at a particular fossil locality. 25 taxa a month (which get a single line each in the biota article is not much to handle. PBDB is not a good option as its horrendously spotty in coverage for anything that doesnt have a skeleton, and often uses incorrect or outdated plcements and names (And no, it does NOT have all the taxa). Are we going to tell annon IP that the 2020 in paleo list are just to much to handle with the volume of papers coming out each day as well??--Kevmin § 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, in no way was I trying to disrespect or denigrate you or your work on wikipedia. You've created many high quality articles on paleoentomology and related topics, and you have my respect for that, you do really good work. I just think your efforts creating the list could be better spent elsewhere,. The current list has 55 taxa out of a total of over 1379, around 4% of the 2019 total. The 20XX in paleontology guy puts hours a day into putting the taxa lists together and it's also easier when you're simply trying to find recent literature and can use websites like novataxa. Often times it's not simply adding taxa, there are also corrections like species synonmy, differing taxonomic placements, more broad scale taxonomic revisions which alter placement etc. It's a lot to keep up with for over 1000 taxa, and is much more difficult when you can't just get the information you need by reading the abstract. I agree with you that PaleoBioDB is spotty and not a good source for this kind of stuff, but for the breadth and scope it is trying to cover it could never hope to be anywhere near perfect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Andrew J. Ross, Burmese (Myanmar) amber taxa, on-line checklist v.2018.2
2. Andrew J. Ross Burmese (Myanmar) amber taxa, on-line supplement v.2019.2

Disputes over bilateral symmetry in Ediacaran biota.

As a primer, it was formerly thought that some iconic members of the Ediacaran biota, like Dickinsonia, Spriggina etc (Proarticulata) had glide symmmetry, i.e. that the segments were displaced from each other by half the length of the segment, I remember reading this in my old paleontology textbooks in the early 2000's. However in recent literature, it is believed by most current Ediacaran workers that Dickinsonia et al did not have glide symmetry, but are genuinely bilaterally symmetrical, and grow by the insertion of segments at the anti-deltoidal zone, See this paper and this paper, (Edit also see these papers and that previous suggestions of glide symmetry are due to taphonomic distortion, causing the thin segments in adult individuals to have been shifted slightly (here is a paper that specifically addresses the "glide symmetry" claim) Even papers that disagree with the bilaterian affinity agree that the animal has bilaterial symmetry. I have updated the articles to reflect this. However Alnagov has reverted my edits to this. I shall quote his reasoning here for Dickinsonia revert "It is not a common opinion that based on some poorly preserved deformed Australian Dickinsonia specimens which were photographed at the wrong angle of illumination and orientation of the specimens. In addition, glide reflection symmetry is visible on a Dickinsonia feeding traces that excludes a taphonomic distortion". and for Proarticulata "There is no evidence in the Hoekzema and Gold articles that the symmetry of gliding reflection is a taphonomic distortion. And these articles consider only Dickinsonia costata, but not the entire phylum." "common opinion" is an obvious weasel phrase and neither of these edit reverts are stated with any evidence. I didn't want to get involved in an edit war so I thought I would have a discussion here. If Alnagov wants to give a detailed rebuttal to these claims here then I would be greatful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As always, WP:NPOV applies. If recent reliable sources all argue against glide symmetry, then glide symmetry should only be mentioned in the historical section, but if there are recent papers taking each position, both hypotheses should be mentioned roughly proportionally to how many scientists have taken each stance in reliable sources. I'm not terribly familiar with this topic, but from skimming the Dunn paper it seems like at least some relatives of Dickinsonia are still interpreted as having glide symmetry. Alnagov's assertion in their Dickinsonia edit sounds like OR or OS to me, but I don't know much about the topic. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear that juvenile specimens of Dickinsonia are indisputably bilaterally symmetrical, so it wouldn't make any sense for the adults to not be so. I was maybe a bit hasty on the entirety of proarticulata being bilaterally symmetrical. From what I have inferred I think the user is a researcher who works on Proarticulartans, so I'm interested in hearing their opinion as an expert in the field.

This juvenile specimens of Dickinsonia (right photo) is bilateral animal but its left and right half of a segments are organized in an alternating pattern along the longitudinal axis of their bodies. See the rotated image. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

See Ivantsov et al 2019 - "One of the characteristic features of the structural organization of proarticulates is their “pre-articulation” or “pseudometamerism” that means the separation of a body into two rows of “semi-segments” (isomers), shifted relative to each other on both sides of the sagittal plane (Fedonkin, 1985; Ivantsov, 2008). The alternating arrangement of isomers (symmetry of gliding reflection) is usually quite clear on fossil remains of proarticulates of all known species, but, sometimes, there are specimens with the opposite arrangement of isomers. As an example, a juvenile form of Dickinsonia costata is mentioned (Gehling et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2017; Hoekzema et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018). It should be noted that the opposite arrangement of isomers is characteristic of small specimens with thin isomers, but it is not always. Such an arrangement is unknown for proarticulates with wide isomers. Nevertheless, some researches consider the very opposite arrangement as a primary one and describe Dickinsonia, correspondingly, as normally segmented organisms (Glaessner and Wade, 1966; Wade, 1972; Jenkins, 1992; Gehling et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2017; Hoekzema et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2018). Here, we present images of large and small specimens of one of Dickinsonia species, which have thin isomers with the distinct alternative arrangement (Plate 3, figs. 2, 3). In our opinion, the clearness and regularity of impressions indicate the absence of deformation of the body and, correspondingly, the primary origin of such an arrangement of isomers. The insignificant postmortem longitudinal displacement of one or the other side of the body would be enough for the small specimen (Plate 3, fig. 3) to have the opposite arrangement of isomers (or vice versa). However, based on this assumption, it is difficult to explain an absence of continuity of ridges marking the boundaries between isomers, observed on the body axis of the large specimen (Plate 3, fig. 2). Of course, it is hard to prove the primary origin of any arrangement by showing more and more found specimens. However, the possibility of differentiation of the “segments” on impressions into two parts strictly along the body axis and the displacement of these parts relative to each other, no matter what a reason was, indicates the presence of a certain longitudinal structure (membrane, cord or other linear zone), with which the proximal ends of isomers are linked." Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for this Alnagov, apologies for the rudeness earlier. Can I confirm that you are indeed third author on the paper? I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions in the paper, but as there is clearly some dispute about this among Ediacaran workers, regardless of your personal views as a researcher that works on these organisms, this needs to be reflected in the article to reflect the views of researchers as a whole. Admittedly my previous edits didn't do this justice, as I didn't realise some researchers still supported glide symmetry, for that I apologise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for, Hemiauchenia. Yes, I am coauthor of this article. About segmentarion the small Dickinsonia on the photo see rotated image. I think that Dickinsonia and other Proarticulata are bilateral symmetrical animals, but their left and right halves are displaced as well as in a modern lancelets. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)).

Thanks again for the response Aleksey. Do you have a source for the Lancelet offset claim? Given that Lancelets are bilaterians, the offsetting would seem to be a superficial feature in that case. Do you think that the glide symmetry of proarticulatans is a fundamental feature, or simply just represents a slight offset in the left and right segmnents of the organism? I noticed the paper cites another paper you are co-author of "Morphology of integuments of the Precambrian animals, Proarticulata" Also published in 2019, which suggests that the ribbed section of most proarticulatans only represents the most resistant part of the organism, and that the real organism is signficiantly larger with the dorsal area covered with tubercles; this seems like a signifcant development. I think all of the Proarticulatan articles probably need to be significantly updated anyway, as most cite little current research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Some papers about asymmetric segmentation of lancelets: Blum et al. 2014, Bertrand et al 2015, Soukup 2017, Schubert et al 2001 and classical paper Conklin 1932. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

Thanks again, Alexey, really interesting papers. I apologise if I am asking you questions which you have already answered in your publications, or questions that are stupid due to my lack of understanding of developmental biology. Asymmetry seems to be a derived property in Bilateria, as most simpler forms seem perfectly symmetrical. In your 2019 paper it states in the conclusion "Proarticulata already achieved a bilaterian grade of development, although they had a specific type of symmetry atypical for the Bilateria." Do you think it is reasonable to state that Proarticulatans are stem-bilaterians or have bilaterian affinities, or do you think that is too speculative? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrey Ivantsov has long time considered glide bilateral symmetry to be the main arguments in favor of the independent from Bilateria origin of the Proarticulata (unpublished). I drew attention to the similarity of the asymmetry of Proarticulata and lancelets in 2017 in the process of preparing the manuscript of the paper 2019, but a discussion of this phenomenon was not included in the article because it requires further reflection. Australians deny the presence of sliding symmetry in Dickinsonia (they study only Dickinsonia costata! It is a very strange approach...) therefore they do not discuss the importance of glide symmetry for Dickinsonia and Proarticulata systematics. I note that over the past 20 years, Australians (including with involvement of foreigners) have not described a single new genera and species of Proarticulata, and there is not a single paper about the internal systematics of this group. A Two last genusses was described in 1976 and 1978, a last new species was described in 1992. During the same 20 years, Russian specialists have described 11 new generas and 14 new specieses (include trace fossils) and several redescribed. I think that the position of Proarticulata on the Eumetazoa tree is uncertain. With equal probability, these can be: 1) non-Bilateria bilaterally symmetrical animals (some cnidarians also are bilateral); 2) stem-Bilateria; 3) very specialised crown-Bilateria. This is a very speculative. We are more interested in the description of new species, anatomy, behavior and internal systematics of Proarticulata. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC))

On a related note, regarding the quality of Misplaced Pages's information on the Ediacaran biota, I've noticed that Mark McMenamin (who I am most familiar with as the discoverer of the so-called "Triassic kraken") is frequently cited on some of the pages. Given that many of his other claims are considered to be fringe, I've felt concern that those citations may be giving fringe views undue weight. However, I am not particularly qualified to evaluate whether his views on the Ediacaran biota are as unconventional as his views on, say, Triassic cephalopods. Are his views on Ediacaran organisms considered credible enough for inclusion? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

a taxobox for Protoichnites

The article for Protoichnites needs an {{ichnobox}}. I'm not super knowledgeable about ichnotaxa, and I couldn't find the original description anywhere in the literature, just short asides. The citation in the article also doesn't seem to mention the ichnogenus. Can someone take a look? --awkwafaba (📥) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The term Protoichnites has only four references on google scholar. The only useful comment comes from the book Carboniferous-Permian Transition at Carrizo Arroyo, Central New Mexico "Thus, their Protoichnites is Dromopus, and what they termed Anomohiichnium includes tracks now termed Dromopus and Batrachichnus (Haubold, 1996)." It's worth noting here that Dromopus is a tetrapod track, not arthropod one. This and that the name seems to have almost no presence in the literature, suggests it is not a widely used term and a disused synonym of a more widely used name, not really worth the effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: yea, I looked on Scholar and saw that sentence. You suggest then an AfD? --awkwafaba (📥) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: I think redirecting it to a newly created Dromopus article is a better solution, I am happy to assist creating a taxobox for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'm not really wanting to write a new article, i'm just trying to clean out Category:Missing taxobox ( 0 ). --awkwafaba (📥) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: It doesn't have to be anything more than a 2 sentence stub, just something to redirect to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It gets more complicated. Proichnites is likely a typo; the correct name (albeit still a repressed name) is Protritonichnites. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This paper seems to present Protoichnites as a legitimate Devonian marine ichnogenus. Given that Dromopus and Protritonichnites are Pennsylvanian-Permian in age and represent terrestrial amniotes, they cannot be referring to the same taxon. Advise against redirect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've got it! It's Protichnites. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In any case, it is no longer a redlink. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now that that's solved, Protichnites also needs a taxobox... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes: great job on Dromopus. Alas, Protichnites also lacks an {{ichnobox}}. Would the parent be {{Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Arthropoda}}? --awkwafaba (📥) 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This whole "ichno" taxonomy just makes my head ache; there are long hierarchies for dinosaur traces – see, e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Chirotherium. Personally, by analogy with Diplichnites, which the article says could be made by the same species, I would set the parent in the taxonomy template to Arthropoda/? and leave it at that. However, I believe the "ichno purists" would object in both cases that Protichnites and Diplichnites are not (possible) arthropods, they are (possible) arthropod traces, so their parents should be trace taxa, not organism taxa. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm not fan of ichnotaxa either, which is why so many were clogging up Category:Missing taxobox ( 0 ). I just got sick of seeing them and had to suck it up. Anyhow, it's done for Protichnites now. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Student edits

As should be evident in the hot articles section of the front page, there appears to be some school project going on, with a flurry of expansions (which is nice), including a lot of unorthodox edits (which is not so nice). As usual, relevant Wiki projects have not been notified about this and which articles that are affected, which would help us oversee and fix issues in these articles when they may arise. How can this be done better in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the average person knows that WikiProjects exist or what they are for (I didn't before I started editing Misplaced Pages) - and you can't notify someone if you don't know they exist. "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology" is of course prominently displayed on the talk page of every paleontology-related article, but I digress. I agree that it would be nice if more school projects notified WikiProjects, which would lend itself to better co-operation and assurance that what goes up is true and in-line with what research says (I think that would be a win-win situation for the school projects as well?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the school projects are done in cooperation with Misplaced Pages, though, so it should be possible? I think Enwebb may be involved, or can point to someone who is? FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk, school projects in the US and Canada are supported by Wiki Education, a separate nonprofit from WMF (and yes, my employer, though I'm speaking in a volunteer capacity right now). I believe what you've identified is what we call a "stealth class" that is not affiliated with us or WMF. An instructor is independently doing a Misplaced Pages assignment without the support of the Dashboard, trainings, and other infrastructure. We will talk to these students and see if we can identify who their instructor is, and if in the US or Canada, try to get them to create a Dashboard page. A giveaway of a stealth class is that the students do not have userpages or user talk pages. We automatically create those for students who enroll (their user page should link to their course, their user talk should have a welcome message from us).

As far as notifying WikiProjects in general, I'm not sure it's something we've considered, given the glut of WikiProjects that are abandoned. Also, large projects like WikiProject Biographies would have hundreds of notifications each term. We encourage students to assign themselves the article they're working on with the Dashboard, which then automatically adds a template to the article's talk page (see Talk:Big brown bat). The template links to the course page, which is a mirror of and links to the course Dashboard. The course dashboard has an activity tab with all the recent activity of the students, as well as an articles tab that shows all articles they have edited.

If you have issues with a specific class, reach out to the staff member associated with the class (visible on student talk page, Misplaced Pages mirror of the Dashboard, or the Dashboard). If you identify more stealth classes like this, you should post on the Education Noticeboard so we can try to intervene and connect the students/instructors to Wiki Education resources. Enwebb (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I think it might be worth notifying projects like the paleo, dinosaur, and bird projects, which have small but dedicated and mostly coordinated editor bases. But I can see why it would be impractical and pointless for broader projects. That's of course not possible with stealth classes, though. Maybe worth to see what other members of the project think before deciding on how to proceed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, I think I'm fine with changes made by student editors, especially if we're dealing with a stealth class that we can't really communicate with. We can always fix the affected articles up to in-house standards afterwards. But there is some content being inserted which is so egregiously bad that it's not worth keeping it around for any length of time: see the awful potato-quality images at Hyposaurus, including the very crude map. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits/update requested

Greetings from a sporadic editor of this illustrious WikiProject.

There has recently been a paper published on a Sivaelurus and Miopanthera, a pair of rather obscure felid genera. The first of those two hasn't had a paper written about it in over a century (not since 1915, to be exact). From the abstract, the paper looks to have some pretty important information in it. However, I can not access it as it is behind a paywall.

Therefore, I am requesting that an editor who does have access please read it and update both articles thoroughly. Or send me a copy and I'll do it at some point. The article can be found here: link.

Thank you all, and have a good day!--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, Alexandra Elbakyan has come up with a solution to your problem Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think using a sketchy website is a good way to get access to paleo-papers. Thanks, but no thanks.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't be rude to me like that, I was just trying to help you. Sci-hub is regularly used by researchers all over the world, and works great most of the time to access research papers. If you want you can apply to Taylor & Francis on the[REDACTED] library card, but it will take seven days to reach a decision. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Most requests for paywalled research papers on there seem to go unanswered though, I think if one wants to go by legal means then the library card is the way to go. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten almost everything I ever requested there, even stuff that had to be scanned. Only some really obscure papers couldn't be found. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What was the average turnaround time between request and access? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Often just minutes, again, depending on how obscure a paper was. Paywalls are never a problem, the people there have access from university or libraries. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I can email it to you if you wanna give me your email address   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. How do I send you my email address?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You could just create a junk email account and post it here (then never use it again after I send you the pdf)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Improving Homo erectus

The article for Homo erectus gets a daily average of around 2,500 views, around 2/3 of that of Tyrannosaurus, and has recieved over 4 million views since July 2015, yet it seems very lacklustre by comparison. Many interesting papers on H. erectus have been published in recent years, so it would be good to incorporate new information. I know Dunkleosteus77 is currently working on the Neanderthal GA review, so would anybody be interested in collaborating to improve the article after that is done? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I worked on Homo erectus for a couple days in December, but I just removed text rather than added it (reducing the article by about 55%). I'd like to see all major Homo species at GA or higher, and I'd be happy to help   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the lead before you edited it was completely awful, your lead was definitely a considerable improvement Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how it could've gotten into the situation that it did considering how many views it gets. The biggest problem I foresee about expanding H. erectus is that its very taxonomically unstable and borderline wastebasket taxon (which is why its fossil record encompasses nearly the last 2 million years)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the subspecies labels given to Homo erectus are largely useless, Homo erectus is a morphological grade and a chronospecies. Human evolution is very similar to Mammoth evolution in that sense, where a subpopulation speciates and subsequently expands and then replaces the pre-existing species, as with M. meridionalis --> M. trogontherii and M. trogontherii --> M. primigenius. I don't think that Homo erectus is any less a valid species than the Steppe mammoth, it's just that the binomial system was never designed to account for the messy reality of transition of one species into another. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to work on taxonomy?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend youtube videos by paleoanthropologist John Hawks. I think he goes over early and late Homo erectus and the species concept in hominins quite well, I agree with him that the species names are largely used as a way to refer to and identify particular or related groups of specimens with unknown relationships to other specimens. I will help with the taxonomy at some point, but it feels like a mammoth task and one that I will have to to extensive reading beforehand. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Species articles written in singular form

I've noticed a few species articles written in the plural form (Neanderthal, Homo naledi, Homo erectus) which contradict species articles written in the singular form from the rest of Misplaced Pages (e.g.Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, chimpanzee, dog, cat, giant redwood). Since the articles are about a single species they should be written in the singular form, I see no reason to treat them any differently to any other species article. Dunkleosteus77 has been doing some amazing work on bringing those articles through GA-review so will have an opinion on the form. What does everyone else think? Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no real prescribed policy on using singular over plural for an article. So long as consistency is maintained, using "them" instead of "it" is acceptable. Also, not every species article uses singular (off the top of my head, human uses plural)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your example, human, is not a species article but an article on humanity. Homo sapiens is a species article and uses the singular form. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case we should really delete the taxobox   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See cat for an article that intermixes the singular and plural. I really don't think it's a problem. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I also think it is not a problem in articles like cat and human. And the formulation "Neanderthals were" (using plural) is correct. But a formulation like "Homo erectus were a species" is incorrect in my opinion. This needs to be singular because of the scientific name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point - agree that there's a difference between common and scientific names, and that Homo erectus should be written in the singular. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would further argue that "cats" refer to members of Felidae and the domestic cat article should also be wholly written in the singular. But to be honest my main issue is using Latin names in the plural, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, and Homo erectus all started in the plural, though Dunkleosteus77 has now changed the first two back to singular. "Homo erectus were a species of..." is incorrect English in my understanding. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Updating the Pterosaur Navbox

I noticed that Template:Pterosauria is using a classification scheme that the majority of more recent sources have not supported. I've begun to update the Pteranodontia section (which really should be titled Pteranodontoidea) here. My main sources are , , , , and a little bit from . One problem I've encountered is the classification of Alamodactylus, Cretornis, and Volgadraco - the Barbaridactylus paper places them in Nyctosauridae (dubiously in the case of the latter), but does not seem to explicitly state this. What should be done in this case? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaur common names list

Thoughts on this list User:4444hhhh/Dinosauria Common (in @4444hhhh:s userspace) and if it should be prodded given that its very much WP:OR. Personally it doesnt seem to be something that should be on WP even as a userspace list.--Kevmin § 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as it stays out of main space, it should be ok. There are guidelines for what is allowed in user space, and it mainly concerns political statements, I believe. See Misplaced Pages:User pages FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The section "User pages that look like articles" may advice against it, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

From the intro, it seems obvious to me that the page is in user space and not article space, although I may be biased by the knowledge that it is in user space. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The article has existed for over 12 years without issue, the lead makes it clear that it is a user page. I think it's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As users, we understand that its in userspace, however its not clear to anyone else who would come across it, and thats the problem. per WP:User pages

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Pages that look like articles outside of mainspace should not be indexed for search engines.

Add that its presenting information as real when all the common names are made up.--Kevmin § 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that it is problematic as being potentially misinterpreted as information. At least my sandbox is incoherent otherwise it could have the same issue :) IJReid  00:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source?

There's a discussion going on at WT:FAC#What constitutes a reliable source? about the inclusion of recent discoveries in paleo articles (specifically if these violate NPOV constituting as primary sources), the verifiability of books as opposed to journal articles, and more generally what counts as a reliable source especially in articles with large scopes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxobox templates when two taxa share the same genus name

The new pterosaur Wightia declivirostris has been named. However the name Wightia is also used for a flowering plant which uses the automatic taxobox. Is there any way of getting around this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked up examples of animal/plant homonyms. There is precedent, e.g. Prunella: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This has now been resolved, though name of the template will probably have to be changed in the (unlikey) event of a second species being named to the genus Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The standard technique for disambiguating taxonomy templates when there are genus names duplicated across nomenclature codes is to use a parenthesized term. In this case I have changed the taxonomy template to Template:Taxonomy/Wightia (pterosaur). Then:

• in an {{Automatic taxobox}} (i.e. for the genus article), use |taxon=Wightia (pterosaur)
• in a {{Speciesbox}} (i.e. for a species article, should more species be named), use |genus=Wightia (pterosaur) plus |species=.

Peter coxhead (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The choice of taxonomy template title in such cases is actually covered in the second bullet point at Misplaced Pages:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#Title conventions, but it's not easy to find! I think there needs to be some kind of index to the automated taxobox system documentation, but it's a big task. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is useful! I think a shortlink for that page (like WP:TAXOTEMPLATE) would go a long way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload these images?

I've got approx. 40 images of fossils from the Kristianstad Basin (an often overlooked Cretaceous formation with interesting fauna, I created an article for it today) taken of exhibited stuff at Havsdrakarnas hus, a somewhat lacklustre exhibition of Kristianstad Basin fossils in a train station waiting room. The images include ones of fossil taxa that currently don't have any images on commons, such as Tylosaurus ivoensis (a local apex predator), Scanisaurus, Aigialosuchus and various invertebrate and shark taxa which may or may not already have images. I assume that they'd be fine to upload (I need to go through and edit some of them first so it will take some time for them to go up either way) since I took the images myself but I don't know Swedish image copyright law well enough (in some countries you're restricted from publishing images taken within some buildings?). Stuff from inside Swedish museums seem to be fine to upload as per these examples but it's questionable if Havsdrakarnas hus counts as a museum. Stuff from within train stations seem to be fine to upload too.

Just wanted to get some quick input on this and be on the safe side. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the formation with the leptoceratopsid tooth? Does Sweden have FOP? Perhaps @FunkMonk: would know? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I'm personally unsure whether FOP exists and to what extent it applies, but the images in question are head-on photos of single fossil specimens (do they qualify as "works of art"?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Even in regions where FOP does not apply, skeletal mounts are fine to upload, due to their uncreative nature. The same applies even more to fossils, which even lack the "creative" element of casting bones from a relative. So as long as these photos aren't of models or artwork (paintings etc) they can be uploaded without considering FOP. IJReid  00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty! I take it that it would be fine to upload them, then. I've put up a first batch of images here, there's a few more of various invertebrates, sharks and some turtle stuff coming some time soon. Will begin adding stuff to the pages of taxa I know are missing images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, since fossils can't be copyrighted, that shouldn't be a problem. It is more iffy with models and such. Nice images! If you ever come by the Swedish Museum of Natural History, there should be various cool specimens there too. As for FOP in Sweden, seems not: FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great! Yeah, hope they'll be useful :)

Will see about investigating said museum in the future. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Five pages related to 2020 paleontological discoveries were deleted.

Because they were created by banned users, the pages for Acuetzpalin, Antarcticavis, Apatorhamphus, Mesolicaphrium and Raibliania were deleted. If someone here has the power to do so, please reinstate them. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This always happens when Lapitavenator creates a new account, unfortunately. While he did engage in disruptive editing practices several years ago, most of his edits relating to paleontology are largely good faith and are generally less disruptive than Bubblesorg's were. Some of his articles could be janky (notably a taxobox with no article text). But removing the articles he creates rips holes into the encyclopedia. You can usually get an archive of what the page looked like (though not the source code) by typing the articles name into google and using Google cache, which will allow the restoration of the main text , references and images. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the caches of 4 of the 5 articles: Acuetzpalin Antarcticavis Apatorhamphus and Raibliania, while I can't find Lapitavenator's version of Mesolicaphrium, these is a substantial italian version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Project-Class Palaeontology pages
• NA-importance Palaeontology pages
• Project-Class Palaeontology articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject Palaeontology articles