This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Acamptonectes is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles
Acamptonectes is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
Done Upload more photos from Fischer et. al., 2012
All photos of Acamptonectes specimens are now on Commons (some of them will probably not be used):[1] I did not upload the cf. Ophthalmosaurus material figured, as it is not relevant to this article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make a list of relevant literature (quite a few papers seem to mention this genus, but how many of them are relevant to cite here?)
DoneM. S. Arkhangelsky and N. G. Zverkov. 2014. On a new ichthyosaur of the genus Undurosaurus. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute RAS 318(5):187-196 [P. Mannion/J. Tennant]
A. J. Robert, P. S. Druckenmiller, G. Saetre and J. H. Hurum. 2014. A new Upper Jurassic ophthalmosaurid ichthyosaur from the Slottsmøya Member, Agardhfjellet Formation of central Spitsbergen. PLoS One 9(8):1-24 [R. Benson/R. Benson/R. Benson]
V. Fischer, R. M. Appleby, D. Naish, J. Liston, J. B. Riding, S. Brindley, and P. Godefroit. 2013. A basal thunnosaurian from Iraq reveals disparate phylogenetic origins for Cretaceous ichthyosaurs. Biology Letters 98(4):20130021 [V. Fischer/V. Fischer/V. Fischer]
Fischer, Valentin; Maisch, Michael W.; Naish, Darren; Kosma, Ralf; Liston, Jeff; Joger, Ulrich; Krüger, Fritz J.; Pérez, Judith Pardo; Tainsh, Jessica; Appleby, Robert M. (2012). "New Ophthalmosaurid Ichthyosaurs from the European Lower Cretaceous Demonstrate Extensive Ichthyosaur Survival across the Jurassic–Cretaceous Boundary". PLoS ONE. 7 (1): e29234.
replace the Naish blog source with peer-reviewed literature (Fischer et al., 2012?) where possible.
The Naish source can probably be used for tangential info under discovery (if it says anything at all not stated in the paper already), he is one of the describers, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add more details on the holotype and paratype specimens from Fischer et al., 2012.
Dear collaborators, lets get started! I compiled ToDo-lists above, as this might be helpful to get organised (but different ideas of how to proceed are highly welcome of course). Please just add your name behind those points you are interested to work on. Not ready for doing an entire section of your own? No problem, just add "help requested" to your name, and we will work on the respective section as a team of two! Pinging @Dunkleosteus77:@NessieVL:@Audrey.m.horn:@FunkMonk:@Slate Weasel:@IJReid:. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rank the sections in the order of dificulty (from easiest to hardest): Paleoenvironment, Classification, Discovery, Description, Paleobiology; if anyone's curious about it (although this changes per taxon, so I can't make any guarantees yet). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thinking back, I don't know why I thought this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs)[reply]
Not sure about this order though, each section can be challenging (which should not be a problem, as here the collaboration comes into play). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's hard to rank difficulty also, I guess it depends on the expertise/interests of each editor. I and Jens can probably take the leftovers when everyone else has chosen what they would prefer to work on. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would a range map be helpful? I know it would just be a couple of dots, but probably not so much work. --Nessie (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm surprised there isn't one in the plos paper, actually, given its geographic distribution... FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good (but copyrighted) map in the Zammit paper, fig 1B that we can work from.[1] --Nessie (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The paper seems to actually be under CC BY 3.0. Actually, the "Full Text" link gives a CC BY 3.0, but the abstract gives a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license while saying it's a CC BY 3.0? I'm not sure what this means. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strange indeed, and probably a mistake. I guess the best we can do is contact the journal and ask? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we can use those maps in any case, as they were taken from Smith et al. (1994), a book which is probably not under a free licence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have to recreate it from scratch then, if anyone is up to it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that those maps were based on previous maps, not exact copies of the maps. As in the placement of the continents is consistent with the citation. How could it be CC if it's using copyrighted work? --Nessie (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the map is based on other maps it still is original content which can be given any license the creator wants. There’d only be a problem if it included reproductions of other maps rather than just citing them User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the map was apparently directly copied from the older source, only the star marking the locality appears to be new. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we are ready to continue with the core part, the writing! Some of you indicated that you would be interested in getting started with article writing. How can we best help you with that? Maybe with instructions for a specific section detailing where we could find and how we could select relevant information, and how we could compile it into a paragraph for the article? Any ideas? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if anyone is in doubt as to how to proceed, please ask. Personally, I read and summarise papers simultaneously, focusing on aspects that are relevant t the specific section I am writing. But it can also be a good idea to skim over a paper first to get an overview, but reading the abstract and conclusions is usually enough. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be fun to try doing a paleobiology section, as I haven't yet done one of those yet. Also, Google Scholar is a great way to find papers, for those wondering where to look for information. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, would be great if you can give it a try – me and FunkMonk could then see what we can add once you are done. I guess there will not be that much on Acamptonectes itself (but I didn't have a closer look yet), but in any case we could have a bit of general background on ichthyosaurs, and specifically on ophthalmosaurians. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some potential papers on the subject.[2][3] There is indeed a lack of studies on Acamptonectes' paleobiology. How are these papers for a start? I will continue to search for more. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first looks good; what do you want to add from the second? As we would not have anything specific for Acamtonectes, we would need to keep it brief and general. There is also a good short overview on ichthyosaur paleobiology in [2] (tell me if you need the pdf). Furthermore, our Ichthyosauria article cites a lot of papers, maybe worth a look. For swimming performance, I found this: [3]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this Fossil Focus article[4] could be used for some more general info? FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good! Not sure about the Temnodontosaurus comparison, because this would not help readers that are unfamiliar with ichthyosaurs. Maybe instead state that ichthyosaurs had the largest eyes of all vertebrates. Sense of smell would also be interesting (see [6]), as the stapes are preserved in Acamptonectes. Feel free to add the section to the article, we can then improve it further together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added it (as palaeobiology). I assume we're using British English here? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so, considering some of the specimens are from the UK (and none connected to the US). FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which source should we use for the cladogram? Perhaps this one [7] (Fig. 19)? If no one else wants to build the cladogram, I might try it myself (I haven't yet tried to build such large ones). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also see no reason not to use the most recent one. Maybe restrict it to Ophthalmosauridae so that it does not get too large? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was creating redirects for some of the species names when I noticed that we have an article called Plutonisaurus. A quick Google Scholar search recovers nothing for this name: [8]. However, several studies refer to a genus called Plutoniosaurus, which even has the same species, P. bedengensis. Is there a way to request an article to be moved? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it, it's pretty easy; just hover over "more" at the upper right, then you get "move" as an option. If the move destination is a redlink, there will be no problem with moving, but if it is a redirect, it will often need a formal WP:move request. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do we think about continuing this? The only edits done by the project since the summer of 2019 are my adding of the cladogram and slight classification revamp a few minutes ago. I'd be more than happy to get this thing back into action again if people are willing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just waiting to see what was left over to work on after people had taken their picks, but I guess I can just take history with no problems? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish the description if nobody else wants it, but I cannot say when I get the time for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I get the time, I might also try to work on the skeleton description. By the way, here is the original German description of Ichthyosaurus brunsvicensis:[9] I'll try to figure out if the images are in the public domain. Perhaps Jens Lallensack can see if there is anything useful in the text when there is time? And since that name is older, but dubious, we can't really list it as a junior synonym as we do now (perhaps I listed it in the first place?)... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably write the palaeoenvironment section when I have time, it'll be interesting for an animal known from multiple formations. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the history section is pretty much done, got some additional info from some blog posts by some of the co-describers, which should be ok. I'm not entirely sure from the German paper what brunsvicensis refers to, seems to be the English name for the city Braunschweig. But the paper also mentions "Brunsvicensistone", which I don't know what is exactly, perhaps Jens can help with that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin name for Braunschweig is Brunsviga, and I'm sure that brunsvicensis is derived from that. "Brunsvicensistone" is an outdated local rock/time unit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should we just not give an etymology then, since though it seems self evident what the name refers to, we don't have a source that states it outright? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should we try to get the ball rolling again on this one? Maybe get some more editors to join? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind trying to relaunch it! (We have had quite a marine reptile GA's now (Scanisaurus, Megacephalosaurus, and Cartorhynchus), although we don't have an ichthyosaur yet, it seems.) I can try expanding the stubby palaeoenvironment section I started sometime soon if nobody else wants to take a stab at it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could be nice, I think history is entirely done. And yeah, no promoted ichthyosaurs yet, so this could be the first. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming off the heels of Cartorhynchus... I could tackle classification. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, then I guess we got writers for all section, but I wonder if we should find someone more for the description (to make it an even broder collaboration)? It's probably one of the most difficult parts, I could imagine, so maybe it should be a shared effort. Paleobiology also seems quite developed now, and I see it's struck out from the list. I think they're quite busy, but I'll ping Dunkleosteus77, Ichthyovenator, and Macrophyseter, to see if there is anything they'd like to look at, as they have written about prehistoric marine animals in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I appreciate the ping but yeah, unfortunately I'm a bit bogged down in other projects (here and elsewhere) at the moment, plus I know next to nothing about Ichthyosaurs. I wish you guys luck though and might pop in at some point if I get done with the other stuff I've got going :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, I don't think any of us know much about ichthyosaurs, we'll be learning by doing! Maybe a review could help down the line. I'll maybe write about the mandible too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I can jump in. This is going to be my first time collaborating in a "draft", but I'm hoping that it can get done well. For the description, the section on the skull is well-crafted, but considering that the skull is not the only known fossil of the taxon there should be some content for the postcranial and appendicular; I can try getting a hand on that. After that, I think that would be good for the description. I am also interested in the paleoecology section, so I can help Slate Weasel when he tackles it. Macrophyseter | talk 16:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good! Jens Lallensack wrote the text about the cranium, and I'd say you're free to take on whichever you'd like of the remaining sections. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Greensand specimens of Acamptonectes don't really belong to this taxon and instead are Ophthalmosaurinae indet. according to Fischer et. al. (2014). I realize that I actually cited this paper in the article when working on palaeobiology without noticing that part! As I've seen nothing countering this assignment in more recent papers, I've retooled the relevant parts of the article. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I wonder if there are maybe more overlooked papers published since the original description with relevant info? I'll take a look at Google Scholar and JSTOR... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the temporal range to include only that of the Speeton and German specimens, which at the moment is an approximation since I wasn't able to find any exacts for the stratigraphic data.Macrophyseter | talk 23:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but it looks like you guys have it all handled (I don't want a too many cooks situation), but if you need a review sometime down the road, I can do that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with so many writers who won't be able to review, we'll certainly need that too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Dunk has experience with reviewing an ichthyosauromorph article ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've separated the summer 2020 discussions into their own subsection to make talk page navigation a bit easier. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Sven Sachs (who redescribed Elasmosaurus) suggested for that article when we worked on it, palaeontologyonline.com has a series of "Fossil Focus" articles on various prehistoric animal groups which can be used for more general information (many of which are otherwise not well-covered in more layman-friendly sources), and there is also one on ichthyosaurs:[10] So I'm thinking of using that to add some general information under description such as the number of fins, general shape, etc. I wonder if we should also cite this article[11] there which indicates at least one icthyosaur had dark colours?[12]FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added these sources already, but I support regardless. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a fairly large cladogram in the Classification section but I question whether it's useful to expand out Platypterygiinae. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it could be left at just Platypterygiinae. But nice additions! All images showing this taxon from the paper are now in the article, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those Arthropterygius species have individual genus articles each, I wonder if we should link to those, or how firm the lumping of them is? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a useful paper for the Speeton biota, but I only have access to the abstract: [13]. Is there a way to cite just the abstract? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you reply to the mail I've sent you, Slate Weasel, I can send you the PDF. I know it sounds like a confidence scam or something, but it's apparently the easiest way... FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry I forgot about it! I guess that I got caught up in a whirlwind of mosasaurs, megalosaurs, and merriamosaurs and it slipped my mind. This was the method through which my first request at WP:RX was conducted. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, has been sent. By the way, Valentin Fisher (the first author) replied to the message I mentioned below and said he at least has no plans of publishing a size estimate for Acamptonectes, so we can probably forget it for now. H did say the following, though: "The holotype is larger than the Braunschweig specimen but also less complete so it is difficult to estimate the size reliably. Comparing the centrum size to those of ophthalmosaurus and Baptanodon should yield a credible size range". FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the paper, I've added the info about boring organisms (an ecology with an amusingly unfortunate name). The German specimen doesn't seem to come from a named formation, though, does it? Any ideas as to what to do about it in palaeoenvironment? Also, I think that I'm almost done working on the Speeton stuff for the moment, so feel free to have a go at revising and expanding it, Macrophyseter. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I was a bit confused by your edit summary at first! Haven't been able to find much more about brunswicensis. As Jens noted above, the "Brunsvicensistone" of Behrenbostel, which is where the Broili paper states it was from, is an outdated geological unit, so not sure what it corresponds to... The species was no doubt named after it, but the paper doesn't seem to state this outright, so we probably can't say it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, I just asked at the Tetrapod Zoology Facebook group whether we have overlooked any published size estimates for the genus, perhaps Darren Naish who co-authored it (and runs the group and blog) has something? FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we're almost done, once the skeleton section is over I can try to expand the intro. I was wondering about what formation the German specimen is from, as Slate Weasel already did a good job of describing the Speeton Clay. The PLOS paper only refers to a paper in German, though, and doesn't mention a formation for the German specimen. The German paper can be seen here[14], but I guess only Jens Lallensack can clearly understand the details, though Google translate might help? FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The (English) abstract provides some useful information, but I think that it would be better if someone who can actually read German writes this part of the Paleoenvironment section, as what I can write will, by comparison, be much more sparse and lacking in details. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I just found another paper describing the Hauterivian ecosystem of the Lower Saxony Basin: [15]. I may actually be capable of writing this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and it's much newer too! I just added the 2008 paper to the history section, as it referred to the Cremlingen specimen as Platypterygius, which is interesting to note. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may give it a shot when I have time tomorrow, if the Cretaceous is going to be our next collab, then this should be good practice! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me, we might want to shoehorn in a mention of Cretaceous in the palaeoecology section? Perhaps also a date in years, if available? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a paragraph on the proto-North Sea, thoughts? Feel free to expand and revise it, especially if there's more information about contemporaneous biota in the 2008 paper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I wonder if the Speeton section should be first, since the holotype is from there, and more specimens are known from there? As for other animals, it seems the 2008 paper mainly lists belemnites and ammonites. But maybe it could be good to name them here, since some of them probably were food for this genus? FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I'll be away on vacation the coming week by the way, in case I don't respond. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Macrophyseter, Jens just took a stab at the postranium, he finished the vertebrae, but there's of course also more of it if you have time, I think we can get this wrapped up pretty quickly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologize for not having followed through with contributions to this article. Jens' take on the vertebrae is really good, but we can also write about the appendicular skeleton; I'll see if I can try a stab at that soon. I've also expanded the lead a bit to include information that would be important to sum up the genus (with as little redundancy as possible) Macrophyseter | talk 09:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, yeah, when the rest of the skeleton is done, and with some additional adjustments, we can send this to GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC
To get this wrapped up, I've written about the scapular girdle and am continuing with the forelimb, and when the intro is expanded to fully summarise the article afterwards, I'll send the article to GAN if no one has objections. But of course, it would be great if all of us could proof-read it for typos and other mistakes when it's done (I'm not sure all my anatomical interpretations are correct, for example). FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably take a crack at both expanding the intro and proof-reading; these tasks would go hand-in-hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice you just threw the latest paper in there too! And now that I've summarised the last part of the description, we can begin proof-reading and finish the intro, so I'll ping those above who expressed interest in getting this to FAC: Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack, Awkwafaba, Macrophyseter, Lythronaxargestes. Since that's also a huge chink of all palaeo editors, we of course have the problem that we'll have few "expert" reviewers... Not sure how to deal with that, but I guess we'll see when the time comes... FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pretty busy as of late (hence the return to inactivity). However, I'll probably be able to get back to this over the weekend. (Also, sorry for sort of just walking away from paleoecology.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, I'm sure it'll take a long time before this even gets reviewed, so there certainly isn't any rush right now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'll have to call myself out this time for at least the next few months. It's already been difficult for me to bring anything useful to this article last time given my situation then and now (i.e. college apps), along with the fact that I'm already juggling with another article; I don't want to renege again. Macrophyseter | talk 00:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, the article is pretty much done anyway, but if you get the time down the line, you're of course welcome to review at GAN or FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the lead contains this: "Its discovery remained significant to ichthyosaur research, as it remained one of the first known ophthalmosaurines from the Early Cretaceous;" Is it just me or is the usage of "remained" a bit odd here? I'm not really sure how it couldn't remain one of the first known Cretaceous ophthalmosaurines. I'm not really sure what to replace it with though, maybe is/was? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's probably also best not to repeat "remained" twice in a sentence. The intro also needs a paragraph of description. By the way, I had requested a copy edit, which is now being done, but it probably needs to be checked afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a pass through the first two sections and hopefully cleared up some ambiguities and run-on sentences. More soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did the copy edit so far look ok to you? Considering this[16], we might want to go back to the pre-CE version, but I'll have a look at the changes first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I don't like about the copyedit is how many of the parenthetical explanations have been removed. I think they're valuable but this could be up for discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are even necessary, I'd say, most reviewers who are unfamiliar with anatomy will request it. Not sure what was going on with that copy edit, I did try to complain about some of the edits. So Maybe we will have to revert to the pre-copy edit version... But since you also did some CEs, I wonder if there is some of your edits we should try to salvage? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it'll be a mess, but I'll see what I can do later. There may also be parts of the copy edit that are helpful, so it may end up being parts of three different versions merged together, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've started by adding back some more parenthetical explanations (I had actually added back others before realizing that they were removed). I also did a pass over the lead. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, maybe the easiest way to do a merge is just to compare what happened between the last pre-copy edit version and the last overall edit and just replace worsened parts with the old parts. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it a look now, but it's hard to figure out what has been lost, what has been changed into inaccuracy, and who did what. I'm really baffled why so many explanations of terms had been removed, and the copy editor hasn't explained why they did it, so I don't think it can continue, considering some other disruptions of the text. Per this discussion[17], should we wait for another copy edit, or just throw it to GAN and see what happens? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree with your changes. I think we can go ahead to GAN but we'll probably want a proper copyedit for FAC. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the GAN seems to be finishing, I've drafted a FAC blurb if anyone has comments. So we can probably nominate it once we've gotten a copy-edit. "This article is the first "official" WP:WikiProject Palaeontology collaboration, and the first FAC about an ichthyosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles which were convergently similar to dolphins. Having been named relatively recently, not much has been published on it (not even a size estimate), so most info available about it is summarised here. To fill in some blanks not covered by the sources, we have also used some new sources and blog posts with non-controversial statements from the scientists involved." FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty good to me, although it would probably be good to have one of our more experienced FA nominators comment on this (I've only been through FAC once before). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new copy-edit looks very good to me so far (though Thunnosaurian should not be capitalised), so we can probably send this to FAC right after the GAN is finished. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've un-capitalized thunnosaurian. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now that it's a GA, does everyone feel ready to FAC nominate it? FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now seems like a good time. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now nominated, feel free to add your names! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, everyone, I just noticed it had been promoted! So it shows we can get an article successfully through FAC even when many of the potential reviewers are nominators (which bodes well for future palaeo-project collaborations). And much quicker than I expected! FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, FAC is the next goal. I'll probably take a reviewer role if Cretaceous gets going. Pinging our co-nominators Jens Lallensack and Slate Weasel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal preference: "genus name" and "species name" are more widely recognizable terms than "generic and specific names" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be easy to deduct what this means since the words genus and species have been mentioned earlier by that point. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think that the usage of "generic" is objectionable here (it has been used in other articles, i.e. Argentinosaurus and Smilodon, and others such as Irritator use both). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"unusual adaptations in the body of Acamptonectes that made it more rigid" it might be clearer to say "made the spine/back/torso/body more rigid" because "it" could also refer to Acamptonectes itself, and rigid could mean it couldn't move very well User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It was one of the first known ophthalmosaurine ophthalmosaurids from the Early Cretaceous, with previous records of Early Cretaceous ichthyosaurs consisting of the more generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids. Thus, it provided evidence that, contrary to previous beliefs, no mass extinction of ichthyosaurs occurred across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary" did we used to think ophthalmosaurines went extinct over the boundary? By specifying the Early Cretaceous you seem to imply ophthalmosaurines do exist in at least later stages of the Cretaceous. Also I was really confused by "with previous records of Early Cretaceous ichthyosaurs consisting of the more generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids." Would it be better to word it something like "Acamptonectes showed that ophthalmosaurines survived the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary; previously it was thought, among ophthalmosaurids, only platypterygiines survived"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ichthyosaurs went extinct at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary and ophthalmosaurids were the last ichthyosaurs. The previous idea was that we only had platypterygiines in the Cretaceous but this is not the case. I've tried to reword this but not sure if it's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to say that "the only lineage [...] was the [...] platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids" sounds a bit odd - not sure if it should be was or were here. Perhaps "It was long believed that the the generalised platypterygiine ophthalmosaurids were only lineage of ichthyosaurs that survived into the Early Cretaceous," would work better? (It also might be good to link generalised to Generalist and specialist species.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that'd be better, and what exactly does "generalized" mean in this case? Were Jurassic opthalmosaurids specialist feeders or something (and if so, it's probably not relevant to mention it right here)? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the rephrasing. Does "not relevant" refer to the unmentioned specializations of ophthalmosaurines or "generalists" in the said sentence (just want to be sure before deleting the potentially wrong thing)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the large eyes of Acamptonectes would have made it better adapted to depth diving than platypterygiines, it was probably still a generalist predator" these 2 statements don't seem to be related User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My intention in writing this that way was to dovetail with "the more generalised platypterygiines" earlier in the paragraph. If you think this is too confusing, it can be removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is Valerie, but I wonder if it is important to the wider story? I'll see what my co-nominators think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there's no point in omitting it, "and he was asked by Appleby's widow Valerie to..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"since Acamptonectes was no longer the only known Cretaceous ichthyosaur of the subfamily Ophthalmosaurinae from Eurasia" what was the other one? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed color to colour. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to link to the glossary of dinosaur anatomy rather than leave redlinks User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure about this, it would be misleading, also because bones in dinosaurs do not necessarily have the same characteristics as those in other groups. The red links just serve the purpose of calling attention to articles that need to be created or redirected, so they're not a bad thing. Not sure why so many have an aversion to them. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If notching in the paddle bones is homoplastic how can it be considered an autapomorphy? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure we don't say that? This is just for its identification as an ophthalmosaurine by the phylogenetic analysis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Fischer and colleagues found Acamptonectes to be a member of the family Ophthalmosauridae based on several characteristics. These included..." well if its homoplastic within the family, then it can't really be used to place this genus in that family User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps with clarity, this result was recovered by the analysis and not the authors. These are just the phylogenetic characters identified computationally as synapomorphies of Ophthalmosauridae even if it is homoplastic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"They also found it to be more closely related to other ophthalmosaurids than Arthropterygius" at this point in the article it's unclear why this is a relevant comparison User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"would have been replaced by the more generalized platypterygiines, which had smaller eyes and longer bodies" having smaller eyes and less thunniform bodies doesn't necessarily mean they're more generalized, it just means they're better suited for shallower, calmer waters User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The paper directly calls them less specialised/more generalised so I think this is a fair statement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"may have been used to impale rather than grasp prey" these seem like the same thing since we're talking about holding onto squid (impaling is really the only way isn't it?) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction according to the source of the terminology [18]: impaling actually involves the teeth breaking the surface of the epidermis as opposed to just clamping down on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A stage of the Cretaceous. I'm not exactly sure what the best way to specify this in the article is, perhaps putting Early Cretaceous in parantheses after its first mention? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for my co-nominators: how did we get the dates in the taxobox? Seems a bit synthetic... I also think we've overlooked the fact that the Cambridge Greensand is Cenomanian! Naish makes a big point of it: [19]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 134–132 mya is only mentioned in the lead and the taxobox, and even if there aren't any hard dates for the specimens, it's still good to give the time interval of these periods on first mention User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually these dates are already there in the taxobox, I have never added them myself. We'd have to look at different sources to find these dates, as articles about specific taxa rarely give them, since it's outside the scope of such papers. Do we even need the Cambridge Greensand dates, considering those specimens are not considered Acamptonectes anymore? Or is it to make a different point? FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, missed that the Cambridge Greensand specimens aren't Acamptonectes anymore. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source gives 130 Ma, which seems like a reasonable estimate. Changed to this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they got 130 mya because it's the roundest number in the Hauterivian time interval. I'd say it'd be more accurate to put that it lived during the Hauterivian and then give the time interval for the Hauterivian (also give the time interval in the body when you first mention it) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, any thoughts? My worry is that the text in this alternative would have more synthesis than if we just cited the popular source. This seems to be the last outstanding issue so it might be good to get this wrapped up. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can really do more than the sources do. The sources don't give a size estimate either, so we couldn't be expected to synthesise an estimate. I think it's kind of the same here. Best we can do is just give an approximate date of some kind. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember something like this happening with Tatenectes, I believe that Jens Lallensack recommended putting in the time range of the Oxfordian even though it had never been explicitly associated with the genus. I'm not totally sure what we'd cite for this, perhaps the ICS? I'd argue that stating the time range of the Hauterivian is very different from creating a size estimate, since as far as I know it's generally agreed upon when the Hauterivian started and ended. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever reliable source we can find should be ok, I was thinking more that we shouldn't try to somehow extrapolate one ourselves, but it seems no one is suggesting that anyway. If the ICS has it, it should probably be fine, better than a news source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As was discussed here[20] (as pointed out by The Rambling Man), there are some technical terms left unexplained in the article. Some of them have since been fixed, some may be sufficient as they are, but others warrant further discussion. So I've copied TRM's list below so we can discuss it. I've struck the ones that Slate Weasel glossed, and I think premaxilla is explained too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I explained or replaced the ones in the sections I wrote, cladogenesis and causal fins. I don't think generalised needs explanation, honestly - it's pretty self explanatory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree re:generalised, it's an easter egg link at best. And under current guidance and recent implementation of MOSLINK, it was a technical term which needs explanation. But in any case, thanks for taking a look at the issue I raised, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to gloss some more. I just changed binomial to scientific name. I'll probably need help to define the rest of the terms, they're pretty tricky. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baptanodon natans or "Ophthalmosaurus" natans[edit]
The article alternates between both combinations frequently due to different sources, which is a little confusing. I personally believe that Baptanodon should be established as the correct name, as it already has been in scientific literature and is also used as the title of its article. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the description section, yes, but it would be misleading in the classification section to use names other than those used in the respective sources, as it reflects the findings of each source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is also relevant to the actual classification of Acamptonectes in terms of the tree topology. The reviewers at FA had no problem with this so I don't see why we need to make this change now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Done --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)