Talk:Mosasaurus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMosasaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 22, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Ehm...[edit]

Why does this page exist? Mosasaurus should redirect to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur

Either that, or "mosasaur" should be changed to the cprrect "mosasaurus".

Habib--83.72.194.208 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Mosasaurus was the first genus of mosasaur discovered, much like the way all scarab beetles are named after Scarabeus beetles.
Mosasaurus has its own page for the same reason that each genus of mosasaur will eventually have their own pages, same as each genus of dinosaur. Mosasaurus is a distinct type of mosasaur, not a synonym for "mosasaur."--Nar'eth 02:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the merger tag can be removed now; Nar'eth is right. Jerkov 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Prim mosasaur.jpg[edit]

Image:Prim mosasaur.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Prim mosasaur.jpg[edit]

Image:Prim mosasaur.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species list[edit]

Isn't the number of species in the taxobox a little improbable? Never have I seen so many recognized species (not even with Iguanodon!) for one genus. Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update, seems to have been revised. Me being oblivious yet again.
Maybe I should try some coffee or something. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at Psittacosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're still finding more of those, aren't they? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but the species Mosasaurus conodon is never mentioned on here. I'm a student at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where a huge skeleton of M. conodon is mounted in our museum and have found numerous references to M. conodon elsewhere. Yet I cannot find it listed anywhere on Wikipedia. What is the deal with this species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.150.2 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC) --ETA: I have since found via the Paleobiology Database that the source of the name is Cope (1881), and that it has also been suggested as belonging to Clidastes. The name doesn't show up in the Clidastes article either though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.150.2 (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Mosasaurus gigantea (Soemmering 1816) is a new combination by Cope (1869) for Lacerta gigantea (which is now the type species of the metriorhynchid genus Geosaurus Cuvier 1824) based on Soemmering's mistaken belief that Geosaurus belonged to the same taxon as Mosasaurus (see Young and Andrade 2009 for the taxonomic history of Geosaurus giganteus). Because Geosaurus is a metriorhynchid and not a mosasaur, Young and Andrade (2009) have advised the exclusion of L. gigantea and M. gigantea from synonymy lists for Mosasaurus hoffmani. For more information on Mosasaurus conodon, see the monumental monograph on North American mosasaurs by Russell (1967). Mosasaurus johnsoni (Mehl 1930) is a new combination for the Mexican mosasaur Amphekepubis johnsoni Mehl 1930, Mosasaurus poultneyi Martin, 1953 is a nomen ex dissertationae, Mosasaurus neovidii Meyer 1845 is a junior synonym of Mosasaurus missouriensis, and M. copeanus is now a junior synonym of Plioplatecarpus depressus (Cope 1869).

Cope CD. 1869. On the reptilian orders, Pythonomorpha and Streptosauria. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 12: 250–266. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

The story of mosasaurus[edit]

The story of how these bones were studied in Haarlem is pretty interesting, and Napoleon wanted to take it to Paris. In the spirit of the current Wikipedia:GLAM/Teylers/Multilingual Challenge it would be great to promote this article to B status. Does anyone know how? Jane (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • On this note, I just noticed the photo of the first known specimen was moved to the history sub article, seems a shame not to show it here in the main article somehow, Macrophyseter? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: sorry for the hiatus, it's, unfortunately, a bit tricky with the formatting with adding the Teylers skull without creating a text sandwich or some other eyesore. Unless there's a trick I'm not thinking of? Macrophyseter | talk 01:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's the multiple image template (as used in for example Podokesaurus), which may or may not be suitable to create more space here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the change. Macrophyseter | talk 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mosasaurus at 18m[edit]

In case someone here doesn't know, Lingham-Soliar (1995) is the source of the 18m Mosasaurus and this is how he came up with that estimate, from page 156:

The entire lower jaw is reliably estimated at 1600 mm. Using a 1: 10 head to body ratio (see Russell 1967, p. 210 for M. maximus) the length of the whole animal is estimated at 17.6 m, making it the largest marine reptile known.

Can anyone spot the mistake? 1.6m is 10% of 17.6m? really? not to mention that Russell (1967) suggestion of a 1:10 ratio in large mosasaurs is without basis, according to his own tables such ratio is only observed in the short snouted Platecarpus, with ratios of ~1:7-1:8 observed in the other mosasaurs, with a tendency for relatively larger heads at larger body sizes. This is further supported by Lindgren (2005) downsizing of Hainosaurus bernardi at 12.2m with a 1.6m skull (always <90% of lower jaw length). As far as I know this mistake has not been recognized in the literature and neither has Russell's 1:10 ratio been denounced as inaccurate so my suggestion is adding the quote above (followed by a [sic]) so readers can spot the mistake for themselves... maybe. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike.BRZ: This is interesting and I think we ought to at least point it out with a reference or note.–Totie (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can spot at least one mistake: the lenght of the lower jaw is not the same as the length of the head. That mistake is not made by Lingham-Solar but by Mike.BRZ.  Wikiklaas  23:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more information on this distinction between the two? If you compare this to the image on the right (I realise that this is not the same species; it is just to illustrate my point), then the length of the head may not be materially different from the length of the lower jaw. We cannot put original research on the article, but we can certainly add quotations.–Totie (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lingham-Soliar cites Russell (1967), specifically page 210 and the estimate for M. maximus, there you'll find this: " given length of jaw equals 10% of body length". I'm not making any mistakes, Lingham-Soliar used the length of the lower jaw and a ratio that uses the length of the lower jaw, the only mistakes are the choice of words (using head for lower jaw) and of course that even if that ratio was accurate (it isn't) the estimate should have been 16m not 17.6m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the 10:1 ratio and the 1.6m estimate for the head/jaw are assumed to be correct then obviously this gives a total length of 16m + 1.6m = 17.6m.
Seems to make a lot more sense than assuming a calculation error...110.23.118.21 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is how Lingham-Soliar interpreted the ratio, one could be forgiven by thinking that's what Russell meant when reading "length of jaw equals 10% of body length" specially when Russell also uses head and jaw interchangeably but then again where does the tail factor into it? if one is to take "body length" literally it has to exclude the tail, is it 17.6m without the tail? looking at Russell tables it is clear that by "body length" he meant "total length", head+neck+trunk+tail. Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the numbers (which tend to be less ambiguous than words) I'd conclude that that is what he had in mind. Not that I am saying that there aren't any other interpretations of his intention, just that this appears the most plausible. And I am certainly also not suggesting that he would be right in any way. For example, a measurement of "1600 mm" looks very suspicuious (i.e. either very lucky or technically incorrect in the precision that it indicates). 110.23.118.21 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we are agreeing, I can agree that that's how Lingham-Soliar interpreted the ratio but not that that's how Russell meant it to be used. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosasaurus size comparison image[edit]

@Levi bernardo: According to the text, the size of the animal was at most 18 meters. Is your scale not a bit generous? Have you used any sources for this image?–Totie (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One wouldn't need a source here, other than the one given in the text (Mulder, 1999). Let's suppose the diver is a male at more or less common length, so let's say 1.7 metre. Including the fins and regarding the bended knees, that would make about 1.9 metre in total. I can fit the diver 11 times in the animal, so that would roughly make 20.9 metres. The overestimation doesn't seem to be alarming. If I were asked, I'd say the "disputed-tag" is a bit nitpicking.  Wikiklaas  22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mulder (1999) does not provide a length estimate, who knows why someone added it to support that claim. Read my comment above to know about the origin of the 18m Mosasaurus, also 21m vs 18m is a big difference, is like claiming to depict a 6ft/180lbs guy but your depiction actually shows a 7ft/300lbs guy. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison should be scaled to a known inflexible skeletal element of the largest specimen and then double checked against this image. Total length means nothing unless the exact proportions are given. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the disputed-tag. I overlooked that a milder form exists. Nevertheless, I still think that this matter should be discussed. Wikipedia does not allow original research and requires reliable, secondary sources for verification. If the author created this image based on just textual information and without any other supporting data to make sure that the image is at least factually solid, then I think that this is a problem. I point out that the text does not explain what this length estimate comprises. You now assume that the tail fin is included, but this is not mentioned anywhere.–Totie (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Largest described Mosasaurus lower jaw is 1.7m (Grigoriev 2014), the proportions of almost complete large specimens of Tylosaurus and Prognathodon suggest that the lower jaw is 14%-15% of the total body length. The silhouette in the size chart in question appears to be redrawn from Scott Hartman's Tylosaurus skeletal which posses such proprotions, so we either change the size to almost half of what's depicted in the image or we modify it to give it the shape of an eel. Mike.BRZ (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image now, given lack of feedback from the author.–Totie (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mosasaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Carnegie Report referred to M as Dinosaur[edit]

Table 3 on page 99 of the Carnegie Institution of Washington 1954 Year Book at https://archive.org/details/yearbookcarne53195354carn (historically, one of the earliest reports of original biological material in Cretaceous, etc. strata) presents "Mosasaurus (dinosaur)" alongside Stegosaur (dinosaur), Mesohippus (prehistoric horse), etc. I'm wondering for the History of Discovery section, if anyone knows if this was a "typo" at Carnegie, or if the Mosasaur was at one time considered a dinosaur by leading scientists (including P.H, Abelson, who wrote that Paleochemistry section)? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wasn't there, my guess is that this was an error of ignorance. The article was prepared by the staff of the geochemical lab of the Institution, who may have only had a passing familiarity with the creatures that the fossils came from. (Looking at it from the other side, as someone involved in paleontology, I know beans about geophysics and slightly more about geochemistry.) "Big dead reptile = dinosaur", and all that. As it was, during the '50s the paleontology of Mesozoic reptiles did not receive a lot of professional interest or respect.
I don't know of any vertebrate paleontologist of any significance who has considered mosasaurs to be dinosaurs. Not only do mosasaurs and dinosaurs have rather different anatomies, on historical grounds the comparison would have gone the other way (dinosaurs as mosasaurs) because the famous Maastricht Mosasaurus skull had been known for decades by the time the first dinosaurs were described. However, the anatomical differences are great enough that this hasn't been entertained. J. Spencer (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think an error like this would be either chalked up to negligence or the unfortunately popular use of "dinosaur" as a colloquialism for any large Mesozoic reptile. I mean, no one has formally contested Cuvier's identification of Mosasaurus being a true lizard in the centuries since he described, right?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weight and relative size would be useful[edit]

This is a shout out to someone who actually studies this topic.

If there are skeletons, aren't there projections of weight?

How does this size, as calculated from said skeletons, compare to a whale, to a T-Rex, to a shark, ... ? Wonderfully encyclopedic would be an illustration showing larger and smaller animals.76.185.10.9 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware there is no published mass estimates for Mosasaurus. This has several reasons:
1: For the longest time the main way we calculated mass for extinct animals was using their legbone circumference, which doesn't work here for what I
presume are obvious reasons.
2: People disagree on the size of the largest Mosasaurus. The article mentions a 17m maximum length for the creature, this is based on projected ratio
between the head and body. The ratio isn't universally accepted however, some think the maximum length would have been closer to 13m. This discrepancy
would be far more extreme with mass estimates as mass scales to the third power.
3. Mosasaurus specimens aren't as complete as we'd like so there is nothing to solidly base any model-based methods on. Museums mounts you see were
carefully reconstructed using multiple specimens, and related species where needed.
There have been a few amateur attempts I know of, but those are unusable for the article due to Wikipedia policy against unpublished research. Jonagold2000 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture looks like a whale??[edit]

Is the picture accurate? To me it looks like a whale, which is a mammal.

82.72.139.164 (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we now know that mosasaurs were not eel-like in their shape and movements, and had shark-like tail-flukes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eating a theropod?[edit]

The picture in the description section has one eating a theropod, even though that's not listed in it's prey list. Can the list either be updated, or a better picture be sourced? 194.28.124.52 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsensical, if an African lion stumbles across an American deer, it will eat it regardless of whether it is among its usual prey (or is on a list, for that matter). FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I'm the person who made that image quite a while ago. We have several cases of dinosaurs washing into the ocean, notably Borealopelta and the theropod in the image, Betasuchus. Betasuchus was actually found in the same formation as the holotype of Mosasaurus. I originally labelled the prey item, but said labelling was deemed irrelevant and removed. The reason it's not on the prey list is because Mosasaurus could not have actively hunted land dwelling animals, but if a carcass were to present itself there's nothing to suggest it would leave the free meal. 31.151.8.113 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the land-living dino was crossing a body of water large enough for a mosasaur to be hunting in - as has been shown in a few paleo-documentaries. 50.111.50.132 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hainosaurus image[edit]

Amazing expansion! But I'm not a fan of the image titled "A lethal attack on a Mosasaurus by Tylosaurus has been documented." (why Tylosaurus rather than Hainosaurus, BTW?) This shows a cephalopod being eaten by Hainosaurus, which is rather confusing when the caption talks about an attack on Mosasaurus. I suspect this goes beyond one-step-removed-from-subject illustration (like the sperm whales) to two-step-removed, and would suggest leaving it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something that needs to be cleaned up in the Wikipedia articles very soon, but Hainosaurus as a genus seems to no longer be valid and the bernardi species has been integrated into Tylosaurus for a while by now. As a result, 'Hainosaurus' bernardi as it is labeled would still represent Tylosaurus. I placed in the image with the sole intent of representing a restoration of bernardi in general; the squid just so happened to be on the only suitable restoration in commons. But I can see how someone would get confused about the context (I threw in the image mainly for aesthetic rather than contextual reasons), so I'll have it cut. Macrophyseter | talk 22:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better to just show a skeleton, then? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyedit request[edit]

  • Is genus a collective noun? While I suspect that it should follow collective noun rules, the species in a genus can be quite diverse which could warrant the use of "they". I couldn't find anything in the MoS that refers to this distinction.
I think I used the word "genus" in this article in the context of a collective noun to account for various unique species within it that to me would not make too much sense to mash into a singular classification as if they are almost the exact same thing. Macrophyseter | talk 02:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed the mention of "it" to "the genus" to avoid pronoun ambiguity.
  • Traditional interpretations have estimated the maximum length of Mosasaurus to be up to 17.6 meters (58 ft), making it one of the largest mosasaurs of all time. Emphasis in original. Just to clarify, we are still talking about the genus, correct?
The context of that portion refers to the genus as a whole (the largest length known from any member coming from the genus). Specifically, that is the max length of M. hoffmannii, but I thought since its the largest it would be okay to go a bit less collective here. Macrophyseter | talk 03:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Described as a mosasaur genus.
  • Four days after the conquest, the fossil was looted from Godding's possession by French soldiers due to its international scientific value under the orders of Kléber, carried out by political commissar Augustin-Lucie de Frécine. I'm a little iffy on this. The particle "de" is usually considered part of the surname. Do the sources refer to him as just "Frécine"?
Every source on the topic refers to him as that. Same with Faujas. Macrophyseter | talk 03:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Removed the "de" particle in later references.
  • During Faujas and his three colleagues' mission in 1795, the collections of Teylers Museum, despite being famous, were protected from confiscation. Emphasis added. Is this parenthetical thought necessary?
I added the parenthetical to give contrast between the fate of the first and second skulls while both were famous. Macrophyseter | talk 03:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Left as is.
  • Hoffmann's identification as a crocodile was viewed by many at the time to be the most obvious answer [...] Emphasis added. When was this again?
Generally around the 1770s-1790s ish. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added the year in which the skull was seized.
  • It attracted the attention of more scientists and was referred to as le grand animal fossile des carrières de Maestricht, or the "great animal of Maastricht". Emphasis in original. I see the following footnote that describes the literal translation, but is it because the sources called it the "great animal of Maastricht"?
As far as I know, yes. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Left as is.
  • Even though the binomial system was well established at the time [...] Is there a reason why "binomial nomenclature" isn't used instead?
I don't think it really matters. I guess "binomial nomenclature" could be better. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added to it so that it reads as "binomial naming system".
  • M. hoffmannii and M. missouriensis are considered to be the best-known and most studied species of the Mosasaurus genus, but other confirmed species have been described. Emphasis in original. I'm not sure that everything before the comma needs to be here, as the important idea is the other confirmed species. I'm guessing the original intent was for the article to transition from the two well-known species into other lesser-known species.
That's pretty much sums it up. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Rearranged sentence and placed rationale for the two species in parentheses.
  • The teeth are currently in the National Museum of Natural History, France. One of the teeth, which is cataloged [...] Just to confirm, this article is written in American English?
Yes.Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Sentence(s) left as is; added {{Use American English}} to the top of the article.
  • Mosasaurus is a member of the tribe Mosasaurini, which was established in 1967. This placement is shared with the genera Eremiasaurus, Plotosaurus, and Moanasaurus. Emphasis in original. Is the Plotosaurus genus not in the Plotosaurini tribe?
Depends on who you ask, because at this point it is more of a name game than a debate on taxonomic positioning. They're all in the same tribe, its only disputed whether or not the unified tribe should be called the Mosasaurini or Plotosaurini. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Left as is.
  • Her examination concluded with the consideration of the four Pacific species being re-assignable to Monanasaurus or related genera, the consideration [...] and the confirmation of three valid species—M. hoffmannii, M. missouriensis, and M. lemonnieri. Emphasis in original. "Consideration" is appearing a lot in this paragraph segment. Would you be okay if I cut down on this?
I am going to have to rework the entire structure of the Classification section, and so I'll probably be rewriting a lot of things in it. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Left as is for requester to work on.
  • The parietal foramen in Mosasaurus, which is associated with the parietal eye, is the smallest in the Mosasauridae family. Emphasis in original. Not required, but is there a measurement for this "smallest parietal foramen"?
Not that I am aware of at the moment. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Left as is.
  • The rib cages of Mosasaurus are unusually deep and form an almost perfect semicircle, giving it a barrel-shaped chest. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. Unusually deep compared to what?
Fixed this one. Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
  • The femur itself is about twice as long than it is wide and ends in a pair of distinct articular facets that meet at around 120°. Does the sentence say that the facets meet at a 120° angle?
That is the intended context. Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Reworded it somewhat.
  • Like all mosasaurs, the lower jaws of Mosasaurus were capable of adduction, allowing it to swing back and forth. In many mosasaur species such as Prognathodon [...] Emphasis in original. Prognathodon looks more like just a genus name. Is there a species name or would adding "sp." after it be appropriate?
That was a misuse of "species" on my end. I just removed the word altogether. Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
  • Like all mosasaurs, Mosasaurus had four types of teeth that correspond to their placement at their namesake jaw bones. How are mosasaurs named after their jaw bones? I thought they were named because the first specimen was found in the Meuse River.
I was referring to "namesake" as in the name of the jawbones the teeth correspond to (ex. Maxilla -> Maxillary teeth). I presume the wording doesn't work very well? Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. It was a case of subject ambiguity. I've reworded it so that it isn't.
  • They are positioned more posteriorly than any other mosasaur and begin above the fourth or fifth maxillary teeth; this feature is only exceeded in Goronyosaurus. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. In what way do the nares exceed? In position?
Yes. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed "feature" to "posterior positioning".* Currently, there is only one known example of a Mosasaurus preserved with stomach contents: an exquisitely-preserved partial skeleton of a small M. missouriensis dated about 75 Ma. Emphasis in original. "Exquisitely" is a puffy word that isn't very encouraged on Wikipedia. Are you saying that it was well-preserved? Also, what is the Ma unit? I can't see where's it been defined earlier in the article. I assume it stands for "million years ago".
I am saying that it was well-preserved. Ma is the standard abbreviation for million years ago as it stands for "Millions ago". Should I be using a different abbreviation such as mya? Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Today I learned it's an SI unit. I've included the first instance in parentheses. Changed "exquisitely" to "well"; I think it should still be clear in its meaning.
  • The presence of other large mosasaurs which specialized in robust prey coexisting with the species strongly suggests that M. missouriensis likely specialized more on cutting-based prey to ensure niche partitioning. What is "cutting-based"?
It means prey that are best fed on using teeth adapted to cut prey.Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added your definition as a parenthetical thought. Looks unwieldy for now, but will leave it as is.
  • With its evidently savage lifestyle [...] Who said that? Sentence doesn't have a citation following it.
Citation was at the end of the paragraph, which was supposed to represent the entire paragraph. This one is of similar issue with the point on overcitation earlier. I've duplicated the citation to that quote. Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Enclosed the phrase in quotes.
  • (if that were to be the case, those areas would have become necrotic due to a cutting off of blood supply.) It's an interesting fact, but is it necessary for the article?
I put that in to give an explanation to readers less informed on physiology on why not damaging the arteries and nerves is important. Is that still a moot reason? Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Removed the parentheses, and split the sentence to make it shorter.
  • From an ecological view, the two mosasaurs Mosasaurus and Prognathodon appear to be the dominant taxons in the entire seaway [...] Is there a reason they're not being referred to as "genera"?
I didn't want to overuse the same phrasing and I thought that that specific wording provides the same context. Do you think there is a difference? Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The italicised monomial names should be contextual enough for readers to recognise them as genera. Switched "taxons" to "taxa".
  • At the time, Europe was a scattering of islands with most of the modern continental landmass being underwater. When? The Cretaceous period?
I was referring to Maastrichtian, which was mentioned earlier. Was it too early? Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. No, I glazed over Maastrichtian and forgot it was an age. I added the word "age" to it; feel free to delete if you feel it's an extraneous detail.
  • Sea turtles such as Allopleurodon hoffmanni and Glyptochelone suickerbuycki also dominated the area and other marine reptiles including undetermined elasmosaurs have been occasionally known. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. What does it mean to be "known"?
It means that it is known that they have existed there. I believe it's a phrasing that I've seen similarly used in other articles. Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Leaving as is.
  • Other marine reptiles such as the marine monitor lizard Pachyvaranus and sea snake Palaeophis are known there. Emphasis in original. Again, what does it mean to be "known"?
 Done. Leaving as is as above.
  • Alternatively, a study using the MBT/CBT technique [...] around 66 Ma. Ma = million years ago?
 Done. Addressed above.
  • ,s>Camper disagreed, and in 1786 he concluded that the remains were from that of an "unknown species of toothed whale". It's probably somewhere near this sentence, but the quote should probably be cited.
Is there a specific rule for the frequency of citations of a single source? The way I have been used to is being that in a paragraph all content of any section of the paragraph between the citation before the first word of that section (or the beginning of the paragraph) and at the end of the section is cited by the latter. I have always thought that putting multiple consecutive citations points of the same source would be overciting. Macrophyseter | talk 03:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Normally I'd agree with you. The problem is that more than one source can be cited in the same sentence (let alone paragraph). I'm just a little more sensitive on quotes as those are things that should probably be more explicitly cited on Wikipedia.
But in that case I would cite one source, cite another, then cite the first source again. Apart from that, okay. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Merged sentences together.
  • However, earlier in 1834, American naturalist Richard Harlan published a description of a partial fossil snout he obtained from a trader from the Rocky Mountains who found it in the same locality as the Goldfuss specimen. I sense that "however" is being used as a transition word, but I don't understand how the sentence contrasts with the previous one.
It's because both fossils are of the same individual, and I tried to emphasize how M. maximiliani became synonymous with M. missouriensis. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done. I introduced the name of the specimen in the first sentence of the paragraph (and rearranged it) so that "however" contrasts with M. maximiliani. How does it look?
There were some parts of the edit that made the context a little confusing (I didn't mention Harlan first as to not confuse the reader since he never considered it to be a mosasaur), which I've made my own edits to. As now, I think it's pretty good. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Semi-done. Done by requester.
  • Second, the studies relied on a still unclean and shaky taxonomy of the Mosasaurus genus due to the lack of a clear holotype diagnosis, which sometimes led to uncomfortable paraphyletic results. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. What does it mean to have "uncomfortable" paraphyletic results?
I've been suggested to restructure the entire Classification section. As such, addressing these point here would be a bit redundant. I'll consider them in the rewrite, though. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Leaving this for requester to do in his rewrite.* If these injuries were indeed the result of an intraspecific attack, then it is notable that the majority of injuries concentrate in the skull. This sounds like a quotation that hasn't been given the proper attribution. Supposition like this comes very close to original research.
It's a summarization/simplified paraphrase of the cited source, whose scope is on pointing the notability of the skull injuries and proposes ideas as to why. However, I can see that "majority" might be a bit too overreaching, and so I've changed it to "many". Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done. I currently can't think of a way to make it sound less suppositional. It might be better to attribute the sentence to a name (Carolyn Gramling?).
  • Large tooth marks on scutes of the giant sea turtle Allopleuron hoffmanni and fossils of re-healed fractured jaws in M. hoffmannii demonstrate the capabilities of the feeding savagery of Mosasaurus. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. "Savagery" sounds too dramatic; does it have a specific meaning that you had in mind?
"Savagery" was the word the source's author used (original quote: "Tooth marks of M. hoffmanni on a scute of A. hoffmanni (Lingham-Soliar 1991c) and rehealed dentary breaks indicate its savagery"), and I kept it because I personally think its an excellent description of the feeding behavior. What word do you personally think would be best? Also I would like to make sure if my wording is safe from being considered unacceptable close paraphrasing.Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: It's more an issue of tone and separating it from Wikipedia's neutral (and at times, boring) voice; there are some phrases that the original source uses that fit best into an article as without being neutralised; you can get away with not putting stuff in quotes if you attribute the sentence so that it's made clear that the person being attributed to is the one having those thoughts. I suppose you could say something along the lines of Paleontologist Theagarten Lingham-Soliar concluded that M. hoffmanni had a savage nature after observing rehealed dentary breaks and its tooth marks on the scutes of the giant sea turtle Allopleuron hoffmanni. I'm assuming "paleontologist" is Lingham-Soliar's profession given the context, but if there's another word that fits their profession better feel free to change.
I've decided to change it to "Lingham-Soliar (1995) suggested that Mosasaurus had a rather savage feeding behavior as demonstrated by..." Would that work? Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester. Looks fine to me.
  • At least two species of Mosasaurus have been described in Seymour Island, but remains are often very fragmented and described in open nomenclature. I'm not sure how the "but" plays into this sentence. Does being "described in open nomenclature" prevent it from being described? What difference is there?
The difference between open and non-open nomenclature is that the latter is more conclusive, while the former keeps open the possibility that the true identity of the fossil is not exactly of the assigned taxon. There are a number of types of open nomenclature. Macrophyseter | talk
 Partly done. Added "true number of species" so that everything following it are reasons. Would that be correct?
That would be good to me. Later on in the line I changed "fragmented" to "fragmentary" since the latter is the usage by paleontologists in such context.Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.
If a name attribution is to be used, maybe something saying that Lingham-Soliar pointed that out. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Gave attribution.

* However, it has been pointed out that measuring δ13C levels may not be the most accurate method of determining the preferred habitat of Mosasaurus. Emphasis in original. Who pointed that out? Sentence is also uncited.

It's cited; everything in this article is always cited by the most subsequent source. Per earlier discussion, I've double-cited this part. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
  • By the end of the Cretaceous, mosasaurs like Mosasaurus were at a height of radiation [...] Emphasis in original. What does "radiation" mean in this context?
The context here is that the mosasaurs were rapidly expanding and diversifying; "radiation" is the term used by many sources. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Linked to adaptive radiation.
  • Vertebra fossils from the layer were found with post-mortem fractures and the deposition of the layer itself was likely the result of a tsunamtite [...] Emphasis added. Did you mean "tsunamite"?
Probably. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Edited spelling.
  • [...] the impact also had subsequent environmental reverberations that led to a collapse of marine food webs. Like what?
I thought that explaining why would be a bit redundant. But if it's not, a common general explanation for collapses of food webs per K-Pg extinction is that sunlight was blocked by the meteor strike, which prevents photosynthesis and thus kills off the trophic pyramid from the bottom up. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added blocked out sunlight as an example.
  • One enigmatic occurrence is of Mosasaurus fossils found in the Hornerstown Formation, a deposit that is typically dated to be from the Paleocene Danian age [...] Emphasis in original. Why is the occurrence "enigmatic"?
It's because it's found in deposits past the Cretaceous despite not being a Cenozoic animal as explained subsequently. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added relativity between the two ages.
  • Another explanation suggests that the Main Fossiliferous Layer is a Maastrichtian time-averaged remanie deposit [...] Emphasis added. Is there a reason "remanie" is being used and not "fossil"?
That's the term used by the sources; "remanie" in that context has a different meaning. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Linked to the relevant subsection in Fossil and gave the "e" an accent.
  • [...] meaning that it originated from a Cretaceous deposit with little sedimentation and was subject to gradual winnowing into the overlying deposits. Verbiage is weird. Will look at it on another pass.
 Done.
  • The features of teeth in Mosasaurus vary across species, but characteristics that unify the genus include highly prismatic surfaces (prism-shaped enamel circumference), two opposite cutting edges, and occupation within the cutting guild of mosasaur dentition. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. I can't find a Wikipedia article on the subject; could you define this?
It means that the teeth are generally adapted for specifically cutting prey. Mosasaur teeth are categorized into a spectrum of three guilds each representing an adaptation for crushing, piercing, or cutting. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I did a quick online search and found a book that uses it in this context. I think a definition in the article would help readers in a broader audience.
So should it be cited or directly mentioned in text? Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I think a direct mention should be sufficient.
Reworded the phrase to say that the teeth are specialized for cutting. Macrophyseter | talk 06:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
  • M. hoffmannii and Prognathodon sectorius were the dominant species in this province. Strong emphasis added and original italic emphasis preserved. What is this geographical distinction? Where does it come from?
Northern tethyan margin. "Province" is the term? Macrophyseter | talk 07:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: To the best of my knowledge, "province" has almost always been used to describe a certain administrative jurisdiction with its own government. Is the term used in sources?
The term is used in most sources in regards to the subject. It's possible that they are referring to a less-prominent definition that relates to area or territory but not in a political sense. Macrophyseter | talk
 Comment: I just came across this article: Physiographic province. Is this what you are referring to?
I've found the specific terminology relating to this context (biogeographic province), which I've wikilinked at the first mention of province. Macrophyseter | talk 06:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
Other instances of the province talk. [Resolved]
  • These environments were also dominated by mosasaurs and marine side-necked turtles. Of the mosasaurs, Globidens phosphaticus is the characteristic species of the southern province [...] Emphasis in original. Province?
I will not be responding to this and subsequent points on "province" since the discussion regarding it is already present earlier. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosasaurus was not well-represented: the distribution of M. beaugei was restricted to Morocco and Brazil and isolated teeth from Syria suggested a possible presence of M. lemonnieri, although M. hoffmannii has some presence throughout the province. Emphasis added. Province?
  • The biogeography of the region is generally subdivided into two Interior Subprovinces characterized by different climates and faunal structures, which border around modern-day Kansas. What are these subprovinces? I can't find a Wikipedia article on these.
  • During this age, the Northern Interior Subprovince was dominated by plesiosaurs, hesperornithid seabirds, and the mosasaur genus Platecarpus; and the Southern Interior Subprovince [...] including Tylosaurus and Clidastes. Again, what are these subprovinces?
  • The appearance of M. missouriensis and M. conodon in the Western Interior Seaway around 79.5 Ma [...] Again, Ma = million years ago?
  • The Northern Interior Subprovince also saw a restructuring of mosasaur assemblages by the beginning of the Navesinkan Age, characterized by the disappearance of mosasaurs like Platecarpus and their replacement by Mosasaurus and Plioplatecarpus. What is this subprovince?
  • The most complete skeleton of Mosasaurus has seven vertebrae in the neck, thirty-eight vertebrae in the back, eight vertebrae in the pygals, and sixty-eight caudal vertebrae in the tail. I understand you're trying to simplify a lot of unfamiliar terms for non-expert readers, but I think it's probably better to use their scientific names (e.g., thoracic, cervical, etc.) and link to their articles. As it is right now the list is inconsistent: "thoracic" and "cervical" are simplified and linked; "pygal" does not have a Wikipedia entry, but could benefit from a definition as the term seems to be specific to certain taxons like Mosasaurus; and "caudal" is named and given its definition, making it redundant.
I guess Using scientific terminology here would be fine as long as they have wikilinks for it. However, bones like pygal vertebrae would be a bit more difficult; they have some reminiscence of lumbar vertebrae or vertebrae in the hips but are not necessarily such. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Hmm, I see. This is also the first time I've seen the word "pygal" being used. Maybe a brief mention of where each group is located (e.g., cervical (neck)) might help?
"Pygal" seems to be an anatomical term exclusive to some reptiles, which might explain why it's seemingly obscure. I believe it could be explained as being the front tail vertebrae without chevrons, which I incorporated in the passage. I've also made sure to wikilink all other vertebrae or explain such that lack a wikilink. Macrophyseter | talk 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.
  • The following cladogram on the left (Topology A) is modified from a 2017 multi-method phylogenetic study by scientists led by Tiago Simões using the traditional method of maximum parsimony. Did topology A or the 2017 phylogenetic study use maximum parsimony? Maybe both?
Cladogram A is an adaptation of one of many phylogenetic cladograms (specifically one that used maximum parsimony) in the 2017 study. Macrophyseter | talk 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Slight edit.
  • A more recently developing approach is through a biogeochemical one, an early method being the measurement of δ13C levels in the enamel of Mosasaurus teeth. It feels like this sentence is trying to talk about two different techniques: one old, one new. How do they relate to one another?
I guess you could consider the relationship being like this: deposit-based assessment is old, biogeochemical is new. carbon isotope assessment is the "older version" of biogeochemical (in a way, but I think it's still used) while the rare earth one is the "newer version". Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How do you feel about moving and integrating it into the following paragraph? The new method appears to be the main topic in the last paragraph of this subsection.
Sound good, I've combined the two paragraphs. Macrophyseter | talk 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Done by requester.

Looking forward to your answers! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The requester has been inactive for a few days, so I'm going to consider the request complete. Macrophyseter, if you feel like this article could be worked on further, please answer the questions above and ping me. Thanks! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't able to work on the article the past few days (and having taken a short break last week). I'll be addressing some of the comments immediately. Macrophyseter | talk 02:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrophyseter: I've addressed the points you've responded to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll keep addressing your points as I get on it. Macrophyseter | talk 02:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Did another copyedit with more points being addressed. I think you may have left a thought half-finished in regards to naming the bones in the genus' vertebral column. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I've been in a hiatus again, but I've addressed all of your points apart from the redundant ones. Macrophyseter | talk 19:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrophyseter: Thanks for the replies! I've collapsed the redundant ones and have made comments on some of the other points. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: I've followed up with all remaining points. Macrophyseter | talk 01:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macrophyseter: Thanks! I don't think there's anything else for me to do here. Thanks for collaborating on this! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Thanks for the review! You don't have to, but I have just finished rewriting Classification and am curious if you are willing to copyedit it as well as last bits. Macrophyseter | talk 02:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional stuff[edit]

Hi Macrophyseter, good to hear from you again. I made some edits to the "Classification" section. Some questions:

  • Lee also resurrected the Pythonomorpha (which had long gone out of use) and redefined it to unify the Mosasauroidea and Serpentes under one clade. By context I'm guessing Pythonomorpha is an order?
Not exactly. It was originally classified as an "order" by Cope, but by the modern usage initiated by Lee (1997) it's just an unranked clade. Macrophyseter | talk 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Right now I'm thinking of reworking the sentence as Lee also resurrected the former order Pythonomorpha as an unranked clade and redefined it to include Mosasauroidea and Serpentes. What do you think? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to mention Cope's original assertion as an order when its first mentioned. I would also say "redefined it as an unranked clade...". Macrophyseter | talk 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Pythonomorpha is mentioned in the preceding paragraph: The proposition of a snake relationship was spearheaded by Cope, who first conceived such a hypothesis in 1869 by proposing that mosasaurs, which he classified under a clade called the Pythonomorpha, had a sister relationship with snakes. You want to change "a clade" into "an order"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] it closely integrated morphological, molecular, and paleontological data in a large dataset to overcome previous conflicts, which found that there were many hidden morphological support for molecular results including such that recovered the Mosasauria as a sister clade to the Serpentes. Is there another word for support? Something similar to "findings" might work?
I think the context here would be that there turns out to be a lot of less-obvious morphological (In phylogenetic terminology, this appears to be called "hidden") data that agrees (supports) with molecular data, given that morphological data and molecular data often seemed to contradict each other in other scenarios. Macrophyseter | talk 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lack of subject agreement between "were" (plural) and "support" (singular) that's giving me pause. A plural noun like "findings" or "data" would make the sentence less odd. If I'm parsing this correctly, the "which" after the comma appears to change the subject from the approach to the dataset. Perhaps [...] it closely integrated morphological, molecular, and paleontological data in a large dataset to overcome previous conflicts, which showed less-obvious ("hidden") morphological support for molecular results including such that recovered Mosasauria as a sister clade to Serpentes might work. Thoughts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "revealed" instead of "showed" prior to "less-obvious". Otherwise, I think that would be fine. Macrophyseter | talk 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed to proposed sentence.
  • The use of the word "recover": with the exception of the last mention in the section, the meaning of "recover" in "Classification" appears to change from the uses before it (i.e., to discover). By context the new definition appears to mean "classify"?
"Recover" seems to be the term in phylogenetics to mean that in a phylogenetic study the scientists found that the resulting data would have a taxon placed at a certain position in the phylogenetic relationship/cladogram/tree. For example, a quote "the study recovered Taxon A as a sister species to Taxon B" would mean in other words "the data from the study's results had the study place Taxon A in such a position in the phylogenetic relationship that it forms a sister relationship with Taxon B in such placement". I guess "place" would be the closest word to the term I could think of out of my head at the moment. Any use of "recover" outside of a phylogenetic context should have a different meaning depending on the context of their usage.Macrophyseter | talk 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to have an article on Wikipedia, so a definition should probably be provided (as a parenthetical thought should be sufficient). I think designated or classified should describe it almost perfectly. "Recover" seems to (as of the current revision) be used more in the phylogenetic sense, so I think it might be easier to find synonyms for it when used outside of its phylogenetic definiton. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess "placed" would be best, but it's possible that better alternatives exist. Macrophyseter | talk 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like that for "recover" inside "Classification", but I'm also suggesting that we can keep using the word "recover" as its phylogenetic definition and change any instance where that's not being used. For example, Continents that have recovered Mosasaurus fossils include [...] to Continents that have discovered Mosasaurus fossils include [...] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back! Addressing your comments aside, I've ended up reinstating three things from your copyedit due to context issues (Prelude of Street's thesis, Camp's influence, and the debate coming back). Macrophyseter | talk 06:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I've made a few suggestions/replies above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Macrophyseter, don't know if it's intentional, but the new peer review doesn't seem to have been activated? FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was intentional. I was bringing out points from the previous PR, hence why it wasn't activated for awhile. Macrophyseter | talk 00:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 15:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, for the record, I already peer reviewed the article here[1][2] and thought it looked good. Now I'll take a look at modifications made since then, and what else might help at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the only meaningful changes post-PR are all related to optimizing links and codes.Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, Squamata seems to be duplinked.
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be image "sandwiching" under Size, with the text being squeezed between a size comparison and a restoration. This could perhaps be improved by moving the restoration up, directly under the Description header? And then moving the jaw image so it is by the paragraph that mentions it.
Fixed.Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything useful in this new paper?[3]
I don't have access to the article (I don't have access to paywalled articles published starting 2021) and it hasn't been posted on ResearchGate yet, so at the moment I'm not able to incorporate it.Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it looks useful, you can get it through WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated durign the PR, image reviewers at FAC will probably ask for some kind of verification for the various usermade restorations and skeletals. You can avoid this by adding sources that support those images (proportions and other morphology) to their Commons descriptions.
I've added sources in some of the images where I find the restorations to be consistent with papers. However, some of the restorations are just too generic to easily cite (i.e. the M. beaugei and M. missouriensis restorations), so they may be problematic to reinforce. Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any citation is better than nothing, it's really just a formality to avoid image review problems. So for example, you can just say the general shape matches a certain citation or measurement, then the reviewer has something to check off. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation to the remaining restorations that sources the consistent general body plan as a mosasaur. I guess that works? Macrophyseter | talk 23:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think as long as the reviewers just see some kind of citation, they'll be happy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been some heated discussions at FAC lately about explaining technical terms even if they are linked. I don't think this aticle is problematic, but might be a good idea to look through it and explain more terms if needed, just to avoid the drawn out process seen at the recent Bajadasaurus FAC.
Thanks for the reference! Personally, a solution I've started running with in later articles is to mention the terms in a vernacular wording and wikilink the technical term (unless there is no way to vernacularize with a word or few, for example really specific bones). Macrophyseter | talk 17:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a discussion with Jens Lallensack about this also, and we concluded that if a common term for something is used widely enough, we may not even need to mention the scientific term, as is the case with for example orbit and alveoli. The technical terms can just be pipelinked, as you said. Maybe technical terms for directions could also be replaced where it makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, absolutely. In addition, I see another potential problem if you want to take it to FAC, which is WP:LENGTH. This article is at 15,610 words of readable prose, while 10,000 words is often considered a limit. Just a few days ago, an article much shorter than this (Santería) has been asked to be trimmed down to below 10,000 words at FAC. Possible solutions are 1) more concise writing and 2) applying WP:Summary style, i.e. opening sub-articles for long sections and only leave the summary here. Maybe you can make a good argument to justify this article as an exception; I just want to mention this so that you will not run into this issue unprepared. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one may be tricky. An attempt at decreasing verbosity could help, although I find it unlikely that it will make much of a dent given that the article is almost 6 thousand words above the limit. Regarding Summary style, I've estimated that applying it to research history and relationship with snakes and lizards subsections would reduce the word prose by about three to four thousand words, which still won't suffice.
When you mention about arguing for an exception, is there a precedent on such a scenario? Macrophyseter | talk 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always point to longer articles, such as Maya civilization, having gone through, but yeah, you can prepare for it maybe being brought up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maya civilization is only at 15,357 words of prose though, slightly shorter than Mosasaurus, and is arguably a much broader topic. I don't think you need to hit the 10,000 (which is not a fixed limit), but it might not hurt trying to get as low as possible. Especially the classification section seems to blow it quite a bit. Maybe the "Relation with snakes or monitor lizards" can also be moved to Mosasauroidea or such, with a much shorter summary and main-article tag left here? Another trick is to place more non-essential additions into the foot notes, since those don't count as readable prose (especially those info that you have in parentheses already). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at the PR, I also think the best contender for shortening would be the "Relation with snakes or monitor lizards" section, as it concerns the group as a whole rather than this particular genus. I'd even go as far as say it could be a single paragraph long, but that's of course just my taste. But the text could of course be duplicated in full at the mosasaur article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've transferred the aforementioned content into the mosasaur article. Macrophyseter | talk 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a latecoming member that has evolved advanced traits" Had?
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cdisappeared" Freaky word!
Fixed. Macrophyseter | talk 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paragraphs are really long and dense, I think it might look less daunting to the reader if broken up slightly more. For example, the middle para under "Later discoveries" and the last under "Early depictions and developments", but there are similar places throughout.
I've split a few paragraphs so far. Do you think it is a problem for the paragraphs in the Paleobiology and Paleoecology sections? Macrophyseter | talk 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's of course subjective, but I just glance over sections and see if something looks like a "wall of text" when determining it. For example the first para under "Paleopathology", or "Intraspecific combat". But I'm not sure if it would even be brought up at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience with the Cretoxyrhina FAC, nobody has ever brought up the fact that some of the paragraphs in Research History are pretty big, so I guess so too. I've decided to split Intraspecific combat and some of the Paleoecology paragraphs as well, but I think keeping the chunk in Paleopathology is better.
  • Do we have a good image of the palate teeth? As one of the more unusual mosasaur features, I think it would be good to show clearly. This is the best I could find at a glance:[4]
Added that image. Macrophyseter | talk 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note I think "and pterygoid teeth (a feature present in all mosasaurs and various modern reptiles)" could add "a feature present on the palate of" to make this clearer, as the reader may not remember where the pterygoid is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Macrophyseter | talk 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you're removing extraneous info, this detail struck me as unnecessary here: "the former house of the Great Exhibition"
Cut. Macrophyseter | talk 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this looks pretty good to go now. Any last remarks before I promote? FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be continuing to try trimming the article prose, although I highly doubt I can get the article at 10k words and might have to argue for an exception at FAC. That is unless I do the summary strategy for another chunk of the article, although I'm not sure what would work for such a case. Macrophyseter | talk 20:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just cross our fingers for it not being brought up, I'll promote now! FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll start the FAC nomination soon while continuing the trim at the same time. Macrophyseter | talk 20:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well just put further trimming suggestions here if I see them, but I wonder if all this is needed: "In his 2003 book Sea Dragons: Predators of Prehistoric Seas, Richard Ellis speculated". We really just need to know when and by who. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed. Macrophyseter | talk 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that Cuvier's original speculation about whether Mosasaurus was closest to monitor lizards or iguanas was also removed with the classification stuff, but I think this was actually still relevant here (as it was about this genus specifically), maybe it could be mentioned?
Re-added. I also formally nominated the article to FAC, since I can't really find any more places to safely trim. Macrophyseter | talk 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers will probably come with suggestions in the case they think it's too long. If the nom stalls, I'll also come by with a support. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Macrophyseter | talk 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macrophyseter, now that length was brought up at the FAC, though I'm a mergist when it comes to palaeo species, M. hofmanni may actually be one of the rare species that is famous enough and has enough written about it to get its own article, which could maybe help by being a container for very detailed information about that species, such as the long history section currently about it. Something to consider maybe, I won't mention this at the FAC page so the reviewers don't push for it. Maybe Jens Lallensack and Lythronaxargestes have thoughts about this too? FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, difficult to say what the best splitting strategy would be. The difficulty is to trim the article while keeping balance. Right now, with Research history of Mosasaurus split off, there is very little on history in Mosasaurus but a lot anatomy and so on, so this is no longer balanced (it is much too little on history now). With M. hofmanni as sub-article, the separate sections could perhaps be trimmed more evenly? In any case, I would suggest to move the eight-stage process of tooth replacement to Mosasaur, since it does not seem specific for this genus, and leave one or two sentences as summary here. I would also suggest to significantly trim down the paleoecology; i.e., all the non-vital information that are not specific to Moasaurus. Maybe you can find more suitable articles where some of this info can be moved into (articles on particular ages, Western Interior Seaway, or the respective Formations, maybe). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never realized that the simple need of trimming an article culminates into daunting tasks like this. I'm also usually a mergist for pre-Neogene genera, but I'm not sure if I would agree that M. hoffmannii may be notable in its own right for a separate article. While its identity is famous, it lacks name recognition; everyone just recognizes it as simply the Mosasaurus, and there is no individual common name that distinguishes the species from the rest of the genus like in Megalodon and Megalania. Is there any precedent on a Mesozoic genus that has successfully passed GA/FA? There's articles like Temnodontosaurus that has a separate article for one of its species, but I personally think they lack the notability for warrant. Macrophyseter | talk 04:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One example is Edmontosaurus with Edmontosaurus annectens. This is a purely organisational question, it has nothing to do with notability (since all species are considered notable).
In my opinion, however, the disadvantage of this species approach is that 1) it is not obvious to the reader that in-depth information can be found in that particular species article, so "main article" tags are needed for each shortened section, and 2) that M. hofmanni is by far the most important species, and by separating it out we might risk to have the focus of the main Mosasaurus article too strongly on the other species (for which we would still need excessive detail). For these reasons, I think I personally like your section-based approach better.
But as said, we can't simply remove entire sections (because of the balance issue; an article still needs to be complete); instead we need to copy the section to a sub-article and then trim the section in the parent article down (to, e.g., 50% or something, sometimes more, sometimes less). So some more work will definitely be needed, and yes, it is a bit of work unfortunately. Let me know if you need a hand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the split off Edmontosaurus annectens, it doesn't really "count", because it was originally seperate as Anatotitan and only renamed to its current title years after Edmontosaurus had been promoted to FA. As for the split off Temnodontosaurus species, it is believed it will end up in its own genus anyway, which is why I at least haven't tagged it for merging... But yeah, I'm surprised they're so strict about length now, for several years it was rarely brought up. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that that if we split off M. hoffmannii, one could argue the same for another species like M. lemonnieri, which would eviscerate this article to point an FA would be pointless. Perhaps the sub-article trimming strategy as Jens mentions would work out as the best. The challenge here would be to identify the details in each section that can be moved elsewhere, and the remaining details seem pretty well integrated with the topic of Mosasaurus. Getting help with identifying details to move elsewhere and general copyediting to minimize verbosity to make space for returning details in Research History will certainly help. Macrophyseter | talk 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some balancing on Research history, and it turns out the word limit hasn't increased as much as I expected. It's currently at around 10.7k words, so maybe only a tiny bit of trimming is necessary if the reviewers think that's too much. Macrophyseter | talk 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will have a look later and hopefully make some edits as well (which you please revert if you are not happy with them). The paleoecology section still bothers me, since it is very oversized compared to the rest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclatural note on hoffmanni vs hoffmannii[edit]

May be of interest vis-a-vis footnote b... [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, but I would prefer to see how future papers do the spelling in response before making a change, given that the -ii spelling has become prevailing usage since Konishi. Macrophyseter | talk 02:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosasaurus&oldid=1202580587"