"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 talk23:02, 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 talk23:02, 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 talk17:05, 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 talk23:02, 14 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
"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 talk22:45, 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
"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 talk18:37, 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:
[2]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 talk05:58, 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
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 talk01:25, 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
"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 talk23:02, 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 talk23:02, 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 talk17:05, 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 talk23:02, 14 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
"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 talk22:45, 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
"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 talk18:37, 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:
[2]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 talk05:58, 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
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 talk01:25, 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