The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Woolly mammoth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it now covers all aspects of this species, it has been copy edited, and is a core subject under palaeontology and extinction. Lister 2007 is extensively used, because it is the best synthesis of mammoth research. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I see instances of both UK and US English spellings in the article. That's an automatic fail for me, on prose. Before I go to the trouble of making further comments, should it be in UK English? -- John ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok, here goes.
More to come. -- John ( talk) 09:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
More to come. -- John ( talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Comments from Jim Just nitpicks
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
Image check - mostly all OK, sources and authors provided. Some images need checking (all points Done):
The first two paragraphs in the lead section mention "eastern Eurasia". Is this the same as "Asia"? Or "Asia and eastern Europe"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 2: "African elephants diverged from an earlier common ancestor 6.6–8.8 Mya." This appears to be the first instance of the word "Mya", yet the phrase "million years ago" was used four times earlier in the subsection.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 3: " At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer and the skulls become taller from top to bottom and shorter from back to front over time to accommodate this." Why should a skull that is shorter from back to front be better at accommodating longer teeth?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
I believe that the subsection "Wool" is poorly named. I believe that "wool" refers to the fur of domesticated animals that is used to make clothing for humans. As such, the woolly mammoth does not have wool. (Indeed the name "woolly mammoth" is a misnomer.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Description", subsection "Wool", paragraph 2, I have added wikilinks for "
dominance (genetics)" and "
recessive trait". However I am unhappy with the use of the term "inactive gene" in the latter part of the paragraph. I wonder if the paragraph would be better with "dominant" and "recessive" throughout, with "fully active" and "partially active" in parentheses at the first instances?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 1: "the haemoglobin of the woolly mammoth was adapted to the cold, with three mutations to improve oxygen delivery around the body and prevent freezing." I was initially sceptical of the last part of the statement so I checked the reference. Can I suggest that
this reference might be regarded as more reliable and authoritative than The Independent's article?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "The most common of these diseases was
osteoarthritis, found in 2% of specimens. One specimen from Switzerland had several fused vertebrae as a result of this condition. The "Yukagir Mammoth" had suffered from
ankylosing spondylitis in two vertebrae." In humans, it is rare for spinal osteoarthritis to cause
ankylosis, but I am prepared to accept the statement about the Swiss specimen. On the other hand, I am sceptical about the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the Yukagir Mammoth. How do they make a diagnosis of ank spond from woolly mammoth remains? On the basis of only two affected vertebrae? The statement about the Swiss specimen indicates that the presence of ankylosis alone is insufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ank spond.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
"The Yukagir Mammoth had backbone/spine problems. Thoracic vertebrae IV and V showed abnormal growth possibly as a result of auto-immune reaction to an inflammation somewhere else in the body. Only the thornshaped extremities of the two subsequent thoracic vertebrae (thoracic vertebrae VI and VII, No. 7885 and No. 7886) have been retrieved; these were naturally cut off just above the neural canal and were strongly deformed, showing some pus channels. The available vertebrae before and after these pathologically-modified specimens were in good condition. Dr. Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus Medical Center and the Natural History Museum in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the pelvis bone and the sacrum bone are missing. Generally, this disease shows most clearly in the joint between these two bones. Spondylarthropathy includes a group of inflammatory diseases comprising Reiter’s syndrome, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The bony outgrowths found on the vertebrae of affected individuals are called syndesmophytes (Francois et al., 1995). These are slim, bony outgrowths, parallel to the vertebral column, which replace the outer parts of the annulus fibrosus (part of the intervertebral disc) and the shorter and longer perivertebral ligaments, thus leading to an intervertebral bridge by means of complex processes involving ossification. The syndesmophytes can be distinguished from the vertical and chunky osteophytes (bone spurs) in degenerative vertebral disease, and the often bizarre new bone formation associated with primary bacterial infections. These abnormal bony outgrowths on two thoracic vertebrae (IV and V) of the Yukagir Mammoth resemble the syndesmophytes usually found in Spondylarthropathy in man and other mammals (Rothschild, 1994; Kompanje, 1999; Kompanje et al., 2000) A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case. These inflammations would have caused pain, especially in the early stages of abnormal bone growth but this was most likely not related to death. The event or condition triggering this growth might have occurred several years earlier. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Fisher finds signs of this event in the growth of the tusk, where a daily history of life is stored as variations in structural and compositional properties." FunkMonk ( talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
In "Palaeobiology", paragraph 3, "Yukagir mammoth" has a lower case "m" for "mammoth". Paragraph 4 uses a capital "M".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Woolly mammoths sustained themselves on plant food, mainly grass and sedges, which were supplanted with herbaceous plants, flowering plants, shrubs, mosses, and tree matter." Perhaps "supplemented" rather than "supplanted"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "Parasitic flies and protozoans were identified in the gut of the calf "Dima"." Do parasitic flies really live in the gut?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Isotope analysis has showed that woolly mammoths preferred hay-like grass... An isotopic study showed that woolly mammoths fed mainly on C3 plants." This is duplication of information.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "The "Yukagir mammoth" had ingested plant matter that contained spores of dung fungus, showing that woolly mammoths fertilised the plants of their environment." Does the presence of dung fungus spores really show that woolly mammoths fertilised plants?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 3: "The tusks were also used for obtaining food in other ways, since not all of their range was covered in snow." What other ways?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A ten-year-old would have doubled its height and increased its weight 15-fold." What does this mean?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1, there is something peculiar about the timing and duration of the sets of teeth. The second set of molars erupted at 12–18 months and lasted for an unspecified length of time. The sixth set were in use from age 30. This leaves a period of about 29 years for the second, third, fourth & fifth sets. Of this, the third set occupied 10 years, leaving 19 years for the second, fourth & fifth sets. Is this right?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A woolly mammoth could probably reach the age of 60, like living elephants of the same size." Perhaps "modern elephants" rather than "living elephants"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 2: "This feature indicates that male woolly mammoths also entered "musth", during which bull elephants become very aggressive and violent." "Aggressive and violent" seem to be redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
"Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2 mentions the "Bering land bridge" and "Beringia". I added a wikilink. It would be better to use a single consistent term.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2: "A 2008 genetic study showed that some of the woolly mammoths that entered North America through Beringia from Eurasia migrated back and replaced the former population shortly before the entire species went extinct." This statement is confusing. Which direction was the migration? Which population was replaced?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Palaeolithic and up to the Upper Palaeolithic." Does "up to the Upper Palaeolithic" include the Upper Palaeolithic? If so, just say "and the Upper Palaeolithic". If not, delete "and up to the Upper Palaeolithic".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Evidence for such coexistence was not acknowledged until the 19th century." Perhaps "recognised" rather than "acknowledged"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "William Buckland published his discovery of the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton in 1823, which was found in a cave alongside woolly mammoth bones, but he denied that these were contemporaries." Perhaps "he mistakenly denied"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 2: "Today, more than five hundred depictions of woolly mammoths are known, in media ranging from carvings and cave paintings located in 46 caves in Russia, France and Spain to sculptures and engravings made from different materials." Are "carvings" different from "engravings"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 2: "Woolly mammoth ivory was used to create art objects and jewels." I'm not comfortable with this use of the word "jewels". I suppose that in the broadest meaning of the word, these objects could be considered jewels. However it doesn't seem to add any extra information. Perhaps delete "and jewels"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 3 contains several statements of the type "having been ___ed" (some sort of past perfect form?). I wonder if a copy-editor could read through the paragraph and improve the flow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Although woolly mammoths survived an even greater loss of habitat at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, it is likely that, at the end of the last Ice Age, humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction." I'm not sure why the word "Although" is used here. Also, what is the relationship between the Saale glaciation and the last Ice Age?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Studies of a 11,300–11,000 year old trackway in southwestern Canada...." Should this be "an 11,300–11,000 year old trackway"? (I'm not sure.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Frozen specimens", can I suggest that positions of the pictures of the "Adams mammoth" are swapped? The picture drawn prior to excavation seems to be more rudimentary. Also, the statement that the skeleton's tusks are "reversed" confused me at first—I was expecting "reversed" tusks to be pointing downwards. It wasn't until I read the text that I realised that the left–right position is reversed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 1: "Most specimens have partially decayed prior to discovery, due to exposure or to being scavenged by predators." I don't think that is the correct use of the word "decayed", nor the phrase "scavenged by predators". Perhaps change the word "decayed" to "degraded"? Perhaps delete "by predators"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "Its head was exposed, and the flesh had been devoured by predators." Should this be "scavengers" rather than "predators"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "One of its shoulder blades was broken, indicating that it had fallen into a crevasse." There are causes of a broken shoulder blade other than falling into a crevasse. How about "One of its shoulder blades was broken due to falling into a crevasse."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 6: "In 1997, a Dolgan family named Jarkov discovered a piece of mammoth tusk protruding from the tundra of the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia, Russia." I don't think that the family name Jarkov is relevant. I'm not convinced that the Dolgan people are relevant either.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 7: "By cutting a section through the second premolar and analysing its growth lines, they found that the animal had died at the age of one month." I wasn't aware that mammoths had premolar teeth. The "Dentition" subsection makes no mention of these.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "They called it "Yuka"." This sentence is rather short. Perhaps integrate the information into the first sentence of the paragraph?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "Palaeontologists think it is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Unless there is a controversy where non-palaeontologists dispute the statement, there is no need to state that "palaeontologists think" this.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is the first frozen mammoth that shows evidence of human predation."
The source states "There are some odd things. What we need to do is find out if this was human interference near the time of death or was it something that happened much later?" This statement does not imply human predation, and even scavenging by humans is questionable.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is thought to be the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Why not "It is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered."? Also, the best preserved specimen doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Which one is the best preserved?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The first is cloning, which would involve removing the genetic material of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacing it with nuclei cells from woolly mammoth tissue." "Replacing it with nuclei cells"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The resulting calf would have the genes of the woolly mammoth, although its foetal environment would be different." I am somewhat uncomfortable with the spelling of the word "foetal". I accept that the article uses British English and the word "foetal" is often used in (lay) English. The letter "o" was mistakenly added to "fetus" and this hypercorrection has now become commonplace in British English. However medical and scientific texts still retain the Latin spelling "fetus". This article straddles the boundary of scientific and generic text.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 2: "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced." Is that really true?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 3: "As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future, using the DNA of other organisms." Is the DNA of other organisms really required? Perhaps delete that part of the sentence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", paragraph 1: "The first woolly mammoth ivory from Siberia was brought to London in 1611." Should this be "The first woolly mammoth ivory brought to London was in 1611 from Siberia."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia, and conservationists have suggested that this could help save the living species of elephants from extinction." Is this through money raised from the sale of mammoth ivory?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 1: "Gallon added that the fur-trapper had not heard of mammoths, and that he had talked about the "elephants" as forest animals, at a time when they were seen as living on the tundra and snow." In what sense were they "seen as living on the tundra and snow"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 2: "In the late 19th century, there were persistent rumours about surviving mammoths hiding in Alaska." "Hiding"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Since short citations are already being used (Lister), all citations that cite different pages from the same work should be cited using short citations for consistency. The citations for Sloane's article (currently FN 2 and 3) should be changed to short citations. I haven't checked all the citations, but any that cite different pages from a same source should be changed.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I've checked the rest of the citations, and didn't find any significant issue, except that the 1929 Tolmachoff article is cited twice, each citation citing different pages. If what FunkMonk says about short citations not needed for journals is true, I suppose this is not a problem. However, FN 104 (2nd Tolmachoff citation) has a huge page range (11-74). I spot-checked the source. It looks like the info is just from page 11. However, I don't see Iran mentioned anywhere in the source.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be thoroughly reviewed and supported by every reviewer. It should be approved now. One superficial comment though. The intro is very long. I suggest the following exclusions.
The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was a species of
mammoth, the common name for the extinct
elephant
genus Mammuthus. The woolly mammoth was one of the last in a line of mammoth species, beginning with
Mammuthus subplanifrons in the early
Pliocene. M. primigenius diverged from the
steppe mammoth, M. trogontherii, about 200,000 years ago in eastern Asia.
Genetic studies have shown that its closest extant relative is the
Asian elephant.
The appearance and behaviour of this species are among the best studied of any
prehistoric animal due to the discovery of frozen carcasses in
Siberia and
Alaska, as well as skeletons, teeth, stomach contents and dung. Their depiction from life in prehistoric
cave paintings has also helped scientists to reconstruct their appearance. Mammoth remains had long been known in Asia before they became known to Europeans in the 17th century. The origin of these remains was long a matter of debate, and often explained as being remains of
legendary creatures. The animal was only identified as an extinct species of elephant by
Georges Cuvier in 1796.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, sources look fine. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment -- Pls address dablink for Lausanne Conference. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Woolly mammoth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it now covers all aspects of this species, it has been copy edited, and is a core subject under palaeontology and extinction. Lister 2007 is extensively used, because it is the best synthesis of mammoth research. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I see instances of both UK and US English spellings in the article. That's an automatic fail for me, on prose. Before I go to the trouble of making further comments, should it be in UK English? -- John ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok, here goes.
More to come. -- John ( talk) 09:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
More to come. -- John ( talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Comments from Jim Just nitpicks
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
Image check - mostly all OK, sources and authors provided. Some images need checking (all points Done):
The first two paragraphs in the lead section mention "eastern Eurasia". Is this the same as "Asia"? Or "Asia and eastern Europe"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 2: "African elephants diverged from an earlier common ancestor 6.6–8.8 Mya." This appears to be the first instance of the word "Mya", yet the phrase "million years ago" was used four times earlier in the subsection.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 3: " At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer and the skulls become taller from top to bottom and shorter from back to front over time to accommodate this." Why should a skull that is shorter from back to front be better at accommodating longer teeth?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
I believe that the subsection "Wool" is poorly named. I believe that "wool" refers to the fur of domesticated animals that is used to make clothing for humans. As such, the woolly mammoth does not have wool. (Indeed the name "woolly mammoth" is a misnomer.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Description", subsection "Wool", paragraph 2, I have added wikilinks for "
dominance (genetics)" and "
recessive trait". However I am unhappy with the use of the term "inactive gene" in the latter part of the paragraph. I wonder if the paragraph would be better with "dominant" and "recessive" throughout, with "fully active" and "partially active" in parentheses at the first instances?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 1: "the haemoglobin of the woolly mammoth was adapted to the cold, with three mutations to improve oxygen delivery around the body and prevent freezing." I was initially sceptical of the last part of the statement so I checked the reference. Can I suggest that
this reference might be regarded as more reliable and authoritative than The Independent's article?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "The most common of these diseases was
osteoarthritis, found in 2% of specimens. One specimen from Switzerland had several fused vertebrae as a result of this condition. The "Yukagir Mammoth" had suffered from
ankylosing spondylitis in two vertebrae." In humans, it is rare for spinal osteoarthritis to cause
ankylosis, but I am prepared to accept the statement about the Swiss specimen. On the other hand, I am sceptical about the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the Yukagir Mammoth. How do they make a diagnosis of ank spond from woolly mammoth remains? On the basis of only two affected vertebrae? The statement about the Swiss specimen indicates that the presence of ankylosis alone is insufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ank spond.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
"The Yukagir Mammoth had backbone/spine problems. Thoracic vertebrae IV and V showed abnormal growth possibly as a result of auto-immune reaction to an inflammation somewhere else in the body. Only the thornshaped extremities of the two subsequent thoracic vertebrae (thoracic vertebrae VI and VII, No. 7885 and No. 7886) have been retrieved; these were naturally cut off just above the neural canal and were strongly deformed, showing some pus channels. The available vertebrae before and after these pathologically-modified specimens were in good condition. Dr. Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus Medical Center and the Natural History Museum in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the pelvis bone and the sacrum bone are missing. Generally, this disease shows most clearly in the joint between these two bones. Spondylarthropathy includes a group of inflammatory diseases comprising Reiter’s syndrome, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The bony outgrowths found on the vertebrae of affected individuals are called syndesmophytes (Francois et al., 1995). These are slim, bony outgrowths, parallel to the vertebral column, which replace the outer parts of the annulus fibrosus (part of the intervertebral disc) and the shorter and longer perivertebral ligaments, thus leading to an intervertebral bridge by means of complex processes involving ossification. The syndesmophytes can be distinguished from the vertical and chunky osteophytes (bone spurs) in degenerative vertebral disease, and the often bizarre new bone formation associated with primary bacterial infections. These abnormal bony outgrowths on two thoracic vertebrae (IV and V) of the Yukagir Mammoth resemble the syndesmophytes usually found in Spondylarthropathy in man and other mammals (Rothschild, 1994; Kompanje, 1999; Kompanje et al., 2000) A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case. These inflammations would have caused pain, especially in the early stages of abnormal bone growth but this was most likely not related to death. The event or condition triggering this growth might have occurred several years earlier. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Fisher finds signs of this event in the growth of the tusk, where a daily history of life is stored as variations in structural and compositional properties." FunkMonk ( talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
In "Palaeobiology", paragraph 3, "Yukagir mammoth" has a lower case "m" for "mammoth". Paragraph 4 uses a capital "M".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Woolly mammoths sustained themselves on plant food, mainly grass and sedges, which were supplanted with herbaceous plants, flowering plants, shrubs, mosses, and tree matter." Perhaps "supplemented" rather than "supplanted"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "Parasitic flies and protozoans were identified in the gut of the calf "Dima"." Do parasitic flies really live in the gut?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Isotope analysis has showed that woolly mammoths preferred hay-like grass... An isotopic study showed that woolly mammoths fed mainly on C3 plants." This is duplication of information.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "The "Yukagir mammoth" had ingested plant matter that contained spores of dung fungus, showing that woolly mammoths fertilised the plants of their environment." Does the presence of dung fungus spores really show that woolly mammoths fertilised plants?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 3: "The tusks were also used for obtaining food in other ways, since not all of their range was covered in snow." What other ways?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A ten-year-old would have doubled its height and increased its weight 15-fold." What does this mean?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1, there is something peculiar about the timing and duration of the sets of teeth. The second set of molars erupted at 12–18 months and lasted for an unspecified length of time. The sixth set were in use from age 30. This leaves a period of about 29 years for the second, third, fourth & fifth sets. Of this, the third set occupied 10 years, leaving 19 years for the second, fourth & fifth sets. Is this right?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A woolly mammoth could probably reach the age of 60, like living elephants of the same size." Perhaps "modern elephants" rather than "living elephants"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 2: "This feature indicates that male woolly mammoths also entered "musth", during which bull elephants become very aggressive and violent." "Aggressive and violent" seem to be redundant.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
"Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2 mentions the "Bering land bridge" and "Beringia". I added a wikilink. It would be better to use a single consistent term.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2: "A 2008 genetic study showed that some of the woolly mammoths that entered North America through Beringia from Eurasia migrated back and replaced the former population shortly before the entire species went extinct." This statement is confusing. Which direction was the migration? Which population was replaced?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Palaeolithic and up to the Upper Palaeolithic." Does "up to the Upper Palaeolithic" include the Upper Palaeolithic? If so, just say "and the Upper Palaeolithic". If not, delete "and up to the Upper Palaeolithic".
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Evidence for such coexistence was not acknowledged until the 19th century." Perhaps "recognised" rather than "acknowledged"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "William Buckland published his discovery of the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton in 1823, which was found in a cave alongside woolly mammoth bones, but he denied that these were contemporaries." Perhaps "he mistakenly denied"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 2: "Today, more than five hundred depictions of woolly mammoths are known, in media ranging from carvings and cave paintings located in 46 caves in Russia, France and Spain to sculptures and engravings made from different materials." Are "carvings" different from "engravings"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 08:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 2: "Woolly mammoth ivory was used to create art objects and jewels." I'm not comfortable with this use of the word "jewels". I suppose that in the broadest meaning of the word, these objects could be considered jewels. However it doesn't seem to add any extra information. Perhaps delete "and jewels"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 3 contains several statements of the type "having been ___ed" (some sort of past perfect form?). I wonder if a copy-editor could read through the paragraph and improve the flow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply
From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Although woolly mammoths survived an even greater loss of habitat at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, it is likely that, at the end of the last Ice Age, humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction." I'm not sure why the word "Although" is used here. Also, what is the relationship between the Saale glaciation and the last Ice Age?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Studies of a 11,300–11,000 year old trackway in southwestern Canada...." Should this be "an 11,300–11,000 year old trackway"? (I'm not sure.)
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
In "Frozen specimens", can I suggest that positions of the pictures of the "Adams mammoth" are swapped? The picture drawn prior to excavation seems to be more rudimentary. Also, the statement that the skeleton's tusks are "reversed" confused me at first—I was expecting "reversed" tusks to be pointing downwards. It wasn't until I read the text that I realised that the left–right position is reversed.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 1: "Most specimens have partially decayed prior to discovery, due to exposure or to being scavenged by predators." I don't think that is the correct use of the word "decayed", nor the phrase "scavenged by predators". Perhaps change the word "decayed" to "degraded"? Perhaps delete "by predators"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "Its head was exposed, and the flesh had been devoured by predators." Should this be "scavengers" rather than "predators"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "One of its shoulder blades was broken, indicating that it had fallen into a crevasse." There are causes of a broken shoulder blade other than falling into a crevasse. How about "One of its shoulder blades was broken due to falling into a crevasse."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 6: "In 1997, a Dolgan family named Jarkov discovered a piece of mammoth tusk protruding from the tundra of the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia, Russia." I don't think that the family name Jarkov is relevant. I'm not convinced that the Dolgan people are relevant either.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 7: "By cutting a section through the second premolar and analysing its growth lines, they found that the animal had died at the age of one month." I wasn't aware that mammoths had premolar teeth. The "Dentition" subsection makes no mention of these.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "They called it "Yuka"." This sentence is rather short. Perhaps integrate the information into the first sentence of the paragraph?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "Palaeontologists think it is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Unless there is a controversy where non-palaeontologists dispute the statement, there is no need to state that "palaeontologists think" this.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is the first frozen mammoth that shows evidence of human predation."
The source states "There are some odd things. What we need to do is find out if this was human interference near the time of death or was it something that happened much later?" This statement does not imply human predation, and even scavenging by humans is questionable.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is thought to be the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Why not "It is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered."? Also, the best preserved specimen doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Which one is the best preserved?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The first is cloning, which would involve removing the genetic material of the egg cell of a female elephant, and replacing it with nuclei cells from woolly mammoth tissue." "Replacing it with nuclei cells"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 1: "The resulting calf would have the genes of the woolly mammoth, although its foetal environment would be different." I am somewhat uncomfortable with the spelling of the word "foetal". I accept that the article uses British English and the word "foetal" is often used in (lay) English. The letter "o" was mistakenly added to "fetus" and this hypercorrection has now become commonplace in British English. However medical and scientific texts still retain the Latin spelling "fetus". This article straddles the boundary of scientific and generic text.
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 2: "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced." Is that really true?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Frozen specimens", subsection "Recreating the species", paragraph 3: "As the woolly mammoth genome has been mapped, a complete strand of DNA may be synthesised in the future, using the DNA of other organisms." Is the DNA of other organisms really required? Perhaps delete that part of the sentence?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", paragraph 1: "The first woolly mammoth ivory from Siberia was brought to London in 1611." Should this be "The first woolly mammoth ivory brought to London was in 1611 from Siberia."?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", paragraph 2: "Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia, and conservationists have suggested that this could help save the living species of elephants from extinction." Is this through money raised from the sale of mammoth ivory?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 1: "Gallon added that the fur-trapper had not heard of mammoths, and that he had talked about the "elephants" as forest animals, at a time when they were seen as living on the tundra and snow." In what sense were they "seen as living on the tundra and snow"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
From "Cultural significance", subsection "Cryptozoology", paragraph 2: "In the late 19th century, there were persistent rumours about surviving mammoths hiding in Alaska." "Hiding"?
Axl ¤
[Talk] 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
reply
Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Since short citations are already being used (Lister), all citations that cite different pages from the same work should be cited using short citations for consistency. The citations for Sloane's article (currently FN 2 and 3) should be changed to short citations. I haven't checked all the citations, but any that cite different pages from a same source should be changed.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
I've checked the rest of the citations, and didn't find any significant issue, except that the 1929 Tolmachoff article is cited twice, each citation citing different pages. If what FunkMonk says about short citations not needed for journals is true, I suppose this is not a problem. However, FN 104 (2nd Tolmachoff citation) has a huge page range (11-74). I spot-checked the source. It looks like the info is just from page 11. However, I don't see Iran mentioned anywhere in the source.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be thoroughly reviewed and supported by every reviewer. It should be approved now. One superficial comment though. The intro is very long. I suggest the following exclusions.
The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was a species of
mammoth, the common name for the extinct
elephant
genus Mammuthus. The woolly mammoth was one of the last in a line of mammoth species, beginning with
Mammuthus subplanifrons in the early
Pliocene. M. primigenius diverged from the
steppe mammoth, M. trogontherii, about 200,000 years ago in eastern Asia.
Genetic studies have shown that its closest extant relative is the
Asian elephant.
The appearance and behaviour of this species are among the best studied of any
prehistoric animal due to the discovery of frozen carcasses in
Siberia and
Alaska, as well as skeletons, teeth, stomach contents and dung. Their depiction from life in prehistoric
cave paintings has also helped scientists to reconstruct their appearance. Mammoth remains had long been known in Asia before they became known to Europeans in the 17th century. The origin of these remains was long a matter of debate, and often explained as being remains of
legendary creatures. The animal was only identified as an extinct species of elephant by
Georges Cuvier in 1796.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, sources look fine. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Delegate comment -- Pls address dablink for Lausanne Conference. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply