Jump to content

Talk:Cimoliopterus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCimoliopterus 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 November 11, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2021Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 29, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Cimoliopterus was among the first pterosaurs to be depicted as models (pictured) in Crystal Palace Park in the 1850s?
Current status: Featured article


Collab

[edit]

@FunkMonk: I'll probably start with our collaboration for GAN/FAC for this article sometime tomorrow or the next day after tomorrow. It's been quite some time since you sent me that message, but then again, no rush is intended. I don't really have much time for big and bulky edits, so I'll probably start off with small edits. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can come together slowly, I also just got some second thoughts about which one to expand, because a new, interesting paper on Lonchodraco just came out[1], so there might be more to say about its paleobiology than about other of those old taxa. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, imagewise and taxonomywise, Cimoliopterus, I would say, is better. Cimoliopterus has been included in many phylogenetic analysis, and two of which (Myers, 2015 and Pêgas et al., 2019) specifically talk about it. Lonchodraco on the other hand, would better in terms of Paleobiology (like you said), and perhaps Description; a less recent paper that came out this year (Averianov, 2020) specifically talks about the reassignment of two (I think) Lonchodraco species, and a lot of info can be acquired from that paper. But honestly, I'd lean more toward Cimoliopterus, considering more of it is known, at least until now. However, if we did choose it, it would be a bit of a shame as well; that new paper of Lonchodraco (which I've seen earlier today, but don't have access to it, unfortunately) is a worthy one, considering old taxa are rarely studied these days, mainly due to their controversy I suppose. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easy to get papers through either WP:RX or various other means. As for images, if we need a life restoration and size diagram, we could request them at WP:Paleoart, or well, I could make some myself. Another upside to Lonchodraco compared to Cimoliopterus is that it currently only has one species, it's always a bit unstable with assigned species based on fragmentary remains, they get shuffled around all the time... And yeah, it is very rare that new paleobiological research is done with so old specimens, so it's a pretty significant study that new one... That things can still be done with them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, getting papers is probably an easier bit. I guess quantity (considering Cimolio has two species) isn't always what is wanted here, and most of these comparisons between species is mostly just based on partial jaw specimens anyway, pretty scarce and fragmentary remains indeed. *sigh* I'm also afraid I can't contribute to life restorations or size diagrams; my first attempt on creating a life restoration (back in 2019, when I first started editing in Wikipedia) was for Traukutitan [2], and 'cause I was new here, I didn't know that accuracy was very important, seriously, it looks like a drawing made by a kid. *sigh again* I think I'll just stick to expanding the article for now. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, always remember to put restorations up for review too! I've done a few pterosaurs[3][4][5], so I could make one for Lonchodraco too, though I'm not sure what to base the rest of the body on... FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's indeed a restoration for Lonchodectes, considering it's related to Lonchodraco, but doesn't seem to be reviewed. Should we consider putting it up to the paleoart review? If we were to go for Cimoliopterus, you can probably base it upon ornithocheirids, considering a study has recovered it within that family. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I don't think it has been reviewed, so it could be put up. It seems to have the body of a generic ornithocheiroid, so we can probably go with that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oops, I forgot that Cimoliopterus already has a life restoration. Anyways, I haven't expanded any page yet, I actually don't mind which one to expand, so I guess it's up to you to choose. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borja Holgado, one of the authors of the new paper, just offered to help out on Wikipedia. So perhaps when we're done expanding Cimoliopterus, or whichever we end up with, we could send it to him for fact checking? FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, how generous of him. And yeah, I'd say it's a good idea, but, has this ever been done before? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of with Baryonyx and Paranthodon (they were reviewed by paleontologists for the Wikijournal). And we do have some editors who are paleontologists as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, I haven't had much time to write any articles recently because of the huge reviewer burden at the moment, particularly dinosaur needs to be saved from demotion before anything else, I think. But in the meantime we could determine which of the two to work on, yeah. Maybe Cimoliopterus, as it already has a restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree too. And maybe I can look at dinosaur as well (I've only done some minor editing there such as removing vandalism or copyediting some stuff), I hope it's not too late though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, JurassicClassic767, I think I'm done with most of my obligations elsewhere. So I was thinking about how you prefer to split this. By sections we prefer working on, or we could say I cover the older harder to find sources, and then you cover the newer ones? And if there are some sources you need, I can probably email them to you, but it seems you have your Wikipedia email turned off? You can turn it on in your preferences. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I only turn on the email preference in case of emergencies, but yeah, I can turn it on in case you email me sources. As for the sections, perhaps I'd prefer doing description and classification? But any would do to be honest. And yeah, maybe it is also a good idea that I cover the newer sources, if that's ok with you. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, if you turn the email on, I can write you, and when you reply we already have a correspondence going, and you can turn it off again. And it makes perfect sense you write classification since you're good at that in other articles. I'll take history then (which will probably be a huge chunk), and then we can see how to split the rest up later. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I wonder if some corrections should be done to the restoration:[6] For example, the nostrils could be moved towards the front of the bony naris (per Witmer), and the fenestrae could be less obvious. Any other thoughts on it? Maybe the Lonchodectes should also have a little crest on the lower jaw? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, I'm normally not that active during late morning or early afternoon where I live. But yeah, most of the things you said can be done, also, the Cimoliopterus restoration seems to represent C. cuvieri, which in this case the premaxillary crest begins above the seventh tooth socket, not the fourth, as shown in the current restoration (coincidentally, this is exactly how it is in C. dunni). As for Lonchodectes, I don't really know if we should add mandibular crest, only fragments of the upper jaw are currently known, Rodrigues & Kellner deemed it undiagnosable, so that's probably why many recent studies prefer using Lonchodraconidae than Lonchodectidae. Oh, and the restoration in the Lonchodectes page (which has a mandibular crest) appears to have been made by a user called Falconfly, which from what I have seen is someone who apparently has bad ideas and attacks people? So I don't know if that restoration is reliable (I think this is a little off-topic though). JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably gonna continue adding more info in description, however, since Cimoliopterus is only known from parts of the skull, there's not really that much stuff about the postcrania, the description of C. dunni for example, says a lot about the crest and jaws, but it looks like there's no info about the postcrania. Any thoughts about this? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of editing on the image[7], mainly fixed the nostrils, might do more later. The holotype consists only of the snout, so that should be the explanation, though I think there were some historical assigned limb bones, though they are probably considered indeterminate now. Do you have Mark Witton's 2013 pterosaur book? I think there is a bit about it and its group there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, the image looks a bit better. I actually don't have the book, but a lot of its pages can be seen in its preview in Google Books, but yeah, of course that's not enough. I'll try turning on my email tomorrow, if I have the time, I hope I'm not gonna be as busy tomorrow as I was today. And you have the book, perhaps you can email me the necessary pages, or we can just talk you know... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just ping me when it's turned on, I have a few sources that might come in handy... I just expanded a bit from the original description, but I'm still unsure what the two extra teeth shown above here[8] are... Because the supposed lost tooth is the one that was attached to the jaw itself, it wasn't isolated, and I can't find mention f assigned teeth... But it seems the supposed assigned postcranial remains were assigned based on size alone, which is probably why they're ignored today... FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before I can expand the article more, I just wanted to know if I have to use American or British English, because sometimes it looks kind of weird mixing both (or at least to me that is). I know I'm a bit stubborn with this stuff, but I'm willing to use British English if you want. Or we can just stick with a mix since the animal was discovered in both the US and UK. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say UK English, because that's where the type and possible synonyms are from. And in the case the assigned species is moved to another genus, only British specimens will remain. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that, haha... But seriously, I was also thinking of the possibility of what you said. I'll probably start changing the article's spelling now, and yeah, since UK English is the type of English used where I live, I should probably also start using it more often as well. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed all the spellings I've seen to British, let me know if there are other ones that need changing. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! And yeah, UK English is also what we learned where I live. I wonder if there are any modern size estimates for this animal, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, reading through the C. dunni paper, why was that species eve assigned to Cimoliopterus? They're not sister taxa in either of the featured cladograms! And I can't seem to find a proper explanation in the paper? On another note, the Unwin 2001[9] paper seems to be CC licenced, so we could in theory use their images, here mainly the map is of interest, but it uses outdated terminology for the formations, so not sure how helpful it is... FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah, the paper says Cambridge Greensand, but Cimoliopterus appears to be from the Chalk Formation. I think C. dunni has been assigned to Cimoliopterus because it shares similarities with C. cuvieri, but yeah, it does state that Cimoliopterus is somehow paraphyletic in the cladogram. But the two cladograms that are shown in this article (from the descriptions of Coloborhynchus fluviferox and Targaryendraco) do recover both species as sister taxa, though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Chalk Formation is apparently itself an outdated name, it is now considered the Chalk Group, and C. dunni was supposedly found in what is now called the Grey Chalk Subgroup, which was formerly called the Lower Chalk Formation, including in Unwin 2001... So it's a bit confusing! FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All along I thought Chalk Group and Chalk Formation are interchangeable, I guess I was wrong! Oh, and C. dunni is from Texas, not England, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, yes, I meant C. cuvieri, already mixing up the names! Perhaps the description section should even have a subsection for each species? FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Subsections could be added, but I think there's a paragraph that speaks about the two at the same time. Ah, I finally enabled my email, which I forgot yesterday, so now you can send me whatever sources are necessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 00:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you add more info in the history section, should I continue expanding the description (perhaps some minor details and fixes, but there's not really that much to say at this point, I think) or should I start with classification, which I guess will be a bit longer considering the confusing taxonomy of Cimoliopterus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if there's nothing more to add about description, classification could be the next big chunk. There is some description of the now lost teeth in the old sources, I wonder if we should include some of that? And if there is a wing-span estimate anywhere... I'll continue chipping away at the history section, I added some context about the state of pterosaur palaeontology at the time, which is probably necessary if layreaders are going to understand anything... I wonder what kind of info we can add to a new palaeobiology section, but certainly some general info of what the snout crest may have been used for, and what it could have eaten, based on what has been proposed for its larger group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could include the info about teeth along with the size estimate Bowerbank estimated. Speaking of that, I found a post by Witton in twitter that basically just mentions "five-ish meter wingspan" with a (likely) copyrighted artwork, I think it's not reliable to source, though. As for palaeobiology, maybe Witton's book would be a good place to start? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so Witton basically repeated Bowerbank's original estimate. Perhaps we can work that into a parenthesis here, like "(Mark Witton used a similar estimate in a Twitter post)" to show that it is not from a "normal" source. And yeah, Witton's book could be used for a good summary of general lifestyle. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, Witton also mentions Cimoliopterus here on his blog[10], where he also gives a 5-6 m wing span, that would probably be more reliable to use. He also notes some of the Crystal Palace pterosaurs were based on it, we have a photo here:[11] While the snout doesn't match, I guess it was based on some of the assigned bones. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can perhaps add this citation in the first paragraph of description (which I think still needs some work), and the Crystal Palace pterosaurs image could be added there as well, or maybe in the history section is better? Also, the life restoration could be moved to Palaeobiology afterwards, since it shows Cimoliopterus stealing prey? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's also the Crystal Palace website entry on these sculptures, also by Witton, but probably even more reliable to use:[12] As for the restoration, we can probably move it once we have such a section, but it's also the only image we have showing how we think it looked, so unless we get another restoration for the description, I think it might be best it stays there? I've also been thinking that if the Lonchodectes turns out to be inaccurate, we can make a version of the image that only shows Cimoliopterus. FunkMonk (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems I overlooked that Unwin actually gives a wing-span estimate for both the C. cuvieri holotype and an assigned specimen (which is considered Camposipterus(?) colorhinus by Rodrigues and Kellner) in this paper, it is hard to search in it because the letters don't seem to be properly searchable in the pdf:[13]. And as you mentioned earlier, Unwin states C. cuvieri is form the Cambridge Greensand whereas all other sources say it's from the Chalk Formation, so I'm not sure what's going on... And another specimen assigned by Seeley is figured here[14] (part of a lower jaw), but I can't find any more references to it... It is very confusing what happened to all the specimens assigned to it over the years, because they just don't get mentioned by subsequent authors... Maybe that's one of the things I can ask Holgado about when we're done writing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, sorry for not being that active expanding lately, I was mostly updating some stuff from other articles, and some other things preventing me from focusing on this. But yeah, even Witton's book mentions C. cuvieri as coming from the Chalk Group. Unwin estimates C. cuvieri up to 5 meters, which is more or less what Bowerbank and Witton estimated, but the good thing is that we could properly cite it. The strange thing, and yeah I'm also very confused, is that Unwin states that C. cuvieri is "by far the most common species of pterosaur from the Cambridge Greensand", and also mentions a specimen called "CAMSM B54.431", which I tried searching and it apparently also gets mentioned in C. dunni's desription. I'm guessing that some specimens just don't get mentioned by other authors since they're just too fragmentary or undiagnosable. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 06:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the interesting thing, Unwin gives a wingspan of just 3.5 m for the C. cuvieri holotype but up to 5 for specimen CAMSM B54.431 which you mentioned. This specimen is also mentioned by Rodrigues and Kellner, but as "Camposipterus(?) colorhinus comb. n., syntype CAMSM B54431"... So that's where the confusion arises, it is assigned to different species in each paper (and the specimen number is written differently)... And again, no problem with taking your time, I think my brain would explode if I worked on the article non-stop too, it's just too confusing haha... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I actually missed the 3.5 m estimate. I think I know why CAMSM B54431 is assigned to Camposipterus colorhinus and C. cuvieri at the same time, Unwin seems to consider C. colorhinus (back then known as Ornithocheirus colorhinus) as a synonym of C. cuvieri in his list of species and synonyms, this was rejected by Rodrigues and Kellner, considering C. cuvieri lacks an anterior expansion of the rostrum and a depression above the first pair of alveoli, which are present in Camposipterus colorhinus. This should probably be mentioned in either the history or classification section? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a bit arbitrary, but I think that justification of assignments and classifications should be covered in the classification section, while mere naming issues should be covered under history. Could probably be done in many other ways but that's at least one way to have a cut off point. Personally, I wonder if all these very similar species couldn't just be a reflection of intraspecific variation, which we know can be large in other pterosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, looking further into it, it seems there's some kind of pattern; Kellner tends to create new genera or species based on just a few differences, a good example is Dawndraco and his separation of Geosternbergia from Pteranodon, and Angaturama from Irritator as well I think, while Unwin simply synonymizes them, for example C. colorhinus with C. cuvieri. I mostly don't have an opinion in this, I usually just stick with the one that has most consensus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's certainly a lumper vs splitter element to it. Especially considering, which I had overlooked, that Unwin and colleagues even tentatively referred material from Australia and Russia to C. cuvieri! That was a bit of a headache to untangle for me last night, hehe, but now it's in the article. But now I have a much better overview of the literature, and I think we have cited most of it. There is a German book from 1978 that may have something relevant, but not sure how to go about with that... By the way, I was also thinking whether we should show a reconstructed skeleton of a more completely known relative, to give the reader some idea what it would look like, but I'm unsure what would even be a relative. These images are nice[15][16], but not sure if the taxa are close enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah, Aussiedraco seems to be more accepted though. Russian pterosaurs are quite rare, so if more research is done then that'll be quite interesting, and I never even knew possible remains of C. cuvieri were found there! The German book is the one by Wellnhofer, right? I was looking for that for Tropeognathus, seems like you found it, thanks I guess? Haha. But yeah, we could probably add generalized info from that source since it doesn't specifically talk about Cimoliopterus. Huh, perhaps Ferrodraco would be better since it's less controversial, the other one can either be Maaradactylus or Anhanguera spielbergi (I think the merge to Maaradactylus shouldn't have taken place because I realized that A. spielbergi is also used by Kellner several times). An alternative could be Tropeognathus[17]? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the Wellnhofer source, and no, I don't have it... Since it's German, maybe Jens Lallensack does? It is Wellnhofer P (1978) Pterosauria. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie, Teil 19. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart and New York, 82 pp. And I always found the skull in that Tropeognathus mount odd, looks like a sculpt rather than a reconstructed cast? FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also feel a bit weird looking at it, the skull especially is a bit too thin and the part where the eye sockets are is quite strange as well, perhaps we should better go with Ferrodraco then? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oops, I confused that with another source (Wellnhofer, 1987), nevermind what I said about needing it for Tropeognathus then. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and now the double cladogram does that weird thing where it creates white space between it and the image next to it. Perhaps IJReid or Lythronaxargestes know how to fix it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably because there's not much text and there's an image next to it, the image kind of prevents the cladogram from going up. The big space between the cladograms themselves however, I don't really know. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the figure caption that's doing it on my end. I don't see a space between the cladograms though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have the Wellnhofer source … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. What's in those sources that are relevant to Cimoliopterus anyway, apart from info about its possible group? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it the same issue that happened at Elasmosaurus and Lythronax once with their cladograms? Like there is something like the "clear" parameter that creates space between the image and the cladogram? As for the Wellnhofer book chapter, I don't know what it actually includes, only that it is cited in many papers that deal with the "Ornithocheirus complex"... FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just the lack of text and the size of the image that's causing this though, this has happened to me before with a few other articles where I then added some text and it became more normal, so let's just hope it's the same here. I added a large chunk of text just now to description, which talks about features of some dubious species tentatively assigned to Cimoliopterus, thought it may be good to discuss that. Oh, and since there aren't many fossil images of these species, could we perhaps move one of the images in history to description? But it may affect the text though? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed the column width to only 70% (previously 85%), does the space look smaller now? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, yeah it was also the width that caused it in the other articles! I think we should restrict the classification section to phylogeny rather than nomenclature/synonyms, so dubious species/synonyms are basically already covered under history. The classification section can still go into wider schemes, like the conflicting families and criteria for classifying taxa in them. For example, all the way back to the 19th century, in the original descriptions of these species, they started making schemes for how to group the various fragmentary species, which doesn't really hold up today. I can tell you the page numbers if you don't have an overview of them yet, but practically every paper has a view on higher level classification of these things, which should somehow be reflected under classification... And the Russian fossil is'n't considered anything more than a pteranodontoid by Rodrigues and Kellner, by the way... FunkMonk (talk)
Ah, yeah, I forgot to add a bit of info in description for the Russian specimen. The Pêgas and Holgado 2019 papers seem to discuss some stuff about the phylogenetic position of Cimoliopterus, same with Myers 2015. A paragraph in classification could be useful to discuss info from the older sources. Oh, and could you tell me the page numbers? I'm not really familiar with what sources they are. I wonder whether we should include some info about wing bones, since you uploaded an image of them.[18] However, it's hard to search info about the wing bones themselves, so I'm not really sure. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already dealt with most of thye dubious species and material under history, so I'm not sure it needs further treatment. The wing bone was never mentione again, and I think it's just because they're not diagnostic, so no recent palaeontologists would care to assign themto anything. As for old classification, here on the right page Bowerbank (1851) groups the pterodactyls into long-nosed and short-nosed species:[19] Here[20], Owen (1850s?) groups[21] pterosaurs into "Dentirostres" and "Subulirostres", and considers cuvieri part of the former. Under classification here[22], Seeley (1870) gives a sort of diagnosis for Ornithocheirus (wheren he placed cuvieri), "in which teeth are prolonged anterior to the muzzle, and the palate has a longitudinal ridge." Hooley (1914) placed them in umbered groups[23] based on various characters, assigning them to families and subfamilies later in the paper:[24] That should be something to start with, though it's of course not the easiest material to read and summarise! So I'll also give it a look over at a later time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sheesh, that's quite a lot, should probably just stick to major details so it's not so confusing. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found an interesting press release[25] about the discovery of C. dunni, and it includes a link to a Youtube video that is otherwise hidden:[26] Also has a bit of extra information we could use in the press release (wing-span, it was an adult, etc.). I'll add some of it now! FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I was just working on classification yesterday, but I got very tired so I decided to just save the text in my computer and continue today. Also, I was planning on expanding more earlier this week, but I just installed Huggle and had quite some fun with it, if you know what I mean. :P But yeah, if I have time, I should take advantage of it. Quite interesting how the YouTube video is hidden, the paper describing C. dunni also has copyright, seems like they're somewhat conservative with the species? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the history section is pretty much finished now as well, so I'll probably move on to palaeobiology later. I have no idea what Huggle is! Yeah, it's pretty weird with the Youtube video, almost makes me think it is a mistake? Why would you not want people to find it easily, when it is linked in their press release anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found much info about palaeobiology, but I'll quickly get into that after classification, I think the press release talks about C. dunni's diet, so that's some info. WP:Huggle is kind of an "app" that deals with vandalism in wikipedia, but you'll need Rollback rights if you want to install it, though I don't really know if you're gonna be interested in it since most of your contribs aren't really related to reverting vandalism? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I revert vandals when I see them, but I don't actively seek them out, hehe. I just found some more confusing stuff to add, apparently Pêgas and colleagues suggested that even Lonchodectes might be the same as Cimoliopterus... And I added most of the important stuff I could find about diet, so it's shaping up! FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was planning to add some stuff about relationships between Lonchodectes and Cimoliopterus in classification later on, for now though I'm sorting out important stuff from older sources, I think that's what I least prefer in classification, older sources are just so confusing and hard to sort out, hehe. But yeah, little by little I'll get there! On the subject of diet, I don't really know where to start, but I guess I'll think about that when I also get there. And yeah, about the vandals, I actually find it quite fun to revert their edits, especially when I have the change to make jokes and maybe even embarrasing them, haha! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't even need to add more about paleobiology, but I'll look out for more. I just asked Borja Holgado a few questions per email (about assigned limb bones, why Unwin says it's from another formation, and if all the teeth originally described are lost). But I might move on to palaeoenvironment or look over description next. Feel free to ask if you have any questions regarding the older sources! FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seems you've covering much of the same ground under taxonomic history as I already covered under history! I think naming issues should be kept under the first history section, with the classification section mainly dealing with phylogenetic positions of taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part, the one from Hooley? I added the species there to discuss the species included in "Group No. 1", which Hooley named as Ornithocheirus, so it kinda looks confusing? I think the last bit could be removed though, I'll do it now. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Facepalm*, what I referred to was text you actually just replaced, haha... So no problem after all. By the way, I just found many more free PDF papers about C. cuvieri by searching "cuvieri" along with "pterosaur" in Google Scholar, because then you'll find articles that use any possible combination of its binomial... FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that does work! But I don't know if they'll have that much info though. Changing the topic, I was planning on uploading the jaw image of C. dunni[27], doing it an overhaul (e.g. changing the color, greatly changing the position, etc.), and marking it as "own work", in the end it's just a fossil specimen and no one "owns" it, or is it still copyright violation? Same goes for Aetodactylus jaws if possible[28]. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But someone owns the photo, though! So it can't be done that way. Alternatively, we could maybe trace iver the photo... But we still need a restoration and a size comparison as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even at to the point where it's unnoticeable? *Sigh* But I guess that's just how copyright works, quite frustrating, but in the end it's also not really worth it if you get into problems. I may try doing a size comparison with basic stuff that I have, but I'm not really that good, I'll try some time either way. We could also request at the image review, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we can just request it, once we determine which size estimates to use, hehe. And through Google scholar, I stumbled upon the most confusing statement yet, from Bennett 1993[29]: "The type specimen of Ornithocheirus cuvieri (BMNH R.41637; Owen 1851) from the English Chalk is an incomplete right first wing phalanx that is preserved without the extensor tendon process fused to it." No other sources state this! But I'm unsure what year the Owen paper that deals with this bone is from, it is our current citation 9, and seems to be a compilation of papers... I assume Bennett either thought it predated Bowerbank's article, or that Bowerbank's description was invalid? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last issue is so strange that I'll ping MWAK in the desperate hope that he knows something! FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've seen that paper, still desperate on improving the Pteranodon article some day, haha! But yeah, very strange how he cites "Owen 1851", maybe he confused it with Pterodactylus compressirostris (also erroneously long thought to have been the type species of Ornithocheirus), whom author is exactly Owen 1851. Upon searching, I found this, which not only shows the same number (PV OR 41637) as the one cited by Bennett, but it also has images of what's suppose to be the assigned wing bones, it's clear that it belongs to Cimoliopterus because it's labeled as Ornithocheirus cuvieri. This is starting to get very confusing, hehe! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded an image of it[30], and mentioned it previously under history, but wasn't aware anyone thought it was the type specimen. I wonder if we should mention it in the text, but it would be best if we then had a later source that specifically stated Bennett was wrong... FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could add something like "palaeontologist Christopher Bennett considered it the type specimen", though I think explaining why he considers it is still best to be added, but the sources don't have that type of info, and are very scarce. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a strange case :o). Apart from a simple mistake, I can only offer this speculation as a possible explanation. Perhaps Bennett in some future publication intended to defend the following position: Bowerbank (1851) contained an insufficient description and thus only generated a nomen nudum; Owen is therefore the valid author; the snout and wing elements form a syntype series; the snout in fact can be referred to some already named pterosaur; BMNH R.41637 can therefore be chosen as the lectotype. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he thought better of it and never published.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I don't think all of this could be added since it's just a speculation, but we could add that "he referred a wing bone as the type specimen" or that he considered Owen to be the author. If there were more Bennett papers about this they'll probably be very hard to find, not mentioning that some of them are very hard to access, even when using SciHub for example. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plausible explanation, I think we could get away with mentioning Bennentt's statement, and then state specifically when we get to later publications (such as Unwin 2001) that they considered the snout the holotype. But perhaps it would be neat to show the bone, since we have an image of it... FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Bowerbank (1851), another possibility crossed my mind: Bennett might well have been confused by Bowerbank's very florid style of writing. His phrase "it will then remain to be shown whether the beautiful specimen of radius and ulna in the Collection of Mrs Smith of Tunbridge Wells (...) belong[s] to the newly discovered species, which I purpose to designate Pterodactylus Cuvieri, or to the previously named species P. giganteus" could by a quick reading or imprecise copying by hand ("a newly discovered species") lead to the mistaken conclusion that the arm elements are the type to which the snout was referred, instead of the other way around. The arm is not described in Bowerbank, which would in this incorrect interpretation make Owen the author.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, very difficult to figure out what those old papers say before things were more formalised... Good we didn't choose to expand Ornithocheirus itself! FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when I first started to settle here, I got the idea of expanding Ornithocheirus, but I refrained, and I'll keep doing it for clear reasons, apart from its complex taxonomy and history, studies on the animal itself lack (e.g. paleobiology, size...), it's more worth it to just expand for example Anhanguera, which, apart from having a less complex taxonomy, due to the numerous fossils found, many more studies have been published about it (e.g. about flight, feeding, etc.). Ornithocheirus is just too complex and not worth it in my opinion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think it's worthy for historical reasons, but it'll be a huge headache... At least it would be easier now, that most writers restrict it to O. simus (and now there's no disagreement on what the type specimen is). Anhanguera has the problem that no one seems to agree what species to include in it... I think Tropeognathus might actually be the easiest candidate to write about for this kind of pterosaur, though I think there are still a few authors who synonymise it with something else? But it does seem we're going the way of monotypic pterosaur genera in general with recent research... FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah, the historical part would certainly be a headache, but not many studies focus on O. simus, though exploiting all sources that we have might be a good option for it, but it's gonna be tricky. Tropeognathus would definitely be the easiest, totally agreed. What I think makes Anhanguera worth it is that there are many more studies about it, but yeah, its taxonomy is still quite confusing. I also started to gain interest in azhdarchoid pterosaurs, especially Tupuxuara, azhdarchids, and tapejarids, many of which are definitely worth it to expand, but let's focus on Cimoliopterus first, hehe... Oh, and yeah, Unwin does consider Tropeognathus a species of Ornithocheirus, but can't recalla any recent study recovering this, even Andres, who supports Ornithocheiridae, doesn't use Ornithocheirus mesembrinus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 11:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think we should try to get an FA for a member of every major pterosaur clade in the long run, but until now I've been the only one working towards this goals, so it's certainly nice with some company! Maybe we could discuss somewhere else what the best contenders for each clade could be, like we did with dinosaurs in the past... By the way, is there any clade name that both UK and Brazilian researchers agree on that includes all these crested Ornithocheirus-like things? Ornithocheirae? Perhaps MWAK knows... It'll be handy in this article instead of just writing "related pterosaurs" over and over... And do you have this[31] paper you used, JurassicClassic76? I can't find it... FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a shame that not so many editors are interested in pterosaurs. I have this list of a bunch of (mostly) pterosaurs that I've planned to expand, though some are only tentative, you can consider these my goals, I guess? We could of course discuss specific articles privately if you want. To encompass all the Ornithocheirus-like pterosaurs there's not really a solid term that is agreed on; Orntihocheirae, if using the Brazilian definition, would be the perfect one, but the problem is when using the British definition, which the group only includes Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae, excluding several Ornithocheirus-like pterosaurs, so apparently for now there's no such solif term. Ah, unfortunately, I don't have the source, I added it to the article when I was not so familiarized with sources and all that stuff, so I saw the short statement and just picked a random citation that has the title about pterosaur size, quite funny how I was back then, haha! But yeah, now that I know how sources work, that won't happen again. Hm, maybe Lythronaxargestes has it since he used it in Hatzegopteryx? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! It can be accessed through the Chinese website. Here is the page: [32] and here is the pdf (downloads directly): [33] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lythronaxargestes (seems cuvieri isn't actually mentioned in that source)! You've also worked on a bunch of pterosaur GAs, perhaps some of them could be taken further? And hey, Arambourgiania is also on my list, so perhaps it could be our future azhdarchid collab? Quetzalcoatlus is a bit problematic, since the large holotype needs revaluation, and the more complete smaller specimens probably belong in another genus... FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been the first one to thank, but apparently there was an edit conflict, hehe! Yeah, I've seen Arambourgiania in your list, we could definitely have another collab, sounds good! Oh, and yeah, just like Pteranodon, Quetzalcoatlus is an article that I really want to improve, since it is the most most famous azhdarchid after all, but yeah, just like Pteranodon again, I'll have to work hard and go deeper into its history and all that crazy stuff. And about the GAs, I think Pterodactylus could be taken to FA some day, but for sure it's gonna be among the hardest to work, not to mention a lot of historical info is still missing... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might like to revisit Hatzegopteryx someday - it was one of my first article expansions! It needs some work though. Sadly life keeps me too busy to do anything substantial. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning on leveling it up to FA? Maybe we could do some kind of collab if you want in the future? Or do you prefer to carry on alone? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong sense of ownership about it. I think there's some research in the works that needs to come out before a proper promotion though, like the description of that "Dracula" specimen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if all of it will stay in the same genus, since much of it doesn't seem to overlap? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that classification is generally done, I'm moving towards paleobiology, though description might need some minor fixes for prose quality, but that's gonna be quite easy. I don't really know where to exactly start at palaeobiology, I thought of adding some info about targaryendraconians to make it appear more neutral since you added stuff about ornithocheirids, but there's not much information about their paleobiology... Hm, I'll still see what I can find! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all that needs to be added there is some general stuff about the wider ornithocheiran group, I don't think anything has ever been published about more specific clades within it, except maybe specific genera/species, which would be diffficult to use here. And I'm in the process of adding the last stuff from Witton and what he cites, so I think it'll be done soon anyway. Maybe you can add description of the teeth of C. cuvieri from Bowerbank[34] and Owen[35] (relevant pages linked)? They described the now missing teeth in some detail. One of the newer papers (at least Myers) also mentions that the lost teeth had striations and that this was a feature of C. cuivieri, so they must still be considered correctly assigned. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another subject that could have some paragraphs or even a section under classification could be palaeobiogeography, seems there's a lot to say about the relations between the old world and new world taxa, going back to when C. cuvieri was considered a species of Anhagnguera. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah, this is discussed is several sources, I can try doing it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and other than that, it's just paleoenvironment left, which is kind of the boring part, hehe... And then of course, tweaking the rest of the text and writing an intro summary. I don't think we need to add more to palaeobiology at this stage. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, to make it clear again, paleobiogeography discusses the distribution and relationships with respect to the location of certain creatures, or something like that, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and how this distribution came to be. Myers actually explains this for the two species in the video under external links, so I'm sure the paper does too... FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly chipping away at palaeoenvironment. I was wondering whether all the dubious species mentioned in the text can really be listed as possible synonyms in the infobox, since some of them have not explicitly been stated to be? For example P. fittoni and Lonchodectes, it's specifically been said they're too fragmentary to conclude anything? But some of the species listed as synonyms by Unwin (which are not yet listed) could be put there, since it has been formally proposed... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added most of them, should we also add the listed synonyms of P. fittoni? Or is it too dubious at that point? Hm, I've seen you already started paleobiogeography, I'm gonna try to continue it as soon as possible, but I'm just too busy at the moment... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, fittoni was never directly called a synonym? Even Unwin considered it separate... But the latest papers say it is too fragmentary to tell, but it could be. And I didn't actually write the text under paleogeography, the text was just moved from another section hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the description of the teeth and begun expanding the intro. I also removed some text that stated it was the flying animal known at the time; while probably true, it is not stated in any of the sources used. Do you know where it came from, JurassicClassic767? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've also seen you requested a size comparison, seems like I'm left way behind, I still haven't finished paleobiogeography! About the text, I think it was already stated there before we even started the collab, so might as well just remove it since it's unsourced. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you've already done a lot! But yeah, I think we're very close with the article, therefore I requested the size comparison. I'll read through the text you wrote and see if there's anyting to add and tweak, then I'll finish the intro, and when paleobiogeograpy is done, I think we're ready for GAN... And if we can find anything that supports the claims I remove,d we can of course add it back. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the features that unite the species to the first level description section, which means some of what is in the species sections is now repeated, but I'll try to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's maybe better to unite the paleobiogeography info with that on the evolution of the crest in a more inclusive "evolution" section, JurassicClassic767, and if you're too busy at the moment, I'll try to expand that section soon. I think we can nominate this for GAN soon after that part has been written (and list it for copy-edit), if you think the rest of the text is fine. I've tweaked some of the description and will also read through the classification section later. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be as productive as I can, though maybe not immediately. Ugh, I can't believe we'd reach until May to write the article, hehe... yeahhh, not so funny, though... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The literature was much more complicated than what I anticipated, so it makes sense it would be harder and slower to do. But we're so close now that it only needs a little push! FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I squeezed all about evolution I could find out, JurassicClassic767, so I think we can proof-read, and soon send this to GAN... FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I did quite expect you do it, though I do feel a bit sorry for not doing even a bit of the lead, oh well... The article is looking much nicer than before though, and maybe I can do most of the proof-reading since it's an easier task. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we both proof-read, we'll catch more errors, hehe. And maybe notice more than can be added, though the article is already surprisingly long,much longer than I expected. But you already did quite a lot of work for what will hopefully be your first GA/FA. Now we're waiting for a copy-edit, and for me to do the restoration, hehe. I added a size comparison, feel free to critique, I think the snout needs to be modified, as I just took an image of an anhanguerid. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, that was fast, everything felt like it just passed by! I guess I was a bit too slow for it, hehe! This is my first time at FAC, so I hope I don't mess this up! And hopefully our next collab won't take as long as this one, heck, we started this in September last year I think! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it went pretty well considering how complicated the subject was! The FAC will be like the GAN, just with more reviewers, and they will probably not be as familiar with the subject as Jens, so they'll probably have more trouble understanding the complicated parts. As for the DYK, I've only done it once before, so I'm not exactly experienced with that either, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • premaxillary crest – needs at least a link.
There's no specific article about the term "premaxillary crest", so just linked premaxillary to premaxilla. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article for Crest (feathers), but its about feather structures in birds... Then there is also Sagittal crest, which was used in some 80s sources for the jaw crests, but not sure how appropriate it is... FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and was made the holotype specimen of the species Pterodactylus cuvieri in 1851. – Since it is the lead, maybe we can avoid "holotype" here? Just writing "and was described as the new species Pterodactylus vuvieri in 1851" or similar might do the trick as well, but in a more accessible way?
Did as suggested, also for C. dunni. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific name – I would repeat the specific name here ("specific name cuvieri"), so that the reader sees what the specific name is, so that they do not have to look up the term.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • whereas the genus was then used for many different pterosaur species – which genus? Cimoliopterus or Pterodactylus? Again, I would repeat the name here so that it is totally clear what you are talking about.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the generic name – ditto
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. cuvieri is estimated to have had a wing-span of 3.5 metres (11 ft), and while C. dunni is thought to have been of similar size, its wing-span has been estimated at 1.8 metres (6 ft). – Isn't that just contradicting? 1.8 vs. 3.5 metres in wing span is not a similar size.
Changed "similar" to "smaller". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed structure --> C. cuvieri is estimated to have had a wing-span of 3.5 metres (11 ft), while C. dunni is thought to have had a smaller size, with an estimated wing-span of only 1.8 metres (6 ft). - Changing "similar" to "smaller" caused a bit of confusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's because the sources actually do contradict each other. In the paper, Myers states the holotypes of the two species are of similar size, but he doesn't give a size estimate. But then in the press release, he gives that smaller size estimate for C. dunni, without referring to earlier estimates of C. cuvieri. So I'm not sure what to do, but we can't change "similar" so "smaller", because the source actually says similar, and are not consistent with each other... So I guess we have to choose whether we want to say similar and not give an estimate for C. dunni in the intro, or remove similar, and just give the two estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, considering the holotypes of both animals are quite similar in size, we could perhaps opt for not giving the estimate, though it may still add confusion in the description section. We should obviously still be as neutral as possible on structuring it, though... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the size estimate of C. dunni from the intro, as the description section gives some more context to as why they're different estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related ornithocheirids show that the group were fairly large pterosaurs, – a bit awkward, since the "group" (Ornithocheiridae?) was not introduced. Maybe simply "Related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" to avoid this?
Yes, this is even more iffy as there is some confusion as what exactly to call its group, as Brazilian and British workers use different systems... I tried with "More completely known related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" there and under description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was thereafter considered an ornithocheiran, and Cimoliopterus was – why first "It" and than explicitly mention the genus nonetheless? Maybe just remove "Cimoliopterus"?
This is also a bit tricky, because the first part of the sentence refers to the species cuvieri (before the second species was known), and the second to the genus as a whole. I tried to split it like this: "The affinities of C. cuvieri were long unclear due to the fragmentary nature of it and other English pterosaurs, until more complete relatives were reported from Brazil in the 1980s, whereafter it was considered an ornithocheiran. Cimoliopterus was moved to the family Cimoliopteridae within the clade Targaryendraconia in 2019, with its closest relative being Camposipterus." FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. cuvieri was found in the Grey Chalk Subgroup, whereas C. dunni was found in the Britton Formation. – This looks a bit "attached". If you just want to mention these formations, maybe do so when the specimens themselves are introduced? Or give a bit more information on the formations here so that the sentence does not look so attached? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to first paragraph before locations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • pterosaurs (an extinct group of flying reptiles) – just my personal opinion, so feel free to ignore, but I wonder if it makes sense to define this very central term in the article body but not in the lead. The lead should be the most accessible section. So, ideally, we should either put this explanation right into the first sentence, or not explain it at all. Maybe I would go with the latter option.
I added it there because someone asked me to explained it during a FAC of another pterosaur. I don't really think it's necessary, just did it to be safe. I can drop it if we think it won't be a problem? FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even asked to explain what a sauropod is in Bajadasaurus, and don't think that such things should become standard. But this GAN will not depend on it of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed it for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of Cimoliopterus – specify "history of research" as opposed to evolutionary history for extra clarity.
Added "taxonomic history", as that's what it's specifically about. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The holotype specimen (which the scientific name is based on) of P. cuvieri consists of – Not sure if this is easy to follow. It doesn't sound like you are referring to the same snout you mentioned in the previous paragraph. With this intro ("The holotype specimen") it appears as if you would introduce another specimen, because there is no connection. Maybe get rid of the term "holotype" here, maybe add it as a separate sentence afterwards (e.g., "It forms the holotype of …".)
What if I said something like "the specimen/fossil that was made the holotype (specimen) of P. cuvieri"? Could also fix the issue below? FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, somehow get the snout in there (e.g., "Bowerbank's snout"), I just fear that the reader will not get that you are talking about this previously introduced specimen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The snout which Bowerbank made the holotype specimen (which the scientific name is based on) of P. cuvieri", does that make sense, or is it too complicated? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor point regarding above sentence: I think it should be "C. cuvieri", since you describe the holotype in present tense ("The holotype consists of").
Ah, this is tricky then, because I think it would seem incongruent with the rest of the text, as "chronologically" it wouldn't be called that at the point it was made the holotype. What if I left out the binomial? If the alternate wording suggested above doesn't cut it, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter much, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • right first tooth socket (at the front of the snout), – "first right"? Not sure if "(at the front of the snout)" is really needed here.
Changed to "first right", but as for removing the explanation, I could imagine some readers wouldn't know that "first" automatically means at the front of the snout? If their main reference is human teeth, it would be very difficult to figure out what "first" means? FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • for which the known jaw material proved its validity[19] – dot missing
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franz Nopcsa von Felső-Szilvás in 1924, who found the skull reconstructions "worthless".[20] – I think it should say "some skull reconstructions", since he only commented on some of them as far as I can see, O. cuvieri not included.
Added "some of the". FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • showing that they too had premaxillary crests – not clear on what "they" refers to. The Brazilian pterosaurs, one might assume.
The English, actually (so it was confusing it seems), changed to: "the discovery of the related and much better preserved Brazilian species made this clearer, showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised." Better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Anhanguera was described in 1985, it was thought to be the only pterosaur with such a crest known until that point (then referred to as a sagittal crest). – I found this to be confusing, probably because it is out of chronology (the previous sentence was about a 1987 paper). Maybe just remove?
Maybe it can be simplified, but the reason it is included, and in this manner, is because it's the only source that states Anhanguera was the only pterosaur known with a premaxillary crest until that point, but the source itself therefore does not connect it to any other pterosaurs, including cuvieri, so if I mentioned it first, it would be difficult to establish why it was relevant. Any alternative suggestions are welcome, but I do think it is relevant for context to show that even when the first pterosaur with such a crest was found, it wasn't recognised that others were already known? Especially since cuvieri was subsequently even assigned to that genus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I would leave as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ornithocheirus had become something of a wastebin – Since "wastebasket taxon" is a defined term, the "something of" seems redundant. If he said it was a wastebasket taxon, than we can say just that.
Removed "something of", but do you suggest I also change it to "wastebasket taxon"? The source only says "a wastebin". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wastebin is fine I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He considered it the most common pterosaur of its formation, – Why "its" formation? The species is known from other formations as well?
This confused me in the source, but I've now made it clearer that the assigned specimens was from another formation: "He assigned 23 jaw fragment from the Cambridge Greensand Formation to A. cuvieri , and considered it the most common pterosaur of that formation." FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing because there is no single usage throughout the historical sources, and the terms have only been consolidated recently. This is explained under palaeoenvironment, I think it would maybe be confusing to explain it earlier than that? The issue is similar in Podokesaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should always use the currently accepted term, and should not care too much about outdated terminology. If it is important, maybe give the current (previously introduced) name and than a gloss like, e.g., "at the time known as …"? As it currently is, I think it is very confusing, it is not even clear if you are talking about the same set of rock units or something entirely different when you switch terms. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went and called it "Grey Chalk Subgroup" which is the current name, so the first mention says "which was found in the Lower Culand Pit in what is now called the Grey Chalk Subgroup at Burham, Kent". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CE is done, but I have some corrections to it I'll do today. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the other source used the other term, so I wondered if there was any distinction, but there probably isn't, so now used the same word. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, Myers stated the holotypes of the two species belonged to individuals of a similar size – The two Cimoliopterus species, I assume? This should be clarified, as you just talked about two different species (Ornithocheirus colorhinus), and the reader might assume you refer to them.
Named the species. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subtle sideways flare on the snout tip – I suggest "This subtle sideways expansion of the snout tip" to use consistent terminology, which makes it much easier to follow as you are totally clear you are talking about the same feature mentioned in the previous sentence.
Changed two places. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is very dissimilar to the pronounced snout expansions of other pterosaurs like Anhanguera, Coloborhynchus and Ornithocheirus. – somehow repetitive; you already state unlike in many other toothed pteranodontoids where this expansion is more pronounced. I also see no need to use such a strong word as "very" here.
Removed, added the examples to the other sentence. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pterosaurs, Cimoliopterus would have been covered in pycnofibres (hair-like filaments), – "As a pterosaur"?
It was written so it would include both species, but it probably makes it more confusing, so I made it singular. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with proportionally large skulls, with long jaws and tooth-rows, often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws – Does not sound like a grammatically continuous sentence. Formulate it like an enumeration, maybe?
Changed to with proportionally large skulls, long jaws and tooth-rows, and often with large, rounded crests at the front of the jaws. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pterosaurs, Cimoliopterus would have been covered in pycnofibres … – This whole paragraph provides good context unspecific for the genus. I would therefore expect it to be the fist paragraph of the description section. But if it was, I would mention the pycnofibers only later, and start with the most obvious features.
I moved the part about pycnofibres and wing-membranes last in the paragraph, but since there is so much unspecific info about the wider group in the paragraph, I thought it would give it undue-weight to have it first in the section? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The front portion of the ridge of the palate reaches the level of the third tooth pair. The palate itself is curved upwards and there is no expansion of the jaw at the front. The second tooth pair is about the same size as the third, and both are larger than the fourth tooth pair. Towards the rear part of the jaw, the distance between the teeth gradually increases. – all of this is just repetition of what was already mentioned. I am not a fan of the structure of the description section. I think a single section on the skull, where both species are discussed together on a feature-by-feature basis, might be easier to read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I recognise that there is some repetition due to shared features, I have two issues with this approach. One is that I think the description will be very difficult to parse, as the two species would be discussed together, making it more difficult to figure out what info refers to which species. Then there's also the issue that the two species are kept in a single genus on somewhat shaky grounds, so in the case C. dunni is split off into a new genus, it would be much easier to separate the info as it is structured now. Perhaps another solution could be to reduce additional repetition by moving all info on shared features to the upper level description section (where I thought it already was), which now has the diagnostic features of the genus as a whole, removing or rewriting it somehow? Perhaps the sections could just do with less detail? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just see it from a reader's perspective. Yes, restricting the species paragraphs to features specific for that species could work as well. In general, you have a whole lot of text for two jaw fragments, and condensing it would certainly make it nicer to read for general folks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed a lot of repetitive text, and one of the problems is for example that the source had listed the same features as diagnostic for each species, and I must have been unsure if it would then be improper for me to not mention it, but since it is already mentioned for the genus too, it should be ok. Do you think the removal of this is enough? FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to think about these two last ones later today, because I'm not sure it's a straightforward fix, I'll be back... FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had much brain power the last days, but now I've answered the last two points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging JurassicClassic767, as much of the rest is from "his" sections, I may not have as much familiarity with the sources used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • as well as various bones possibly belonging to C. cuvieri Bowerbank – comma missing, otherwise it reads like the full scientific name (with Bowerbank as naming authority)
Added. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mix in thense, e.g. "the palatal ridge (which ran along the middle of the palate) extended" while other parts are in presence
Fixed, it seems to have been restricted to the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • unlike the "spoon-like" expansions seen in many other toothed pteranodontoids, such as Anhanguera, Coloborhynchus, and Ornithocheirus, where it is more pronounced. – "where it is more pronounced" seems superfluous and was slightly irritating.
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More completely known related genera were fairly large pterosaurs" – what speaks against having this section as the first in the "Description"? As a general introduction, it makes sense to place it before all the detail.
I personally try to put size info first in all the article's I've written (I think), but I've now moved it before the genus diagnosis. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second and third sockets are similar in size and larger than the fourth" and "The second tooth pair is about the same size as the third, and both are larger than the fourth tooth pair" is repetitive
Removed, just left the one where general characteristics are discussed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that was similar, but not repeated, was also removed, though: Note that for C. cuvieri it is "There are almost three sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front and two sockets every 3 cm (1 in) towards the back.", but for C. dunni it is "with three sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front and three sockets every 3 cm (1 in) towards the back". FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've just re-read the Myers paper where this is stated, I apparently made a mistake putting "three" twice, it's actually just "two". The difference though it that in C. cuvieri, it states "almost", while in C. dunni it states 3 cm flat, I think it should still be changed either way. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a bit difficult when the features are so similar... FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to this: "There are three tooth sockets per 3 cm (1 in) of jaw margin towards the front of the jaw in C. dunni, while in C. cuvieri there are almost three sockets per 3 cm (1 in). However, towards the back of the jaw, there are two sockets every 3 cm (1 in) in both species." Even though there's a slight difference, I don't think it's worth discussing it separately in their respective subsections. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cuvieri also does not have a fourth and fifth pair of tooth sockets that are smaller than the third and sixth" – I fear that this could be misunderstood in a way that it did not have a fourth and fifth pair at all.
Changed to "also does not have its fourth and fifth pair of tooth sockets smaller than its third and sixth" to indicate possession. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contained a new tooth" – "newly erupted tooth"?
Changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the old teeth – "fully erupted"?
Also changed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from where they would have emerged" – I don't get this part, delete?
Deleted, I think it just meant they would have emerged from these inner walls. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revealing they were composed of compact, hard dentine, sheathed by a thin coat of enamel." – "that was sheated by a …" for better flow to make it easier to predict the sentence structure? This disrupted my reading flow abit.
Done. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fine, unequal longitudinal ridges" – "unequal" in what way? Irregular?
Added, in length. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provide a full differential diagnosis (comparing the species in detail with related species). This is very short-lived information though that will soon be outdated. I therefore suggest to use author attribution, also to give it a "time stamp".
There are basically two diagnoses, from 2013 and 2015, so I've added mention if these at the first genus diagnosis, then the reader should know it is these the rest of the descritpion section is based on, to avoid repeating it? This is what I've written: "Rodrigues and Kellner provided a single diagnosis (a list of features distinguishing a taxon from its relatives) for the genus Cimoliopterus and species C. cuvieri in 2013, which Myers amended in 2015 when including C. dunni." FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cortical bone (the hard outer layer of bones) is well-preserved in C. dunni, however, on the left side of the crest, the conjoinment between premaxilla and maxilla is not visible. On the right side, there are several regions where cortical bone is damaged or missing." – This might qualify as excessive detail, especially the second sentence. Are you discussing the cortical bone in general (I thought you do) or just that of the crest? If you decide to keep it, consider to also state the implications (why is it relevant).
I shortened it much and moved it up to where the condition of the fossil is mentioned, as "The cortical bone (the hard outer layer of bones) is well-preserved, though there are several regions where it is damaged or missing." Maybe it's not needed at all, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I added that part to give a bit more info about the crest. I think it doesn't really matter if it gets removed or not, it's just a small piece of info. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the point where a curve changes from convex to concave" – "the point where the surface changes" to be more relevant to what you describe in this article?
Changed, I just put the definition of "inflection point" there before, so it may not be that understandable. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second and third sockets are similar in size and larger than the fourth" – this is now repeated for the third time, and as I reader, I would expect to find features distinct for the species (C. dunni) at this point, since this is how you opened the paragraph.
Removed, same as with the other repeated one. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

  • "to a group he referred to as Dentirostres" –shouldn't be in italics if higher as genus
Removed italics, but I have no idea what it's supposed to be, it is written with italics by Owen[36], but it is not given any rank... The term was apparently coined by von Meyer, but it may be too much of a sidetrack if I include more info about it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hooley named this group "Group No. 1" and designated the genus name Ornithocheirus for it." – But it was stated earlier that already Seeley (1870) had the genus Ornithocheirus.
Hooley just used the name "Ornithocheirus" for his "Group No. 1". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subcircular (nearly circular)" – you could write something like "near-circular", avoiding the term and explanation.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link sister groups
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The phylogeny of Cimoliopterus has since been complicated further due to the inclusion of C. dunni in 2015." – Do you mean "The taxonomy"?
Changed. But I wonder if it is unnecessry editorializing, as the source doesn't exactly state this outright. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it for now, since the source doean't phrase it like that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (formerly assigned to the Ornithocheiridae[37]) – I think you don't need "the"
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sister group, sister taxon – stick with one term
Doesn't it depend on what they include? For example "with it and "Ornithocheirus" polyodon forming a sister group to the new clade Anhangueria" would work best with group as it is plural, but "with C. dunni as the sister taxon of this clade" can only work with taxon, as it's a single species? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a result recovered if the character coding of teeth texture was scored as ambiguous." – These are details of the methodology of a particular study. This (and related sentences) become highly detailed. In the next paragraph, you say "Myers's phylogenetic analysis indicates the genus Cimoliopterus is paraphyletic (an "unnatural group"), but this result fully relies on the coding of C. dunni's tooth texture." – I think this is all information we really need regarding this aspect.
I assume you meant "don't really need"? I think it's important to note how little it takes to keep the two species from being sister taxa, but it is probably too complexly written. I've tried to simpllify it as: "The arrangement of the resulting cladograms ("family trees" showing interrelationships) depended on how the uncertain tooth texture of C. dunni was interpreted; if it was coded as "ambiguous", C. dunni became the sister taxon to a clade composed of C. cuvieri and Aetodactylus halli, and if it was coded as striated, C. dunni became the sixter taxon of C. cuvieri, with A. halli as the sister taxon to that clade." FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aetodactylus contains parts of two teeth, one of them which does not have surface texture, and another that shows visible striations (series of ridges or margins). Thus, the lack of striations on the" tip of C. dunni's tooth crown does not necessarily indicate they did not appear on fully developed teeth.[7]" – I remember that this was mentioned earlier already, in a much shorter form.
I changed this to: "Aetodactylus contains parts of two teeth, one of them which does not have surface texture, and another that shows visible striations, unlike in C. dunni's tooth crown." - I removed the earlier statement of Aetodactylus and just kept the info about the lack of strations in C. dunni in description. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified all of this further so that it doesn't feel as repetetive. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The characteristic of having increasing tooth socket size towards the rear part of the skull in the upper jaws of C. dunni and C. cuvieri differs notably from the decreasing tooth socket size in the mandible of Aetodactylus towards the back of the skull. Additionally, the height of the jaws in Cimoliopterus and Aetodactylus is noticeably different; the height of the upper jaw (the crest excluded) of Cimoliopterus is slightly greater than its width, which is unlike the shallow lower jaw of Aetodactylus, where its width greatly exceeds its height" – This is all differential diagnosis again, which you already provide in the "Description" section. Keeping differential diagnoses at one place seems better.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it is still possible for it to have a close relationship with Aetodactylus" – already mentioned
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cladogram of their phylogenetic analysis is presented below on the left.[34]" – I think there is some policy that we should avoid referring to figs in the text.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presented new interrelationships of the group Anhangueria," – The interrelationships themselves stay the same can can't be "new"?
Hm, some of the interrelationships are a bit different than in previous studies, but I think this should be discussed better in the Anhangueria and not here. To avoid confusion or irrelevance, I just changed it to "presented a new study". JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This characteristic can be seen in all species assigned to the Targaryendraconia" – redundant, you already said it is characteristic for the group.
Removed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • several synapomorphies (shared derived trait) – traits
Fixed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including a small front projection of the snout tip above the first pair of tooth sockets, the front end of the palatal ridge reaching a certain level between the second and third pair of tooth sockets, the first three pairs of tooth sockets being closely packed together, and the first pair of tooth sockets separated by a layer of bone." – repeating features over and over again makes it very difficult to read. In this aspect, the article feels more like a journal article than an encyclopedic treatment directed to the general audience. In this instance, I would simply move the information to Cimoliopteridae, as this seems to be the right place.
Removed from here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lonchodectes most likely also represents a targaryendraconian, because the proportions between the long axis of the tooth sockets and the width of the dentary sulcus (potential space between a tooth and the surrounding gums) seen in Lonchodectes matches well with those seen in targaryendraconians. The slender dentary symphysis with parallel margins as well as the deep dentary sulcus are other features that demonstrate that Lonchodectes may indeed be a possible targaryendraconian, or even synonymous with C. cuvieri, though this is impossible to determine due to the lack of overlapping bones between the two." – Why is all of this relevant here?
Removed, as it is already mentioned more briefly under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rest

  • "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America retained palaeobiogeographical (geographical distribution of prehistoric animal groups) affinities by the mid-Cretaceous," – why not simply "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous"?
I just wanted to get the term palaeobiogeographical in there with a link so readers could go on to that subject, but I tried a compromise described below... FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adding the similarity between Aetodactylus (also from Texas) and Cimoliopterus, Myers concluded that though the North Atlantic Ocean went through an ongoing widening in the mid-Cretaceous, the similarities between North America, Europe and northern Africa continued" – this again reads repetitive and overly wordy again. In case you take my suggestion above, you could amend that sentence to "showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous despite the ongoing widening of the North Atlantic Ocean", and remove the sentence completely.
I tried to fix the two points above, while also retaining some information that would otherwise be cut, but which I think was important. The new sentence reads: "In 2015, Myers stated that the discovery of C. dunni in North America extended the distribution of the genus Cimoliopterus, showing that the pterosaur faunas of Europe and North America were similar by the mid-Cretaceous despite the ongoing widening of the North Atlantic Ocean. That pterosaurs retained palaeobiogeographical (geographical distribution of prehistoric animal groups) affinities by the mid-Cretaceous was also supported by other related pterosdaurs identified in North America, Europe and northern Africa, such as Coloborhynchus and Uktenadactylus." FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • second paragraph of "Feeding" lacks citation.
Whoops, added... FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Veldmeijer and colleagues noted that since the bodies of these pterosaurs were very small," – Is "very" really appropriate here? And maybe remove the "the bodies of"?
Removed "very", but I think we need to say "bodies", because the point is that the bodies were small compared to the big heads (the heads could obtain bigger prey than the bodies could contain). But if I said "they were small", it would look like the entire animal was meant. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helped distance the body from the water's surface" – "from the water surface"?
Changed, but I think both would work? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high-modulus material" – link?
I'm not actually sure what it is, but I linked to Elastic modulus? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "94 million year ago" – years
Oops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, looking all good, promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Models in Crystal Palace Park
Models in Crystal Palace Park
  • ... that Cimoliopterus was among the first pterosaurs to be depicted as models (pictured) in Crystal Palace Park in the 1850s? Source for being among first such models:[37] Recent source identifying the old models as Cimoliopterus[38] 1854 source identifying them as P. cuvieri (now Cimoliopterus):[39]
Cimoliopterus dunni
Cimoliopterus dunni
  • ALT1:... that while the first fossil of the pterosaur Cimoliopterus was reported in 1851, it was unclear how it looked until more complete related species (example life restoration pictured) were found in the 1980s? Sources for this and other English fossils being mysterious until better fossils were found: Witton, M. P. (2013). Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy p. 154-155 and [40]

Improved to Good Article status by FunkMonk (talk) and JurassicClassic767 (talk). Nominated by FunkMonk (talk) at 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Fantastic work with this article. It should be noted that the second source for the first hook establishes the sculptures as depictions of Cimoliopterus using an older synonym, Pterodactylus cuvieri. Given the timeframe, this seems to check out, as that term dates to 1851, and the earliest that work on the sculptures could've been started seems to be October of that year. As far as images go, the modern rendition of Cimoliopterus dunni is certainly the most eye-catching, and is definitely clearer at 100px than the photo of the statues, though I believe both are suitable. It should also be noted that the rendition of C. dunni is the creation of nominator FunkMonk, though after review of his sources for the reconstruction and assessment against WP:OI I believe it doesn't constitute radically subjective artistic interpretation and should be considered acceptable. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should note that the restoration has also been reviewed at WP:paleoart, and the sources used are listed in its file description. As for the model image, I think it's more suitable if the fact about the sculptures is chosen, and we do have an alternate image of them[41], that may or may not look better at small size. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there is certainly no question about the validity of the image, as I'm sure the volunteers there are more knowledgeable than I. And yes, I should have specified that the choice of image is dependent on the selected hook. I think the current photo of the statues would be more ideal than the image of them from the front, since the tree branches make it difficult to discern at 100px. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cimoliopterus&oldid=1206697973"