Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Archive 9

Iguanodon Main Page April 23rd

Iguanodon will be on the main page on April 23rd. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Machaeroprosopus

What should we do about Machaeroprosopus? It currently just redirectsa to Rutiodon, but there does not seem to be agreement on this. The type specimen is lost[1], but the paleodb seems to list it as valid.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be considered valid or nomen dubium but not synonymous with Rutiodon, because Rutiodon is now considered to be known only from eastern NA (sensu Stocker, 2010 and 2012). Yet, Machaeroprosopus validus (type, now lost), M. zunii and all basal leptosuchomorphs are known from western NA. Gregory, 1962 and Ballew, 1989 synonymized all these taxa with Rutiodon, but all taxa that their specimens aren't lost or too fragmentary have been revised as distinct taxa. Rnnsh (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The story of the missing holotype would in my mind in itself warrant a separate article for Machaeroprosopus. It woulds not the only dubious or abandoned name to have a separate article (see Category:Nomina dubia), some of which even have full articles like Paranthropus. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should have an article, most dubious names seem to have that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding Fossil Lepidoptera

Hello all. Would someone be interested in expanding our article on Fossil Lepidoptera? I found a catalogue listing all fossil butterfly and moth species, but do not have the time to add them all at the moment. The source can be found at: [3] Would be great if the list would be updated! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Geology to WP Palaeo

Hi, I've been on a drive to assess the importance of articles in WP Geology that lack such an assessment. Many of the articles turn out to be stubs on various fossil genera and I've been taking them out of WP Geology and putting them instead in WP Palaeo as this seems the most appropriate place - very few fossils at genus level are of real importance to geology as a whole (in my view). I've moved several hundred into WP Palaeo or removed the parent WP project where they were in both. It occurred to me that I should just check here that this project is in agreement with this approach. Mikenorton (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - a very good idea. Agree with your approach. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank God someone's finally getting around to it! Abyssal (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, would it be possible to replace the pterosaur and "sea monster" project tags too? FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not come across those, but I will if I see them. I'm working through WP Geology stubs that lack an assessment of importance. From the responses above, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing (at my current rate it will only take me about 4 months). Mikenorton (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't it be automated by a bot? It seems like a very time consuming effort! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, as you can't be sure that they're fossil genera until you look - about 20% are rocks, minerals or other geological stuff (here's the list that I'm working through). Also some of the genera articles may have genuine reasons to be in WP geology (I think that I kept one of them so far because of its use in palaeogeographic reconstruction). I've adjusted my time estimate downwards a bit Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, of course... FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pterosaur and "sea monster" projects

I've merged those pages into this one. It was misleading to have them around, as they haven't been used for anything for years. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fossils for identification

There are a whole lot of unlabelled images on Flickr and Commons which could potentially be useful, I've found several that showed species we did not have images of otherwise among them. But there are still many I'm unable to identify, so I'll post them here, in hope that someone else more knowledgeable might be able to recognise them. I realise that some of these animals might not even have been scientifically decribed or named, so they'll perhaps never be identifiable for our purposes.

Reptiles, mainly turtles, lizards and snakes: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_Reptilia

Dinosaurs, birds are a subcategory: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Dinosauria

Pterosaurs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Pterosauria

Ichthyosaurs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Ichthyosauria

Plesiosaurs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Plesiosauria

Unassorted vertebrates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_Vertebrata

Amphibians: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_Amphibia

Fish: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_fish

Synapsids and "higher" mammals: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_Synapsida

And well, all sorts of invertebrates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossils_of_Animalia

Thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oceans of Kansas Paleontology

The Oceans of Kansas Paleontology article seems to be lacking any independent third-party references. It is nice to know that the website exists, but is it notable under Wikipedia guidelines? Since I don't delve in paleontology, I am hesitant to prod or initiate an Afd if this website is a big deal. However, since KP Botany who created the article hasn't edited since 2009, and the main concern is notability, I'm asking here in the search for possible sources. --Bejnar (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it could be merged with Oceans of Kansas (book), since the website is based on the book. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

^ I support that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger done, with new citations to 2003 web awards. Actually the book came after the website, but the book has more reviews and content. --Bejnar (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The website article contained geological information well designed to link and associate the website and, therefore, the book, with its geological context in a way appropriate to an on-line encyclopedia. You do not seem to have merged any of that information, but rather changed the website article to a redirect. Is this standard procedure for a merger? Eau (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible synthesis in Dinosaur (film)

Despite the article being about a fiction film, the content I am discussing is actually relevant to this project. The article currently states that there was criticism from the scientific community for the film's portrayal of lemurs, stating the differences between the film and reality regarding the primates. Three sources are cited for this, although two of them do not have links. Since the one with a link to Google Books does not appear to actually discuss the film, I suspect that there may be some synthesis going on. So, does anybody here have access to the following resources, and if you do, do they actually discuss inaccuracies in Dinosaur?

• Kay, R. F.; Ross, C.; Williams, B. A. (1997). "Anthropoid Origins". Science. 275 (5301): 797–804. doi:10.1126/science.275.5301.797. PMID 9012340. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sussman, R.W. (2003). Primate Ecology and Social Structure. Pearson Custom Publishing. pp. 149–229. ISBN 978-0-536-74363-3.

Since the film was not released until 2000, you can be reasonably sure that the 1997 article does not mention it. --Bejnar (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure why that didn't hit me earlier. CtP (t • c) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thylacoleo species invalid?

We now have one article for the genus Thylacoleo, and one for the species Thylacoleo carnifex. But when looking at the paleo database[4], it seems this is the only species, and then the articles should obviously be merged. Anyone know what the status of the different species is? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Paleodatabase includes no information, that I can find, that it is exhaustive as to species. It contains species from certain collections. Eau (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Many other paleodb entries are complete and up to date. Priscileo seems to have a similar problem, some sites say there is only one species. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

None of that means that the database is a reliable reference for the number of species in a genus. It is a work in progress that seeks to collect data from specific collections, this cannot be extrapolated to authority on the number of species in a genus. Eau (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence this section and request. Does anyone have some up to date info on the species? Most papers I can find on the web are are at least from the 1980s. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems this would lead to a request for discussion and/or literature search assistance, not that "it seems this is only the species, and then the articles should obviously be merged." When you've based the assumption this is the only species on a database that makes no claim to being an authority on the number of species in a genus. One step at a time, can we find if this is the only species, and then move on from there to requests for mergers, in my opinion. Eau (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The merge section on the talk page was not started by me, and it really doesn't make a difference until we find some sources. Let's get to the point. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to find the point, which I quote from your original post. If you change your point, it might help to strike it out above.

Can I then assume you are asking for sources, not a merger now? Let's move on to that on the article talk page. Eau (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the initial comment "anyone know what the status of the different species is?" So let's just improve the article instead of this meta-discission, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah PaleoDB, like other aggregators, is by no means exhaustive from past experience. It's even inaccurate in some instances. Unless it explains synonymization, mentions of only one species should, IMO, not be seen as an indication of monotypy. See this article from the National Dinosaur Museum of Australia for example. More importantly, google searches don't show any studies subsuming T. crassidentatus and T. hilli into T. carnifex.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking on Google Scholar, it appears the species have been recently mentioned. Couldn't find papers on classification though. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The latest article I have is Wroe, S. 2003. Australian marsupial carnivores: Recent advances in palaeontology. Pp. 102-123, in Predators with Pouches: The Biology of Marsupial Carnivores, (M. Jones, C. Dickman & M. Archer eds), CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. and in it Wroe analysis Priscileo roskellyae, Priscileo pitikantensis, Wakaleo oldfieldi, Wakaleo vanderleueri, Wakaleo alcootaensis,Thylacoleo hilli, Thylacoleo crassidentatus and Thylacoleo carnifex. As far as I have found, all taxa are valid. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Protragocerus

This stub has an infobox but no other text. It was created by an IP, two of whose other creations have been deleted as "blatant hoax" (Legoarchibiaea and Chalixlepidohistum). I know nothing about paleontology, but someone here might like to have a look at the new stub! PamD 22:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've filled it out to a stub. Not much info I can get anywhere, can't figure out what the correct fossil range is and what species are included under it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is currently considered a synonym but still used, however I cannot do a thing without the sources. Eau (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I suspect as much. Seeing this made me remember that I actually have an article for Tragoportax in my sandbox. Though that got indefinitely put off for the same reason - a difficulty in getting sources.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can get the sources, I don't have time to do it right now. You seem to be an editor who realizes you need more than a Google books snippet or an abstract to write intelligently about synonymy. I am willing to get sources for you, also, so let me know if you need particulars. I am currently reading a 19th century ship's log for another editor. Eau (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I also still have pending work for a reconstruction of Tiktaalik and some other stuff. Maybe later. Thanks for the offer. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wonder whether the editor's other two, deleted, articles were in fact not hoaxes but just similarly incomplete sub-stubs, deleted by a non-paleontologist! PamD 06:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are, there doesn't seem to be any sources for them anywhere. If they're not hoaxes, then they could be very recently described taxa or very old long-forgotten synonyms. Either way, no sources = no article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be sourced only to Wikipedia mirrors. Thanks for bringing this up, PamD. Wikipedia needs to move quicker on bogus organisms. Eau (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Eohippus is valid?

Now it's just a redirect to Hyracotherium, but it seems to have been resurrected.[5] Other species within the genus seem to have been split off as well. Do other studies support this, and should the article be split? FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to wait a bit to see. I think anEohippus article could be justified anyway, considering it is a fairly well known name (to the degree that any early mammals are "well known"). Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and split it yesterday, and restricted the Hyracotherium article to the type species. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call! Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Homonymy

I'm creating and expanding trilobite and (pre-)cambrian arthropod articles. For the first time I've run into a homonym. The Proarticulata Archaeaspis Ivantsov, 2001 is a junior homonym to the trilobite Archaeaspis Repina in Khomentovskii and Repina, 1965. The new valid name for the proartarticulate is Archaeaspinus Ivantsov, 2007. I've put the information in the taxobox, but it looks clumsy. Perhaps the template needs "| homonyms = ", but I don't know how to build such a thing. Please someone provide some guidance, and feel free to solve this issue on the Archaeaspis-page. Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks reasonably clear for now; it'll look clearer when an article for Archaeaspinus is created. The distinction can also be mentioned in the main text. J. Spencer (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation or what else

Hello, I'm preparing to create a page on the trilobite genus Holmia. However, Holmia seems to have three other meanings, namely:

• The Latin name for Stockholm

• A common name for Holmium(III) oxide

• An asteroid named 378 Holmia

How am I to deal with this (given that there is not an article yet named Holmia).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Holmia (trilobite) or Holmia (genus), I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What Funk said, go with either of those. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fossil peer review

I have sent the article on Fossils for peer review.

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fossil/archive1

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

List of mammoths

I know, I know, it was a dumb idea. Should I delete it, or what? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be specifically about Mammuthus primigenius specimens? But the title indicates it is about any kind of mammoth. Could redirect to there. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it, needs fleshed out, but I have a COI. So many temptations on Wikipedia, so many ways to go wrong. But I think a more complete list of individual mammoths would be fun. Still, COI for me. Lol. Eau (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is only about Woolly mammoths (and only frozen ones at that), the title should be changed, though (List of frozen woolly mammoths or some such). Also seems to be missing some important specimens, such as Dima, Lyuba, and the Beresovka mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of the article. Also, what's your COI, Eau? I can't really think of any way a COI could prevent a person from editing an article like this one. Abyssal (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A very odd COI, promotional, without being more specific, but I am having a good chuckle over it, as it is a rather odd COI. Eau (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This could be either a list of individual mammoths, adding other species, or a list of woollies, moving to the corrected title. Eau (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing the scope and name would be fine by me. Maybe abandoning individual animal entries, and opting for genera and species.

I've figured out the COI thing: you are either an actual woolly mammoth, or you work for WMU, (their union -- a pro-peanut/anti-global warming organization). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe List of prehistoric elephants or List of prehistoric proboscideans or even List of proboscideans, as that would add only a few extra. We have plenty of images, and a sortable table would really help visitors. The could group locations and ages, etc. If you can think of a good way, I'd be happy to do all the assembly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support creating a list of proboscideans, but I think a list of notable individual specimens like the article's current form also has merity, despite it needing a name change. Abyssal (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think both ideas sound nice. Would be quite some work. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also like both ideas and a sortable table, with lots of pictures, these lists could do well in Google searches. Eau(W)oo (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Name, scope, and table layout

Splendid. It looks like we can put something together. As you folks are the experts, I'll leave it up to you to come up with the scope, name, and fields, then I can get started. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think List of proboscideans is good for the "big" one about all elephant taxa. As for the specimen one, I'd say there aren't that many notable specimens with nicknames apart from the frozen woolly mammoths. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You are probably correct, proboscideans as a group, although it would be fun if there were enough mammoths. I checked at commons and there are many great images, but of mostly unnamed specimens. Eau(W)oo (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC) (<-- stops grooming fur)

Most other extinct elephants are pretty obscure anyway, apart from the American Mastodon, but even there I can only think of one or two named specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think we have a great collection of pictures of museum specimens for the list/table, of the other genera and species, so it will still be a nice addition to the encyclopedia. There are a few more names ones from the scientific literature, but I don't think the names amount to the type of significant coverage to generate an article, and it won't come out to list length in the end. Anna, great idea for a fun addition to Wikipedia. Eau(W)oo (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this can also help out with getting an overview of what needs articls, I see there are several redlink extinct elephant genera. There are also many recent dwarf elephant species that need articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sacrebleu! Maybe I can write a few. I am so busy with field work this month, but I will try. Eau(W)oo (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear that a table of species alone won't suffice. There aren't enough, and it will leave gaps. But, if we include genera and maybe other families or groups, how can that be arranged in a table? How can this work? Taxonomical hierarchy sounds confusing. Sorted by age? This is your area of expertise. How should this be organized? I guess that's step one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Abyssal has made many nice lists, see for example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_plesiosaurs FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect! Why didn't you point that out before? :) All we need to do is make an image field and dump the images in, right? If there are no objections. I will redirect List of mammoths there, and we can wrap this up. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The table

Here is a transcluded table we can knock into shape. Please feel free to modify it. I guess name (indicating scope), then fields. Then I can start to add items: User:Anna Frodesiak/Red sandbox

This is how it appears right now: {{User:Anna Frodesiak/Red sandbox}}

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I added Moeritherium with some suggestions as to what goes in the remaining fields. Feel free to remove if inappropriate. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In light of List of plesiosaurs, should I PROD List of mammoths? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean to put it in user space until ready? ? Eau(W)oo (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean to delete List of mammoths, and also abort creation of User:Anna Frodesiak/Red sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The current List of mammoths and this "List of proboscideans" are two very different things: the first is a list of individual animals, the second appears to be a list of genera. A list of individual, notable proboscidean fossils may be a good idea, but don't confuse it with a taxonomic list of proboscidean genera. Ucucha (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha, we don't really need a "List of proboscideans", as the taxonomy sections in the taxa articles themselves already are doing that job.-Kevmin § 12:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost. If you need my help, I'm happy to do the legwork. But, I'll let you sort this out. You know best what's needed in this field. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So, if there are no objections, I will PROD List of mammoths. There aren't enough individuals to merit an article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PRODded. Thanks, and sorry to waste your time.

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an obvious suggestion missing from this discussion, and that's to create Category:Named mammoth fossils or something to that effect, to avoid losing the information entirely. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see some more items have been added to the table, yet the prod remains. Should the article List of mammoths live or die? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the prod on the supposition that there are enough such (sub)fossils to make it worthwhile, but I'm far from an expert. I just went for some low-hanging fruit strewn across WP. Someone further up hinted that the article might encapsulate useful information, so in that spirit, I leave it for more knowledgeable people to keep developing if that's okay with everyone. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A fresh mammoth find near paris [6] EdwardLane (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting some solid references before embarking on a full scale venture like this, it will just lead to an incomplete hodgepodge. I just got "Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age" (2007 edition), a large book which seems to cover all notable woolly mammoth specimens. Recommended for something like this. I've gone ahead and merged the articles about specific mammoth specimens into the species article anyway, since all are rather short, and are better collected, until (if) they are expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lyuba and Adams mammoth were established articles with histories. Merging should be discussed, and not done via copy paste because of the history problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've linked to the titles in the edit history, the histories can be found there. It was not an article move, so the same technical problems don't occur here. I will expand the species article soon, and there's no real reason too keep these separate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm not sure it was the right thing to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, please explain then. The species article itself was relatively short, having the information centralised makes it a better article. You very rarely have articles about individual specimens, as their significance is only relative to the species. If the articles had been huge GAs or something,I would see a problem. They were basically short and filled with useless information, such as museum tour dates and whatever, so I see no problem at all. Don't worry, I'll improve all the info already there, I'll try to get it to GA and FA once I have an overview of the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I trust your judgement, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems it could maybe be an idea to have a unified article only about frozen mammoths, like what dinosaur mummy was supposed to be at one time. Would be better than an article for each specimen I think, and would be better than to have a bloated section in the species article. I'll create it at some point. I hope I can get to expand the article before new year. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jurassic turtle graveyard

The discovery of an "enormous" graveyard of ancient turtles in Shanshan County, Xinjiang, China, has more than doubled the number of Jurassic turtle specimens known to science An enormous Jurassic turtle bone bed from the Turpan Basin of Xinjiang, China; Jurassic turtle graveyard found in China

That text popped up at 'in the new' suggestions, I don't know if anyone feels able to expand/improve the article, but I thought I'd mention it here EdwardLane (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems Annemys could need a article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool find! Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GSSP List

The List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points has a lot of red links to fossils. These are rather important because the geologic time scale is based on their coming and going. Could somebody with more paleontology knowledge than me go over the list and maybe create some stub articles? --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Update:

Currently the article are created bottom to top starting with the Cambrian and a lot of trilobite species and some conodonts: List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points#Cambrian.

Articles already created are:

• Ovatoryctocara granulata (created by me, needs work)
• Oryctocephalus indicus
• Ptychagnostus atavus
• Lejopyge laevigata

Would anyone like to create?:

• Glyptagnostus reticulatus
• Agnostotes orientalis
• Eoconodontus notchpeakensis
• Cordylodus andresi
• Lotagnostus americanus

I will always help out with the geology side of this project. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already started Glyptagnostus reticulatus btw, haven't saved it yet. I'm foregoing stubs and building start-classes instead, sorry for the slowness.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think that 4 articles in just a couple of days is pretty fast. It would have taken me weeks to look up everything that I once learned in my paleontology courses about trilobites :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of eurypterids deletion

I've nominated the page for deletion due to it being outdated and currently conflicting with a newer system in the main Eurypterid article. Comments appreciated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eurypterids.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the huge list from the eurypterid article (which seems to be 50% list, perhaps too much) and replace whatever is in the list with that? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Palaeoloxodon, genus or subgenus?

Our Palaeoloxodon article, and every species in the clade, suggest that it is a "subgenus" (most useless taxonomic division ever) of Elephas, but when looking at Google Scholar, most recent articles seem to simply label the species within it as Palaeoloxodon. So it seems the taxon has been "promoted" to a "full genus", and I'm tempted to make the articles reflect this. Any comments on this? FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Found this.

Results also corroborate other findings that Palaeoloxodon is a bona fide elephant genus; we classify it in the new subtribe Palaeoloxodontina Zhang and Zong"

-Shoshani, J.; Ferretti, M. P.; Lister, A. M.; Agenbroad, L. D.; Saegusa, H.; Mol, D.; Takahashi, K. (2007). "Relationships within the Elephantinae using hyoid characters". Quaternary International. 169–170: 174. Bibcode:2007QuInt.169..174S. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.02.003.

So, yep, looks like it's being treated as a genus. And lol, agree on subgenus.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you review my article?

Hi, I just wrote an article about an extinct mollusk, Kulindroplax. Since IIRC it's my first paleontology article, I'd like some expert eyes to give it a look. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 00:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, mostly visual. The most serious problem being your tendency to place refs before punctuation, heh. :P Anyway, looks very good. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry -I thought putting refs before punctuation was the right thing to do. Thanks for the heads up and for your edits! --Cyclopia^talk 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The content seems good (I'm no mollusk expert). The only thing I would have added is a bit about the assemblage to which it belongs (if any). A picture would have been nice though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no free picture I am aware of -the fossil is described in a Nature paper. Actually the sentence "the fossil is conserved..." is probably false, because, looking closely, it has been reconstructed by serial grinding, which as far as I've understood destroys the specimen completely, so there is no chances to get a picture again. Could I use a picture from Nature with a non-free rationale? --Cyclopia^talk 10:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You could, especially if it's not on display, which would make it hard for any editors to take their own photos of it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 10:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

On a second thought, however, Nature makes the 3D reconstruction files available, so someone could delete the image on these grounds. I would happily generate a new image from the files, but I don't think I have the software/expertise. --Cyclopia^talk 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they may still own the copyright to those scans, though I'm not sure. I'll ask someone on Commons. Where can the scans be found? FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, it's 4 zips in the supplementary material. Copyright of the scan files shouldn't bear on images generated from the files -or does it?--Cyclopia^talk 12:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)