Talk:Josephoartigasia monesi

Taxobox

I copied the taxobox from the one in the rat article and changed the genus and species for this article. If this is wrong then I hope someone else will correct it. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected that. I think it might be a new family. I am not 100% certain that it was hystricomorph, but at least it was not a "rat" - though it was not really easy to find that out. Good job Grundle. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it to the best of your ability. And thanks for your kind words too! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

References

I have deleted all the references except New Scientist. And we probably don't need any other, until the actual paper is out. The paper will be accessible via doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1645 (it is not yet officially released).

Why other references are not yet necessary: The New Scientist one was the only correct one; most news reports claim the critter was a "rat". But this is not correct. Since all the information presently available is in the New Scientist article, please do not add references that do not add new information and contain untrue information (anything that says it was a "rat" or "mouse" or so is just not good enough for Wikipedia). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the Rinderknecht paper which surely trumps the single New Scientist image. I will soon tidy those references.-Wikianon (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

... and I've moved this uncited claim below - I found no mention, neither in Rinderknecht nor in New Scientist.-Wikianon (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Due to its large size, its legs would have been under much strain and it would have needed to stand in a similar way to a cow or sheep, rather than small rodents like guinea pigs or mice."

Species of Josephoartigasia

BBC article says: "It was recognised as a new creature by examining and comparing its teeth with other known species of Josephoartigasia." [1]
Our article says: "The species - the only one in the genus Josephoartigasia at present ..."
I suppose that it's likely that the BBC article is wrong, but I don't know that. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, BBC was correct, according to Rinderknecht.-Wikianon (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Josephoartigasia magna is the type species of Josephoartigasia. There should probably just be one entry, for Josephoartigasia. 75.39.165.219 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the page could be moved there (though IONO whether it's possible without requesting the move... rashly, I made the genus redirect to the species) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC) not monotypic, my bad. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think that 2 of the 3 Josephoartigasia pages are useless... it would be better to have only a genus-level page, with the content of the J. monesi page. 80.218.57.163 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is correct as is. Leave it alone. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

supporting quotes

Some supporting quotes from the inline citations:

• closest living relative is the pacarana.
• about one tonne
• only two recorded to date in the genus Josephoartigasia

-Wikianon (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all your help everyone!

Thank you to everyone who has helped to make this article better. So it's not really a rat. I guess that explains why the genus for this species isn't Rattus. And I'm not at all all surprised that the mainstream media wrongly called it a rat. I am not a professional in this area - I just have a love of science and animals, so I try to do the best I can. Thanks for all your help everyone! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, such mistakes are common when press releases are "creatively rewritten". The Dinosaur project people can tell epic tales to that respect. Also many thanks from me to everyone involved... this article is moving on nicely, and it's good to know that once again, Wikipedia breaks the story faster and more correctly than most news outlets. Way to go! Now, back to cranes (the birds)... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Visual reconstruction vailable

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Josephoartigasia_BW.jpg

216.162.79.52 (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Luc D.

Redirected Josephoartigasia article

Note — I have redirected Josephoartigasia and Talk:Josephoartigasia to here. There was nothing there. - DVdm (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And I have undone it. Josephoartigasia includes two species and this is just one of them; it makes no sense to redirect the genus to the species. Maybe it would be good to have only a single article covering both species, but that article should be called Josephoartigasia. Ucucha (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Not my field of expertise. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree they should be mergd. First of all, prehistoric "species" are always iffy, and second, both are extremely short. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Evolution/Extinction

Needs a section on this. Why did it go extinct, etc? Fig (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)