Talk:Euchambersia

Anyone?

What is it's weight and size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.121.52 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Euchambersia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been occupied with FACs lately, but this seems to have waited for quite a while, so I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing!

• First observation, last paragraph under Paleoecology needs a citation.

Meant to be the same ref as the previous paragraph. Done.

• I'd nuke the popular culture section, perhaps merge the info into the history section if we really want it. Not relevant enough to warrant an entire section consisting of a single sentence.

Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The second skull belongs to a smaller individual" I'd add "second known", to make clear this early there are only two skulls.

Done.

• "crushing and deformation of the fossil was reconstructed" Is this the right way to put it? Do you reconstruct deforming and crushing? Or "account for it", etc.?

Reworded.

• No estimates for how long a complete individual would have been?

None in the literature that I have seen. I'll take another look.

• "The smaller specimen has an incisor preserved within its nasal cavity" Perhaps make clear this is misplaced?

Done.

• "The type specimen prominently preserves" What does this mean? That much of the tooth is preserved?

Referring to the size of the tooth. Reworded.

• "which may have been interpreted as a groove by some authors" May have been interpreted? Either it has, or it has not?

Referring to it possibly being the same thing as the groove, which is the point of uncertainty.

• " and described by Robert Broom" Was?

Reworded.

• "was later found in 1966" Later seems redundant when you already say second and a later date?

Deleted.

• "described by Kitching" Full name? You give it for Broom. Same for other names you mention under classification and venom.

Done.

Did a few more.

• What does the genus and species name mean?

Also had trouble with the etymology. Taking another look.

• "in side of the maxilla." Inside?

On the side. Corrected.

• "The water level in these streams appeared to have been seasonally dependent." Appear to?

Reworded.

• Anything about the vegetation and climate in its environment?

Given that it's the Karoo, I'm not optimistic that there's info on this. Taking a look.

As expected, not much on either. A bit on pollen, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• " from a skull missing the lower jaws" Only mentioned in intro.

Added under "D&N".

• There should be at least some physical description in the intro, which is suppsoed to be a summary of the entire article.

Added a little bit in the opening sentence. Will this suffice?

It's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I think it would better to lump the descriptive info together with the tooth info in the second paragraph of the intro; articles usually never start by describing the animal, like here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• There is quite a bit of duplicate linking under venom and palaeoecology.

Is this with respect to links present already in other sections?

Yes, a word should only be linked at the first mention outside the intro (except for the cladogram). FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleaned the links up. Please let me know if I missed anything.

• Any interesting images in the original description? Appears they would be in the public domain in South Africa.[1] Perhaps "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" could be shown at the beginning of the venom section.

I can't find a copy of said description. It appears to be bookwalled.

• "The large maxillary fossae of Euchambersia has been" Fossae is plural, have been? The rest of the sentence needs checking too.

I don't see this sentence?

First in the venom section. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Reworded.

• I assume it is thought to have been a carnivore, but this is only indirectly implied. Can it be stated more specifically somehwere?

Added under the section about teeth, with respect to its "sabreteeth".

• "incisors of solenodons" I'd perhaps explain that these are extant mammals, most readers will probably think it is some other kind of ancient animal.

Done.

• You seem a bit inconsistent under venom about when you mention authors of studies or not.

Added a few. Do I need to do the same for the rather substantial list of people that agreed with the hypothesis?

Nah. Just those that first suggested them. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done.

• When claims are made, it would be nice with in-text attribution, so it does not look like an established fact ("Thus, the venom hypothesis is more plausible" according to...).

Added to several claims made under "Venom".

• "while snakes have specialized ducts)" Why a half parenthesis here?

Typo. Fixed. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The cladogram labels it a member of Moschorhininae (which currently redirects to Moschorhinus), and Fossilworks[2] labels it as part of Moschorhinidae (which redirects to Akidnognathidae), yet neither are mentioned under classification?

Expanded. The latter is synonymous with Akidnognathidae.

• Considering the taxonomic histories of many other stem-mammals, it is almost strange there are no synonyms or formerly referred species? Is there really nothing else for the history section?

Not that I'm aware of. Taking another look. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Added some comments. Perhaps the original description is worth getting? Could have the etymology and maybe size estimate (in adittion to images). Can be requested at WP:Resource request. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Put in a request. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes look good, let's see if the Broom paper yields any new info, then I'll pass. Adding info from the original description will also satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion (though that may be more of a FAC thing, but you may want to go that route down the line?). FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I aim to eventually start working on turning GAs into FAs... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that we're waiting anyway, have you thought of working on your namesake article, Lythronax? I've also wondered similarly about Dunkleosteus77, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, it could indeed use some work. The description is somewhat measly, in particular... I've been meaning to finish Knoetschkesuchus, though (and I really should cut down its description!), and I'd also like to start working on Mauriciosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the restoration under Paleoecology, it irks me because the Euchambersia is clearly too longirostrine. I'm tempted to remove it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, almost as if it was based on another animal... But it should be easy to fix, I'll give it a go... Perhaps also get rid of most of the hair? FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the literature has explicitly ruled out body hair (vibrissae aside) in therocephalian-grade synapsids, though? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the dicynodont? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's an edit:[3] Based on the photos in the new paper, and this skull diagram, which seems very reconstructed:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Looks good to me. Do you think it would be feasible to include the latter in the article, or is it copyright-walled? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what the source publication is, but since the caption mentions 1986, it's probably not old enough to be in the public domain. On the other hand, if it is just a reproduction of Broom's original illustration... But we can only know once you get the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, since we don't know when you will get the paper, and since I already think the article meets the GA criteria, I'll just pass it now. But ping me here once the new info is incorporated! FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I think I've milked Broom's rather brief description of Euchambersia as much as possible. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, there were no images? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, apparently not... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Bummer, I wonder what "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" refers to then... Does the source cite a paper? Sometimes all figures from all articles in a volume are featured in the end of it... Does it refer to any plates or figures? Is there any other Broom paper it could be in? --FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also a bummer - it's in the 1932 "The mammal-like reptiles of South Africa and the origin of mammals", also by Broom. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That should be PD too, perhaps request it also? All it takes is waiting... Or is it a book? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a book, and I am not sure where in the book Broom describes it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright... Maybe something to get if you want to do something extra for potential FAC one day... I've gotten book pages from the resource request before (even an entire book PDF)... FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Elsewhere on the web

This article now has the dubious distinction of being quoted by Dave Peters... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hehe, what did he say? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Peters quoted the section on Chambers' work being "a very remarkable work though sneered at by many". Gee, I wonder what he's trying to get at... real subtle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible contradiction ?

Good morning or good evening. I am, at the moment when I make this request, in the process of formatting the French article based on Euchambersia in order to obtain a labeling in the same way as this article in English. While doing my translations, I noticed an ambiguity, even a possible contradiction, which I will put below (Chapter "Teeth"):

- Its fourth incisor also has a replacement tooth growing behind it, accompanied by resorption of the root.

-But further down they say this : both skulls of Euchambersia show no sign of any replacement teeth developing, suggesting that Euchambersia was reliant on having both canines present and functional simultaneously.

Knowing that these two statements are confirmed by the same sources, it only makes these contradictions even more incomprehensible, I hope to get explanatory answers.Amirani1746 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, that was poorly-written prose on my part. In the latter case, what is meant that the canine had no replacement tooth for it, as in the source: "The mesial surface of the left canine is eroded, resembling the type of etching that occurs during resorption of a functional tooth by a developing replacement tooth; however, no replacement tooth is preserved in association with the functional canine." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)