Talk:Lavanify

Comment

Somebody's name was omitted in the "Discovery and context" section: "it is the correct name for this genus. described this animal on the basis of additional material as a new genus, Dakshina". —innotata 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that; I fixed the sentence. It was left mangled when I found out about Bharattherium halfway through writing the article. Ucucha 21:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this one, comments in a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope you like the primordial vole of Madagascar (that's what the teeth remind me of, at least). Ucucha 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• rather than being friendly and inviting, the lead is filled with jargon and complexity. Already I don't know what the 4th word means; "Lavinify is a member of the family Sudamericidae and most closely related to the Indian Bharattherium" this sentence, relying on two redlinked terms, has no meaning whatsoever for me
  • I wrote a short article on sudamericids. I don't think redlinked taxon articles really impede the understanding, though.
• "The teeth were collected in 1995–1996 and described as a new genus in 1997." A genus of teeth? Don't you mean the animals from whom they were collected are the genus?
  • We don't know those animals, though, and Krause et al. (1997) only described the teeth. But regardless, I changed it.
• dentine island - a what?
  • Clarified.
• After reading the lead, I have no idea what kind of animal this is. If the scientists don't know either, that should be made explicit in the lead.
  • Added some inferences about diet.
• "Lavanify, means "long tooth"" in what language?
  • Malagasy, added.
• "Gondwanatheres are a small group of mammals of uncertain affinities…" please spell out what uncertain affinities means
  • That we don't know what they are related to? Not sure what the problem is here.

• I'm just thinking if I had read this a few years ago, I might not have understood that "phylogenetic" or "evolutionary" affinity was implied, and the meaning might have been lost. Sasata (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The low-crowned family" Link or define crown?
  • Linked on first occurrence.
• Shouldn't the article give dates for these geological eras on first usage? I certainly don't know what they are by memory, and think most readers wouldn't either.
  • Done.
• "considerable intraspecific variation" a little jargon-heavy
  • Clarified.
• "continuous bands of IPM" This acronym has not been defined
  • I removed that yesterday because I thought I didn't actually use the abbreviated form in the article. Mea culpa, readded now. Ucucha 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think that if early in the article there was a sentence something like this, it would help set the background: "Gondwanatheres were first identified from isolated molars that are so different from those of contemporaneous mammals that their broader attribution was (and is) uncertain." Sasata (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point; I added a little. Ucucha 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I think the changes and additions make to article easier to read. I'm passing it now. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

Following a talk page ping...

• Suggest the lead begin along the lines "Lavanify is a small mammal, a member of the group known as gondwanathere from the late Cretaceous (probably Maastrichtian, about 70.6 to 65.5 million years ago) of Madagascar."
  • Rewritten. I don't like "small", since sudamericids were relatively large to Mesozoic standards.
• "The low-crowned family Ferugliotheriidae occurs..." What is low-crowned? Why is a family low-crowned? There's been no mention of teeth in this para, so it is a little out of the blue.
  • Feruglio teeth are low-crowned; expanded to clarify.
• ...actually, that whole para needs to be reworked for clarity. Along the following lines:

Gondwanatheres are a small group of mammals of uncertain phylogenetic affinities known from the late Cretaceous to the Eocene (~56–34 mya) of the Gondwanan continents. Upon their discovery in the 1980s, gondwanatheres were initially thought to be xenarthrans—part of the same group as living sloths, armadillos, and anteaters—but later workers have favored affinities with multituberculates (a diverse group of fossil mammals) or left the relationships of the gondwanatheres open. The group comprises two families. The Ferugliotheriidae have low-crowned teeth and occur in the Campanian (~84–71 mya) to Maastrichtian of Argentina. All other gondwanatheres, including Lavanify, are placed in the Sudamericidae, which have high-crowned (hypsodont) teeth. These include Gondwanatherium from the Campanian and Maastrichtian of Argentina; Sudamerica from the Paleocene (~66–56 mya) of Argentina; Lavanify; at least one species from the Maastrichtian of India; an unnamed species related to Sudamerica from the Eocene of Antarctica; and an unnamed possible gondwanathere, TNM 02067, from the Cretaceous of Tanzania. In 2007, teams led by G.P. Wilson and G.V.R. Prasad independently described this animal, as Dakshina and Bhattherium respectively; as the latter name was published first, it is the correct name for this genus. Gondwanatheres have been interpreted as feeding on roots, bark, and abrasive vegetation or as the earliest grass-eating mammals.

• • Used a similar wording.
• Why is this sentence included, since it appears to be a bit of detail that is not about Lavanify at all: "In 2007, teams led by G.P. Wilson and G.V.R. Prasad independently described this animal, as Dakshina and Bhattherium respectively; as the latter name was published first, it is the correct name for this genus."
  • Bharattherium and Dakshina are mentioned several times later on; this sentence is necessary background.

Gotta go. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I've used most of them and replied above. Ucucha 00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Article uses the "%" symbol - i think this is not MOS-consistent. Should be either "per cent" or "percent" (not sure which)? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:PERCENT says the symbol is actually preferred in scientific articles. Ucucha 01:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Image

Congrats on the FA and Main Page appearance! Is there an image that could be added to this article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

None that are freely available, as far as I know. Ucucha (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of the dagger in taxoboxes

I beg to differ with respect to comments made concerning use of the dagger in the taxobox. Daggers are a standard indication of extinction, immediately recognizable to most readers knowledgeable about biology, and thus are not opaque. As their usage approaches being standard (which seems to be the case in terms of automatic taxoboxes), the absence of a dagger becomes in effect a declaration that the taxon in question is extant. While the extinct status of the genus is obvious from the opening sentences of the article, the status a a taxon like Gondwanatheria is not obvious even after reading the entire article, and thus the appropriate placement of daggers remains useful. Finally, linking a dagger to extinction is not an Easter egg link, because it is fairly obvious that this represents a link to the definition of the symbol for those unfamiliar with it; this is also a common practice. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But daggers in this context are not even mentioned anywhere in the MOS or at Template:Taxobox and they are quite often omitted in the real world—for example, in the phylogenetic tree in Gurovich and Beck (2009).

The "Taxonomy" section already makes it implicit that Gondwanatheria is extinct (it says they existed from the Cretaceous to the Eocene), but you're right that the lead does not make that clear; I've changed it now.

Yes, it is an easter egg link: looking at the displayed text doesn't make clear what the link will lead to. If a symbol needs explanation, it should be done in the text, not with a wikilink, so that people who print the article will also get the explanation. Ucucha (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not an Easter egg link; that term implies that the link is unintuitive and that the meaning conveyed by the link would be lost in a printed version. Since this is a standard and widely used symbol, that cannot be the case here; there are other ways of learning the symbol's meaning. That fact is recognized by the existence of the Template:Extinct. The link does not change the meaning of the printed text and is not needed; it is simply added as a convenience for the uninitiated reader. Defining the meaning of the symbol in the text of every article that uses it might be viewed as overkill. Usage of the dagger probably should be discussed at Template:Taxobox, but since the symbol is not restricted to taxoboxes and is not an invention of Wikipedia, the omission is understandable. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Family" Sudamericidae?

It's a very nice article. But why does it refer to the Sudamericidae as a "family" when the publication in which Lavanify is named carefully avoids using such outdated terminology?--MWAK (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what the literature mostly uses for gondwanatheres nowadays. For example, Gurovich & Beck (2009:31): "Members of the second known gondwanatherian family, Sudamericidae"; Prasad et al. (2007) place Bharattherium in "Family: Sudamericidae"; Goin et al. (2006:135): "all other gondwanatherians are grouped in the family Sudamericidae"; Gurovich (2008:1069): "The Family Sudamericidae is represented by hypsodont taxa including". On the other hand, Wilson et al. (2007) do not use ranks. Ucucha (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. A sad consideration ;o).--MWAK (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lavanify. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717194315/http://vertebratepaleo.com/downloads/GondwanatheriaThesis.pdf to http://vertebratepaleo.com/downloads/GondwanatheriaThesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)