Talk:Paranthodon

Redirect

Anthodon was a Pareiasaur, a seperate and distinct animal from Paranthodon and a search for it should not be redirected here.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'll review this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• First off, the intro is too long for an article of this length, should probably be cut down by half, and should be split into perhaps two paragraphs. For example, you don't need names of scientists and dates of various things in the intro, too much detail. It is only supposed to be a brief summary. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut lead by some percent.

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• The image caption should probably say "grey areas based on related species" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Didn't specify source genera.

• "a matrix with impressions" Impressions of what?

Specified, also, the matrix had fragments figured in the article.

• Some of the sentence structures struck me as a bit German-like, but since I assume these were written by MWAK, likely Ducth. I have changed some to more conventional English.

Not sure how to fix these, but I think I got one corrected. IJReid (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Under description, no anatomical term are linked, but they should be.

Link some terms.

• "those of a member of the Pareiasauria and a dinosaur jaw." What did the pareisasaur fossils consist of?

Specified, although it would probably be a given that it was Anthodon.

Oh, I meant what elements were represented, not which genus. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, makes more sense. The info is not in any of the current refs, but I could add the original description of Anthodon by Owen, which has that info. IJReid (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be a good way to solve it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. IJReid (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the teeth of the lower jaws are unknown, why are they not grey in the diagram?

They are actually known, mentioned in article now.

• That's about it, looks good generally. I'll read the lead once it is shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, I will get to the lead last. IJReid (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article mentions different definitions of stegosauria, but does not explain them, could that be done briefly? What is the modern sense compared to the old one? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was only one definition, which is now mentioned, but it is mentioned that older references to the group were pre-definition. IJReid (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looking pretty good now, I think. Maybe there could be some explanation of what features make this classifiable as a stegosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to find this, as none of the current sources have any such information. IJReid (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd assume the Nopcsa or Peter Galton sources would cover this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just rechecked Galton & Coombs, and the article doesn't mention Huayangosaurus at all and barely mentions Stegosauria. As everything other than Huayangosaurus is a stegosaurid (I known there are exceptions), and it isn't mentioned, I do believe that there would be no reason to mention any features if they are not compared to Huayangosaurus. I will check all other sources in the article. IJReid (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, no big deal if it can't be found, this is only a GA after all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I found another source that explicately states that the material bares no stegosaurian synapomorphies. However, many phylogenies have found the material stegosaurian, and according to another study by the same author, it definitely is. This is OR, but personally I believe that lack of synapomorphies is due to the fact that little cranial material is known, and that just none have yet been published. IJReid (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Seems no more can be found, so I'll go ahead and pass. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit

Thank you very much. IJReid ^discuss 01:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paranthodon. 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/20150701002400/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=299 to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=299

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) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision

IJReid might want to take a look at this new paper, also has free images:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk Yeah I noticed and have already uploaded the images ;) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bit weird to use that image of Tuojiangosaurus which is almost entirely overshadowed by a Monolophosaurus with pronated hands, IJReid? Especially since the space could maybe be used for that image of the nasal bones[2] of Paranthodon, the only free photo of holotype material not used in the article yet... Also, the skull diagram is very hard to see, the black lines are so thin that they look grey, perhaps make them thicker? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah some changes still need to be made, infinitely better than the Maidment diagram though IMHO because of the complete wrong skull shape. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the drawing is very good, but the thumbnail is just a mess of grey on my otherwise pretty large screen! FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the line thickness. I like the cleanliness of a thin line but wikipedia thumbnail basically merges it if its under 2 pixels. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This year study~it it a valid taxon?

the article says about only one distinguishing trait, but is it still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240E:FF:B317:EA43:4418:ED3D:C614:EB3E (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It is valid, because not only does it have one completely unique trait, but it also has differences from all other stegosaurs, none of which are found anywhere close to the same location and age anyways. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hypothetical restoration based on related stegosaurians (Image)

What scientific evidence suggests that this dinosaur has a large spike coming off the shoulder, as depicted in the artist rendition? Nothing in the article mentions this, nor am I aware that any other saur has this feature. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A shoulder spike is known in all the stegosaurs listed as close to Paranthodon in the cladogram, Huayangosaurus, Kentrosaurus, Tuojiangosaurus, Chungkingosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well throw me a bone then. Literally. Images of all these listed saureus's on WP are reconstructions with no actual one in evidence shown. This Paranthedon article itself shows no actual recovered shoulder spikes with its fossil record. If anything, some the images/articles as other references show saurs w/o shoulder spikes. So maybe they had spikes and maybe not, but WP is not to be built on speculation. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Heres the skeleton of Gigantspinosaurus, with a very real, very extreme shoulder spike. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, (a) this is an extrapolation from a single actual fossil bone to an entire taxon, and (b) the fossil bone is assigned to the OTHER major branch of stegosaurs. They are not related at all other than both being stegosaurs. Samsara 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look through literature (particularly many popular dinosaur books), it is not uncommon for taxa known from very limited remains to have a reconstruction. I have mused on this in the past and wondered on the best way to convey this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: In reponse to your implied question, my off-the-cuff suggestion would be to indicate in the infobox the extent of the assigned remains.

However, my point in this case was more about it not being a done thing to extrapolate a derived feature up the tree to an ancestor. It seems that the basis for giving the derived feature to the Paranthodon reconstruction was that an otherwise unrelated descendant from some common ancestor has the feature. Kind of like saying rhinos have horns so the ancestor of all mammals has horns, and all ancestors of horses had them, too. Hopefully, it's clear then that this is not sound logic. Samsara 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand correctly, because it is extrapolation from multiple fossils from multiple taxa from both branches of stegosaurs. Kentrosaurus and Huayangosaurus also preserve the shoulder spikes, like I stated above. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Samsara: but that is the image in the taxobox now (implying the extent of the remains)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Yes, but the comparison with the other articles failed on that basis. Samsara 11:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@IJReid: (and others) I looked at the other articles and did not find that evidence. The skeletons (reconstructed or otherwise) shown there are the following: File:Huayangosaurus taibaii 20050707 07.jpg (tiny spike) File:Chungkingosaurus jiangbeiensis.jpg (no spike) File:Natural History Museum Tuojiangosaurus.jpg (no spike) So at that point, the spike is (a) an autapomorphy of Huayangosaurus and would not logically get promoted up the tree, and (b) it's not even present to any remotely similar extent. So I'm still missing any evidence that would justify either the presence or the extent of the spike implied for Paranthodon. You posted a picture of Kentrosaurus, an in-group relative to Gigantspinosaurus, which doesn't strengthen the evidence (of course an ingroup might share an outgroup feature) - if I understand correctly, we have the scapula of the actual outgroup Jiangjunosaurus, and it lacks the spike. Samsara 11:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Both Huayangosaurus and Tuojiangosaurus had these spines (see, e.g., the review of Galton, 2012 in "The Complete Dinosaur"). The spines are always separate from the scapulae, the spines where anchored in the skin (but commonly found adjacent to the scapulae); if there is a scapula but no spine is not evidence for an absense of the spine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• We don't know anything past its snout. But through phylogenetic bracketing, we know it would have had spikes, unless it was a very unique stegosaur, which is less parsimonious. If we want to be really extreme, we don't know it had a body either, but there is such a thing as common sense. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to the original IP, the notion of proof is meaningless in paleontology. Even if it were, skeletal mounts in museums are not relevant to this topic, only peer-reviewed literature. One only needs to look to the many laughably wrong and irredeemably garbage mounts that some museums put out. 219.70.189.47 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

See Jens' comment above. Such spikes are mentioned in the literature. Stegosaurus seems to be an outlier in not having them, not the other way around. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)