Talk:Opisthocoelicaudia

Titanosaur?

What is the authority for calling this a titanosaur and a saltasaurid? I have seen several references to it as a camarasaurid. Srnec 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Salgado and Coria (1993) [1] discuss the fact that, while originally considered a camarasaur, they find it to be a titanosaur. All current phylogenies I've seen (this site [2], etc) follow this.Dinoguy2 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Name

It doesnt sayin the article but i belive its name translates to some thing like 'posterior caviy tail' according to a book and game i have.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

@Jens Lallensack: I will have a pre-nomination look over the article as soon as it is ready. Sorry about the nomination. Iainstein (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems this could be ready for GA, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yah, definitely. I completely forgot about this with a whole bunch of stuff happening in life, but if it is nominated, I will be very happy to review it. :) IJReid (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know if this pelvis belongs to Opisthocoelicaudia? http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergioconti/9616250052 From the holotype? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

From my experience, it is. IJReid ^discuss 16:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Would be cool, because the image is free. But does that mean that the mount is exhibited without that part? Maybe it's too heavy? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I presume that the Japan mount includes material not in the above image, as comparisons between JAime's skeletal and the mount seem to imply material missing from that region. One of them could be a cast also. IJReid ^discuss 17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Acta Palaeontologia Polonica

Seems like Palaeontologia Polonica[3] has been confused with Acta Palaeontologia Polonica[4] in the refs! Though the names are similar and they are associated, they are different journals. Only the latter is CC licensed, sadly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 11:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, since my only contribution to this article has been images, it should be ok for me to review this. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this, I'll ping Jens Lallensack. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll do a bit of copy editing, some of the word placement appears a bit non-English.

No problems with the copyediting. IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The nearly complete reconstructed skeleton represented an individual" What is meant by this? The holotype mount? A cast? A drawn reconstruction?

Reconstructed skeleton mount. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "while the pelvic region was strengthened by an additional sixth hip vertebra" Is that unique to this genus, or to titanosaurs?

Only more derived titanosaurs. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The hips were composed of three bones each, namely the ilium, ischium, and pubis bones." Since this is common to most tetrapods, isn't it a bit odd to point this out?

I'm not sure how to change this without making the sentence quite short. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the entire sentence is necessary, as long as you make clear that the bones in the following sentences are part of the hips. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I think I've gotten it now. IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "lay embedded in a very hard sandstone" Wasn't it sandstone sediments rather than a sandstone?

Sandstone layers. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd expect the place the holotype was found to be mentioned closer to the beginning of the discovery section, before info about its transportation from there? Especially since other locations are mentioend earlier, and the reader has no idea of where it is in relation to the excavation locality if it isn't mentioned before.

Rearranged. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "belongs to the Nemegt Formation, the youngest of the three geological formations of the Nemegt Basin. Altan Ula IV is famous for its abundant vertebrate fossils. Other important dinosaur finds from this locality include the troodontid Borogovia[17] and the ankylosaur Tarchia.[18]" Isn't this more relevant under Age and paleoenvironment than under discovery?

Moved down. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The specific name honors Mr. Wojceich Skarzynski" Is "Mr." really needed here?

Removed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "specimen ZPAL MgD-Ij48, the holotype" Why not simplify to "holotype specimen ZPAL MgD-Ij48"?

Changed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "This tail comes from the Nemegt locality" Is there a difference between Nemegt locality and Nemegt Formation?

The locality is a specific discovery site within a formation. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "According to different authors, the formation is late Campanian to early Maastrichtian, early Maastrichtian, or middle Maastrichtian in age." Perhaps it should be mentioned that these are in the Cretaceous?

Mentioned. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• " encased in cross-bedded sandstones" Likewise, if this is sediment, it would just be "sandstone" singular?

Singular. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• How is it known that the animals that made the bite marks on the holotype were scavengers, and didn't kill it?
• "with both genera representing outgroups of the Saltasaurinae" Maybe link or explain outgroup.

Explained. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "By now, both Opisthocoelicaudia" Date or "currently" would be better.

Changed. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, what will you do if Nemegtosaurus is found to be a senior synonym? Perhaps prepare that article so merging will be easy? We had the opposite problem with Apatosaurus, since Brontosaurus was split right during the FAC... Pretty incredible, they had a hundred years to do it.

I'll let Jens do this, because I'm not to sure what we could change. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should mention the diagram here was made by Jens?[5]

Reworded caption a bit. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I meant on the file page. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok done. Any problem with the caption on the article? IJReid ^discuss 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "so it probably persisted from an adult" What is meant here by persisted? Not sure if this is the correct meaning of the word?

Changed to "probably was created by". IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The name Opisthocoelicaudia means "posterior cavity tail" The translation is mentioned in the intro twice, perhaps it should be removed second time?

Removed first time, makes more sense in text than separate. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Like other sauropods, it would have been characterised by a small head sitting on a very long neck and a barrel shaped trunk carried by four column-like legs." Only described lie this in intro, should also be mentioned in the article.

Done. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• All looks fine except for the scavenger thing, I guess we'll have to wait for Jens. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've checked the ref and it has no mention of tyrannosaurids of scavengers, so I reworded that sentence. IJReid ^discuss 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll pass this now. Since I did this GA reivew, I may not review at FAC unless it becomes necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk and Reid, thank you for the comprehensive review and all the fixes! I think our article is much better now. I'm still waiting for the last book that might contain additional information on the discovery of the skeleton, when I have it we can go to FA I think. To answer the remaining questions:

• Unfortunately, Borsuk-Bialynicka (page 2) did not elaborate much on why she things scavengers did the "gnawing traces" and not hunters.
• Regarding Nemegtosaurus: If a new skeleton would be found demonstrating that Opisthocoelicaudia was synonymous with Nemegtosaurus, that would be a mess. We would have to move all the content to the lemma Nemegtosaurus. I hope it never happens, as I prefer the name Opisthocoelicaudia (way cooler than Nemegtosaurus). I don't think we can do anything right now to pave the way for a possible merging in the future. It will not happen during FAC, I'm very convenient about that :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps list the article for copy edit in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, I just listed it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where s.o. pointed out that the IPA was wrong, but the 1st pronunciation at the YouTube link Jens provided was exactly what I would expect for a Latinate word, so I transcribed that. Added the link not as a RS, which it isn't, but to provide readers who don't know IPA with a sound file. The 2nd pronunciation is odd faux Latin, though. If you're going to pronounce caud "cowed", then you might want to pronounce coel "coil", and we'd get into all sorts of arguments over whose Latin pronunciation is preferable. Better to just use the 1st (assimilated English) pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping out, Kwamikagami! Sorry for the confusion, the wrong IPA was not pointed out in the GAN but in the current FAC, here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly synonymous with Nemegtosaurus

New paper out[6], and one about sauropod footprints in the Nemegt which might be relevant:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I've read it. The discussion about the synonymy is really more about them being possible synonyms as opposed to probable synonyms. In any case, we should be ready in case they get formally synonymized without opposition. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of stuff there that should be mentioned in this article in any case. We already discussed this when it weas just an abstract of course, but in the small chance Jens Lallensack hasn't seen the published paper, there's a ping... FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not, only saw the footprint paper ;) Many thanks. I can add the new info, but it will have to wait until Wednesday. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• It should be noted that unlike what Extrapolaris stated in a recent edit summary, the two genera have not been formally synonymised in this paper. All it says is "The opisthocoelous caudal centrum is diagnostic of Opisthocoelicaudia, and its shared presence in Nemegtosaurus suggests the two taxa are closely related, possibly even synonymous. However, caution leads us to wait until more of the holotypic skeleton of Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis is excavated sometime in the foreseeable future". Interestingly, it also says "Saurolophus angustirostris, which may be the senior synonym of Barsboldia sicinskii"... FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And in case someone missed it, here is the newer paper claiming the two were distinct after all:[8] The two papers should hopefully be covered in the article before it reached the main page... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

paleo-ecology

I think one or more theropods should be listed besides Tarbosaurus here. 50.111.19.2 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Images

There is considerable MOS:SANDWICH here, and some images might be reduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)