Talk:Dorfopterus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 21:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this one - way longer and more extensive than I thought would be possible for a taxon this obscure. I have some minor thoughts and concerns but I'll wait until you've done the final revision and integration (per your edit summary). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this review, I am also surprised this article got this long. I'll start that revision in a few hours. Super Ψ Dro 07:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it took me this long, I am right now on it. A question, do you remember whether words ended with -ae were plural or singular? I don't know if I should write "carina" or "carinae" and I forgot what did we do with chelicerae. Is it in singular? Super Ψ Dro 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, there is no rush. "Carina" and "chelicera" are singular, "carinae" and "chelicerae" are plural. You can remember it by scientific family names such as "Pterygotidae", where 'ae' signifies that it is a collection of different species (i.e. plural). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the clarification! Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Sorry for the delay. I'll start linking this article and including info from it on other ones tomorrow, it doesn't affect this review anyway. Super Ψ Dro 22:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it's absolutely no problem. It's a bit late for me now so I'll read through the article tomorrow and leave my comments then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this started. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - lede and taxobox

You could replace "The first half of the name of the genus..." with "The first half of the generic name..."

I prefer to use "of the genus" here at the lead as its meaning is clear to readers. "Generic" may not be so clear here. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dorfopterus is a eurypterid of uncertain classification that is only known from one single specimen." - you've already introduced that it's a eurypterid and that it is known from a single specimen before this point The sentence could be replaced with something like "The classification of Dorfopterus within the Eurypterida is uncertain" (which skips repeating that only one specimen is known and points out the scientific name of the order). The beginning of the next sentence would then have to be changed from "It consists of..." to "The only known specimen consists of...".

That the classification of Dorfopterus is uncertain is unnecessary in this part, so I've removed. The rest is done. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and with a central carina ("keel") in the genus." - "in the genus" at the end here is unnecessary.

Removed. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...occur in any other member of Eurypterida." - here it could be "...occur in any other eurypterid"

Done. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"have made the classification" -> has made the classification

I replaced "combined with" with "and", so this is not needed anymore. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"although its assignal in this clade has also been questioned" - although "Dorfopterus being an eurypterid at all has also been questioned" is more simple and skips using "assignal" which I don't think is a grammatically correct word

Done. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The genus is believed to have lived in an estuarine inland channel during the Emsian stage" - the end of this sentence (since it begins with "the genus is believed") makes it sound as if it is not certain that it actually lived during the Emsian. "during the Emsian stage" isn't 100 % necessary so could either be removed (I usually don't include info on the precise epochs or stages in the lede) or moved to another part of the section.

I removed the end of the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the taxobox - incertae sedis should be in lowercase (see Wiedopterus, Paradinandra, Gluteus minimus, Leurospondylus etc.) and it does not need the cross/extinction symbol before it because it isn't a taxonomic group, just a marker that we don't know where the genus should go (see again Wiedopterus - note that in the Dunlop, Penney and Jekel list there are '†' symbols before all the genera, families, superfamilies etc. but not before the "Eurypterida incertae sedis" heading).

Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - description

"originally described as a stylonurid" could be "originally described as a stylonurid eurypterid" for good measure

Sure, done. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the smallest of them being Ctenopterus cestrotus while the biggest being Pagea plotnicki." -> the smallest of them being Ctenopterus cestrotus and the biggest being Pagea plotnicki

Done. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "last segment of the body" is a better explanation of telson than "tail" but that's subjective and up to you

I remember having read that the telson being a segment is inaccurate, so I'd rather keep this definition. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on telson said that "it is not considered a true segment..." but there was a citation needed tag. I looked it up and the definition varies depending on the researcher (see here) - some consider it to be a segment and others do not. I've fixed the telson article in this respect, noting both definitions, but this means that explaining the term either way is fine. You thus don't have to call the telson the posteriormost segment, but the reason I'm wondering about "tail" specifically is because I imagine it would be possible to confuse for the entire postabdomen (which can be very tail-like in some genera, such as Rhinocarcinosoma) - is telson explained that way in any of the sources? Perhaps "tail spike" could work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand you now. I don't think it is simply called "tail" in any sources, that was a simple definition I probably made up while working at some eurypterid article. Although I am not fully satisfied with tail spike as a definition, it could work if there's nothing better, but I think we should try to find a better one and agree on using it on eurypterid articles. Tetlie's 2004 thesis, which includes a glossary for eurypterid body parts (I remember getting the definition of epimera from there, which I later simplified), defines telson as "The posteriormost, usually styliform somite" (I don't really know what a somite is). Isopoda defines telson as "terminal section" (apparently the only non-eurypterid arthropod GA/FA that defined what a telson is, although I didn't check the 70 or so arthropod GAs). The article telson defines it (as you might know) as "the posterior-most division of the body of an arthropod", Wiktionary defines it as "The part of an arthropod or crustacean posterior to the last segment" , the Oxford Dictionary as "The most posterior arthropod somite in which the posterior opening of the alimentary canal is located". I think the definition should go in the line of "terminal section of the body" or something like that, but maybe you can think of something better.

By the way, I don't think we should call the telson a segment in any eurypterid article. One of the clearest characteristics of eurypterids is that they have 12 segments. Imagine that in some article, a eurypterid is described from top to bottom and when the reader reaches the pretelson, they see as definition "the last segment preceding the telson" (or something like that) but then when they reach the telson, they see "the posteriormost segment" (or something like that) as explanation. It would be confusing for the reader. Furthermore, I never saw any researcher calling the telson a 13th segment on eurypterids or similar. Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Somite" essentially means segment (see here) but it's a bit complicated. Calling the telson the "posteriormost segment" isn't explicitly wrong, since it would be that in some definitions, but I agree that finding a term that does not depend on your definition would be best. Maybe we could go with something like "the posteriormost division of the body, often in the shape of a spike" - which makes it clear that it's the last part of the body and also mentions that it is usually spike-shaped (aka. "styliform") since that's brought up a lot. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one more, although I think it is too general for individual genera. It could be used in Eurypterid however, as it lacks a definition for telson. How about just using "the posteriormost division of the body"? That it is spike-like should be specified in the respective articles of each genera in my opinion. Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. We could skip "often in the shape of a spike" in the articles of individual genera. I think we should include it at Eurypterid, as you say, and also preferrably in the larger taxonomic units (Eurypterina, Stylonurina, Diploperculata, but not necessarily in anything below them). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done then, I changed "tail" to "the posteriormost division of its body". Will this become the standard definition of telson for the rest of eurypterid-related articles? By the way, I wouldn't include the "shape of a spike" part on Diploperculata as a big part (if not a majority) of its genera (carcinosomatoids, most pterygotioids, apparently waeringopteroids but I am not sure) have other shapes of telsons. I'd just keep it to Eurypterida, Eurypterina and Stylonurina. Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The telson of Dorfopterus was long and very narrow, spike-like shaped," - either "shaped like a spike" or "with a spike-like shape" instead of "spike-like shaped".

Done. I chose the second option. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"rests of pointed scales" - what does "rests" mean in this context?

I replaced "rests" with "traces". Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - history of research

You don't have to say that it's known only from a single specimen again in the first paragraph here when that's already been mentioned in the description and I'm not sure there being no accession number specified in the paper is relevant enough to include here if none of the sources mention it. IMO the first sentence here could be removed, and the beginning of the second could then be changed from It was found on to The Dorfopterus fossil was found in

Actually sure, while rewriting the sentence to try to save the accession number part, I realized it is not that necessary. I still kept that Dorfopterus is only known by one specimen, although I rewrote the sentence. Is it better? Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optional: "he erected the new genus Dorfopterus and the new species D. angusticollis for it" - "for it" at the end is not wrong but it doesn't flow very well - perhaps "he named the new genus and species Dorfopterus angusicollis, based on the fossil or something similar

Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"on the family Stylonuridae" -> "in the family Stylonuridae"

Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the additional specimens mentioned by Kjellesvig-Waering in 1966: everything's fine but I don't think you can use the 1966 paper to cite "and later studies never mentioned them" because this is not something Kjellesvig-Waering said in 1966. For that part of the sentence the citation(s) should preferrably be to the later studies where these specimens go unmentioned.

Yes, that's something I was doubtful about and I was waiting to see if you'd comment on it or not. It is now fixed, I cited all post-1966 papers saying Dorfopterus is a genus based in one single specimen. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"who would first refer Dorfopterus to another eurypterid family" - I know this is elaborated upon later under "classification" but this is a bit too unspecific, I think the other eurypterid family could be mentioned here.

I did this because I wanted Parastylonuridae to be linked on the classification section as this was explained there, but done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "and whose permanency in this clade has been doubted" you could but a punctation after "...later classify it as an uncertain animal with an unknown position within Eurypterida" and change the "permanency..." part around to "Some researchers have even doubted Dorfopterus being a eurypterid at all" (which I presume this means).

Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - classification

Suggestion: "The members of this family have changed enormously ever since," -> "The family has since been revised," - less hyperbolic

Done.

"This would not be posteriorly continued either, as the American professor and paleobiologist Roy E. Plotnick would classify Dorfopterus as incertae sedis within Eurypterida in 1983" - I don't think posteriorly continued is right (at the least it's a bit complicated wording) - this part could be replaced with "Waterston's classification of Dorfopterus was not retained by later researchers. In 1983, the American professor and paleobiologist Roy E. Plotnick classified Dorfopterus as incertae sedis within Eurypterida."

Done, although I altered your suggestion. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, he have only tentatively and not formally synonymized D. angusticollis with S. princetonii" -> "He thus only tentatively, and not formally, synonymized D. angusticollis with S. princetonii"

Done. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"An exception to this was made in a 1983 thesis by Plotnick, with Dorfopterus being featured on a cladogram on it which has been simplified here to only include major eurypterid clades and incertae sedis genera not belonging to any of them" - very long sentence. Could be split into: An exception to this was made in 1983, when Plotnick included Dorfopterus on a cladogram in a thesis. The cladogram below follows Plotnick's thesis, simplified to only include major eurypterid clades and incertae sedis genera."

Done, although I also altered this one. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "It must be noted that the cladogram is heavily outdated and does not go in line with current eurypterid phylogenetics anymore", just cited to the 2020 list of genera and stuff, falls under WP:SYNTH since this is your conclusion based on the list, not something that is stated in the list. I circumvented this problem at Eocarcinosoma by adding notes in the cladogram to those places that are now seen as incorrect. Maybe something similar could be done here (the list could be used for citations for such notes).

I think it would be a lot of avoidable effort and the cladogram could look too crowded. I basically included a cladogram of all of Eurypterida after all. I think this can be fixed by rewriting the sentence. How about "It must be noted that eurypterid phylogenetics have changed ever since Plotnick's 1983 study and do not correspond to his cladogram anymore."? I think the main problem here is that I called it outdated. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the list does not say anything about Plotnick's classification scheme (which is why I worry that it borders on WP:SYNTH), the list is also a taxonomic work (recording different taxonomic ranks and the genera contained therein), not a phylogenetic one. There would have to be notes for pretty much everything in the cladogram so you're right that this would not be an optimal solution. I think you could get away with this one if you change the sentence to "The interal classification of eurypterids has been substantially revised since 1983" or similar (with no explicit mention of Plotnick's thesis in this sentence), and add even more sources to back that up - maybe one of Tetlie's papers and possibly Lamsdell (2015) (since that one pretty much recovers the modern classification scheme in its phylogenetic analysis). This would illustrate that there is a largely consistent modern understanding of eurypterid systematics that is different from Plotnick's one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've changed the sentence. I think adding Lamsdell's 2015 paper is not entirely necessary and I'd like to avoid adding another source into the bibliography section as it used to have another one while I was working on the article in my sandbox and the columns of sources looked ugly and unequal (although that depends on the length of the citation and on the screen of the reader). I've cited Lamsdell and Selden (2017) p. 97 instead which includes a phylogenetic cladogram precisely of the major eurypterid taxa, is that enough? Super Ψ Dro 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. Everything looks good now, so I'm passing. Nice job once again and congratulations on your first eurypterid in a while! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the comments from me (paleoecology section looks completely excellent as is). Very good work on this very mysterious eurypterid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was fun to go back to eurypterids for once, although I am a bit burn out already... I don't know if I'll reach beyond Pruemopterus. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel you. I got really unenthusiastic once I got to Pentecopterus so we'll have to see how far I power through. Nice to get back to but it does get monotonous and technical. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]