This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Hi Ichthyovenator, congratulations on your new eurypterid GA in a while! I wanted to say I feel the classification section in this article is way too short, I was thinking to GA review this one myself but the user above did before. Could it be possible to add a bit about the general diagnostic characteristics of the members of Carcinosomatidae? Just so that the section is longer than the paleoecology section. By the way, it looks like Plotnick did include Eocarcinosoma on a cladogram on 1983. I don't have access to his article (called "Patterns in the Evolution of the Eurypterids") but I can look at it through Tetlie's 2004 thesis. It is a very useful document in my opinion and I've cited it quite a lot while working on Dorfopterus. I can pass the thesis to you if you wish, I got it downloaded, although I think I will make Plotnick's cladogram to add it on Dorfopterus so I can add it here myself if you wish, although I am not very good at doing cladograms in Wikipedia so I am not sure if I'll do it in the end. SuperΨDro 15:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Super Dromaeosaurus! I agree that the classification is very short. There is no requirement that it should be long just to be long so I don't think we need to add in characteristics of the Carcinosomatidae if we don't include that for the other genera. I don't think the section needs to be longer than what it is + a cladogram and information from where it comes from (like in Rhinocarcinosoma for instance), but it is like it is because I couldn't find any cladograms with Eocarcinosoma. You're more than welcome to add in a cladogram based on Plotnick's here, or you could e-mail the thesis to me if you want. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will in the end request the cladogram (I barely remembered I could do that a few hours ago) but I'll still send the thesis and a few other papers to you as I find them useful and valuable. SuperΨDro 18:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered I can't send archives through Wikipedia... You have to email me first. I had expected to be able to send you the email before but in a few minutes I have to leave my PC, so I'll send the documents at around 22:00 UTC. SuperΨDro 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush! I've sent you an e-mail through Wikipedia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've added the cladogram here. I think the overall cladogram is a bit questionable because it is quite different from where the genera end up in modern phylogenetic analyses, but I think we should be fine if we use portions of it with notes, like I did here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And yes, it's pretty outdated, but it's the only one we have for a few genera, and I believe it is better to include a cladogram if possible. SuperΨDro 10:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. As long as we note that it's outdated it should be fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
