Talk:Oxalaia

Publication

Is there any evidence that this paper has been published yet? It's still listed under future issues on the official web site and an ISSN search for the provided number (ISSN 0001-3765) doesn't return it. This looks like it might still be a nomen nudum. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On this note, I just realised this is the most recently named genus of dinosaur to be nominated for FA, PaleoGeekSquared, if you hadn't noticed. I think it will hold that distinction for a while... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well-spotted! I had not noticed that, indeed most of the other FA dinosaurs were named before the 21st century. Also, funny thing: when I saw that a "Publication" section on this article's talk page had been updated, I thought it meant new material from the dinosaur had been found/described. Heh, got really excited there for a second. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha, aww, sorry to disappoint you! If more spinosaurid material is found in the formation, it'll probably be another part of the skeleton, and we'll have the Irritator/Angaturama situation all over again... FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense that newer dinosaurs rarely get FAs, there's no enough literature to support it a lot of the time. Microraptor and Anchiornis are prime candidates, but neither is more recent than this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is probably also more stable than those of other recently named genera because so little of it is known, and therefore little research can be done on it. Add to that it was probably also lost in the Brazil Museum fire, and there will probably be few possible updates to make here. I noticed this was the most recent genus to become an FA because I was considering which troodont article to expand (we have no troodont FAs), and the contender I found most likely, Xixiasaurus (mainly due to the many free images and lack of controversy in the literature) is from 2010, so still older... FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Valid genus?

Hmm, let's see, 5.5 to 7 tons in weight, 39 to 46 feet in length, sound pretty similar in size to Spinosaurus. In fact, couldn't these fossils represent simply a smaller Brazilian species of this genus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Size is a pretty flimsy basis for synonymisation. And just because one bone of a skeleton is similar, this says absolutely nothing about the rest of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, the concept "genus" has no operational definition, so the notion of "simply being another species of a genus" is scientifically meaningless.--MWAK (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. Some preliminary issues below. FunkMonk (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• In general, the structure needs some work. There is a lot of information in sections where it doesn't belong, so you could read through the article again, and distribute the info to where it makes more sense.

Done.

• A good model for how a GA about a theropod known from skull scraps can be written and structured would be Rajasaurus, which you could give a look.

It's definitely helping me figure some things out.

• Where is the paleoecology section? That is a stable of all other promoted dinosaur genus articles. In it, you could also place info about possible lifestyle.

Done.

• The intro is too short, it should be a summary of the entire article.

Done

• What is the point of showing all of megalosauroidae? Spinosauridae alone would suffice.

Done.

• "Oxalaia is a large spinosaurid dinosaur closely related to Spinosaurus." Why is this in the discovery section?

Done.

• "In fact, it is occasionally expressed in the palaeontological community that Oxalaia may even be a possible second species under the genus Spinosaurus" It makes little chrinological sense to begin the discovery section like this. First you should cover its discovery, naming, and then whatever taxonomic shuffles that have been proposed later.

Done.

• You don't need to write the name of the animal in the captions, it goes without saying that the images show the subject of the article.

Done.

• The article could be more comprehensive. For example, I'm sure the 2017 paper warrants more coverage than the single sentences under classification.

Done

• "It is known from the holotype MN 6117-V, fused premaxillae of a very large individual and from the referred fragment (MN 6119-V), and an isolated and incomplete left maxilla, which were found on Cajual Island, Maranhão of northeastern Brazil." This belongs under discovery.

Done.

• "and the eighth officially named species of theropod from Brazil." Likewise.

Done.

• "Even though there is currently no direct evidence for it, Oxalaia Is often depicted with a sail/hump, due to its close relation to Spinosaurus." What source says this?

Removed unsourced statement.

• "In fact, it is occasionally expressed in the palaeontological community" This is handwavey, you should simply state who claims this, when, and why.

Removed unsourced statement.

• It seems there are a bunch of papers that mention this dinosaur but which are not cited or discussed, such as:[1][2][3][4]

Added info from them to the article, especially in the palaeoecology and classification sections. A few only briefly mention Oxalaia and merely state information already in the original publication by Kellner et al. so I left those out.

• "MSNM V4047 (referred to Spinosaurus)" is this level of detail really needed here? You could just say Spinosaurus.

I checked the reference, that is the way it's written in the cladogram from Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz et al.

Yes, but why is it relevant in this article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed it then.

Thanks for taking the time to review! I'm working on all these edits at the moment, I got about half of them done and will continue tomorrow. Great work finding those new citations, I didn't know Oxalaia had gotten that much attention, I look forward to expanding the article with them, although unfortunately half of them are behind a paywall. Especially the one on the paleoecology of the Alcantara formation looks like it would be a very valuable addition, guess I'll have to work from the abstract then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 08:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in; I would be happy to provide sources, just send me your Email address via wiki mail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, also note that PDFs of articles can often be found through Google, on for example Researchgate, through Scihub (if you're conformable with that), or WP:RX. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And btw, a great way to identify most of the relevant papers is to ask Google Scholar to print you a list of papers citing the first description: [5] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Found the complete paper on ResearchGate! This thing is a goldmine for info on cenomanian Brazil; there's a lot of content suitable for the paleoecology section on Oxalaia, but also enough to expand a couple other articles as well. Such as the one on the Alcântara Formation. Overall articles on paleontology in Brazil are very underrepresented on wikipedia, I think it's time that changed. I might try to get Irritator to GAN at some point as well, that page sure needs a lot of work done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 17:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Irritator is kind of complicated, though, so Oxalaia is a good taxon to practice on before getting tangled in something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• A side note, if a may: I would strongly suggest to remove the geometric color figures from the life reconstruction. Be very cautious with speculative colors and patterns. Such speculation is feasible if you follow examples of coloration which actually exist today in modern reptiles. But if the pattern is closer to a modern art painting than to anything known from nature, then we have a problem, as it is not so unlikely that biologists will be able to point out why a certain painting is unlikely or impossible to occur in nature, which would make it an actual error. What are, btw., these black fringes which appear to continue on the neck and skull as if they were feathers? It honestly just does not look professional to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur on that pattern on the flank, it looks like Aladdin Sane-style David Bowie make up, too designed. And by the way, Jens, feel free to add any comments you want during this review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

David Bowie, heh, gotta give it to you on that one. I'll probably just have to make a new restoration entirely, as there are many things I did not know about dinosaur anatomy and biology at the time I drew this one. Besides the coloration, there are some other issues I now see, such the a lack of a prominent coracoid like all spinosaurids had, the hands are just weird with the claws looking like they're about to fall off, and the feet lack a consistent shape. The snout and jawline are also bizarre and do not quite match the shape of the holotype. So overall, I'm gonna have to redo this one. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 16:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I see you've added an image of a maxilla fragment from a completely different paper without a free licence to the silhouette from Plos One, but that of course isn't permitted. Seems that's the version used in the "hypothetical paleoart" template too. The piece could of course be redrawn from scratch if we want to include it.

I made a new diagram of the known fossil material, the silhouette is based on this. In the meantime the original skeletal with just the holotype is replacing the non-free image, which has been tagged for speedy deletion. Any changes needed on the new skeletal? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)

• Now that you have a paleoecology section, I think this image showing where the fossil was discovered is more relevant there:[6]

Done.

• If you have images in the cladogram, why not add Irritator? Also, the Oxalaia image may be fine there, because it is too tiny to see details.

I did that before, but IJReid mentioned in one of my older edits to Spinosauridae that the if the point of the cladograms is to show anatomical differences between taxa, then restorations for very fragmentary ones like Oxalaia should not be present. Which makes sense, actually. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 18:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too problematic in an article about the taxon itself, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• "this has led some reconstructions of Oxalaia to be labeled as "Spinosaurus quilombensis"." Is that actually in the source?

I was checking that earlier, and it's not. The same thing is true of the statement where "it is occasionally expressed in the palaeontological community that Oxalaia may even be a possible second species under the genus Spinosaurus", I'm not sure where the original writer of these sentences got them from, because there isn't even a mention of Oxalaia in one of the sources. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be based on idle speculation on various web-fora, so it should just be nuked from here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people hold the opinion that Oxalaia is just another species of Spinosaurus, you see it on forums and discussions all the time. But there is no official publication stating it. Then again, this isn't the first time controversial subjects in paleontology give rise to myths and false information gets spread online, looks like someone tried to sneak this one into the article with a random reference related to spinosaurids and hoped no one would notice. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• This alternate photo[7] could maybe be nice in the white space under classification, since it shows some detail that is less clear in the taxobox photo.

I think I'll leave that space for the new restoration, which I'll be finishing one of these days. I'm planning on making two, actually, one featuring the animal by itself and the other for the palaeoecology section, which will have Oxalaia in its environment as well as some of the formation's prominent fish taxa and flora. There is a very impressive 3d render featuring a bunch of Brazilian Cenomanian dinosaurs, fish, crocodylomorphs, and plants in one of the references you mentioned earlier, here. It would be absolutely perfect for the palaeoecology section, but sadly it's not released under a permitted license and Oxalaia's hind limbs have outdated proportions. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 15:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll continue once the above issues are dealt with.

Everything up there is done, I still need to know if the new diagram's good to go? Besides that, you can continue. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 16:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The diagram has the same problem as before, though; the maxilla seems to be taken form a non-free paper. It is probably best just to use the current image that has been published in a peer reviewed paper. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized that the 4 views of the holotype image in the taxobox is actually from PLoS one, I thought it was from Kellner et al.'s paper and that's why I used the maxilla image, My bad. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 17:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've crossed off all issues below and have finished drawing the new restoration (pending upload). But in the meantime I've remade the skeletal[8], this time I drew the bones myself instead of using the images from the paper, will this do? It's essentially how most other user-submitted skeletals are made. I'd really like to actually have the maxilla fragment and its location shown somewhere in the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of WP:verifiability, if we can use an image from a peer reviewed paper, we should use it over user-created images, so it would probably be best to just add the maxilla to the journal image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'll do that then, sorry if I was getting a bit too insistent. I'm still not too informed with all of Wikipedia's policies. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Abelisaurids are linked twice in the same section, and I don't think you need to link 2011 twice in the taxobox.

Done.

• I'm not sure if you need a "skull" section under description. It is known from nothing but skull fragments.

Done.

• "and also one of three spinosaurids discovered there, the other two being Irritator, and its possible synonym Angaturama.[1]" Not relevant under description.

Done.

• You need conversions for all measurements given in the article.

Done.

• "the upper jaw of Spinosaurus aegypticus by Dal Sasso et al. (2005)" Described by? Also, why do we need to mention here who it was described by? You don't mention that for the other listed specimens.

Done.

• "Algerian Spinosaurid (MNHN SAM 124)" Below you refer to it as Spinosaurus.

Done.

• You could explain that the premaxilla is the front bone in the upper jaw, and perhaps that rostrum means snout. Maxilla could also be explained.

Done.

• "It also had one functional tooth" I assume "it" refers to the tooth sockets, which could be clarified.

Done.

• "African deity Oxalá" Link.

Done.

• Not sure why you need a taxonomy subsection within classification.

Done.

• The description paper states the African deity the animal was named after was also worshiped by the escaped slaves who lived in the region, so that should be mentioned, otherwise the connection seems vague.

Done.

• "autapomorphic" Link/explain.

Done.

• "are referred only from teeth" I think you're using "referred" incorrectly here. Based on/known from instead.

Done.

• "showed that Oxalaia is" Was, not sure why you change tense here.

Done.

• "more closely related to African spinosaurines" Does this have any bearing on its name, which is associated with African exiles?

No, it simply refers to members of spinosaurinae found in Africa.

• "are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus" Explain to lay readers.

Done.

• "as well as the absence of fine serrations" Add that these were on the teeth, for clarity.

Done.

• "by Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz et al." Give date.

Done.

• On what grounds was the maxilla referred to this animal?

It showed the same characteristics that other members of spinosauridae did, added that information.

• "Oxalaia is known from Cenomanian deposits" State how many millions of years ago was, and that it was in the Late Cretaceous.

Done.

• "Oxalaia likely spent most of its time near or in water and fed on fish" This makes it seem like it fed exclusively on fish, though we know they ate other animals too.

Done.

• "Oxalaia could have coexisted with Carcharodontosaurus" Is carcharodontosaurid meant?

Done.

• of fossil teeth and s referred to" s?

Was supposed to say some vertebra, corrected now.

• "is a result of Gondwana" Explain that it was continent and what it consisted of.

Done.

• "and is a smaller, close relative of Spinosaurus" Does the source specifically state it was smaller? They seem to be about equal in size.

Done.

• The intro is still too short, as it should summarise the entire article. You don't describe the specimens at all, for example.

Is that better?

• The intro should just be a summary without unique info, so it does not need citations for info that is not controversial.

Done.

• I think the changes look good, since he's already "here", maybe Jens Lallensack has something to add. I'll be away for a few days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, nothing to add. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it should be ready to pass soon. There was talk about adding something from that new paper on some spinoisaurid leg bone from Brazil? Should be done before passing then. Also, I think the caption of the silhouette could be modified, it doesn't show all jaw material if it doesn't show the maxilla. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That new paper isn't about Oxalaia itself at all, the information should be added to either the Spinosauridae article or the Irritator article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the abstract states the specimen originates from the Romualdo layer of the Santana Formation in the Aptian-Albian, the same as Irritator/Angaturama, although it does suggest that spinosaurines were indeed more partial to a semi-aquatic lifestyle than baryonychines. No need to worry about the image caption, I added the maxilla I drew to the PLoS one image as you suggested. The article's pretty much done, I'm just waiting on Paleocolour, who kindly agreed to color in my Oxalaia restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 01:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I will pass this article now (ignore that I mistakenly wrote FA instead of GA in the edit summary...), I think it has really improved, especially with the paleoecology stuff added. So this should give you a good basis for work on future articles. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the great review, FunkMonk! I'll admit, as my user page stated before, I never really planned on editing articles other than to add images or restorations, but now that I'm doing it I realized it's quite a fun and educating experience actually. I really enjoyed the review, it helped me understand the editing and writing process better, as well as how the GA criteria really work. So I look forward to improving and nominating other articles with this knowledge. Next stop, Spinosauridae! (And then perhaps Irritator) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear! It took me several years on Wikipedia before I even started nominating articles myself... But it became quite addicting after I began, and unlike for example playing video games in one's free time, it is for the greater good, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Size

As apparently this theropod reaches the size of 12-14 meters in length, it would not only be the largest theropod of Brazil but it's even in the top 3 of the largest known theropods (surpassing icons like Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus). Should we emphasize this aspect in the article (because currently we have the impression that it's a random dinosaur)? --Ellicrum (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if the source does, and it appears it doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Scale chart caption

I changed the caption on my scale chart from:

"Size compared to a human, with big caveats based on the paucity of remains to work with"

to:

"Size compared to a human, with a hypothetical silhouette due to the small amount of known material"

because even as a native English speaker, I had to look up what those words meant. I think that this makes more sense ("hypothetical silhouette" as opposed to "big caveats"), but I am willing to listen to input on this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The former sentence was also unnecessarily convoluted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Casliber suggested that sentence in the peer review.[9] I thought it was a bit too elaborate as well, don't know why I didn't change it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the caption again, since it was supposed to warn of the speculative nature of the size estimate, not the shape of the silhouette. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Art

The art is does not look very accurate, the legs don't look like they'll be able to support the body weight and looks straight up cartoonish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.205.200 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to catch up on Spinosaurus' make over (which this was based on). Since it is very speculative, I wonder if the fossil image (or diagram) should have been used on the front page instead, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

El oxalaia y el sigilmasaurus no son validos

El oxalaia y el sigilmasaurus no son validos y son mismo que el spinosaurus 190.38.133.96 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)