User talk:WolfmanSF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WolfmanSF/Archive1 WolfmanSF/Archive2 WolfmanSF/Archive3
WolfmanSF/Archive4 WolfmanSF/Archive5

Leave a new message

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project

Aegirocassis has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

UNIPROT citation and inclusion in article[edit]

Hi, Wondering if you can help out with this, since it seems you have a lot of experience. I am bringing the Camas pocket gopher up to FA. It is doing well with the current FAC. I found this and this and want to use them. I've added *{{UniProt Taxonomy | name = Thomomys bulbivorus| id = 113116| accessdate = March 2015}} to the external links. I'd like to include info on the Cytochrome b gene analysis. Do you know how best to do this and in what section to insert it? Thanks, --Gaff (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you will be comparing its sequences with those of related species, it might go into the "Current phylogeny" section. If not, perhaps into a new section titled "Molecular biology" or something similar. I haven't seen much discussion of gene analyses in Wikipedia species articles, so I'm not sure if there is an established convention for this. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is a comparison, it is probably in this article, cited by Uniprot. I don't have access to ASM. I doubt that there is much value beyond what we already have from the 2008 article already referenced. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be able to access the article here: WolfmanSF (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mammut distribution map[edit]

Hi there WolfmanSF,

After removing the map I put up in Mammut, you requested that the small portion of the range in South America be removed. The webpage I derived the map from said that the species Mammut americanum didn't reach South America, but it makes no such claims for the entire genus. This webpage also shows mammutid remains originating from that location in South America and in Fossilworks those fossils are assigned to Mammut, not another mammutid genus or incertae sedis. Convinced? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fossilworks listings all appear to be based on this source: The Eocene to Pleistocene vertebrates of Bolivia and their stratigraphic context: a review (which can be obtained via Google Scholar - Wikipedia blacklists the link to the pdf). It describes an occurrence of Mastodon bolivianus which is equated to Cuvieronius hyodon (p. 643, upper left), and it is listed as a gomphothere, not a mastodon. Cuvieronius is an accepted taxon nowadays, although C. hyodon may not be (see Fossilworks), whereas Mastodon bolivianus or Mammut bolivianus is not accepted, as far as I'm aware. Also, Fossilworks does not show Mammut in South America under its own listing, or in the listings of any of the species shown under Mammut. So, I still believe that my request is appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
On p. 644, lower left, the source also equates C. hyodon with Mastodon andinum and describes it as a gomphothere. For some reason they describe Cuvieronius as a "mastodont", while also describing it as a gomphothere. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
So, in general, I think it is well accepted these days that the gomphotheres Cuvieronius and Stegomastodon were the only proboscids to reach South America. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

MLA form references[edit]

Hey. Im doing a science project on smilodon and i have to cite my refrences MLA form. So that would require your first and last name. If its not too much to ask, i was wondering if i could know both of your names so i can get a good grade. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for how to cite Wikipedia. You should not cite an anonymous Wikipedia contributor. However, I would encourage you to cite the primary sources (cited by the Wikipedia article) as much as possible, rather than citing Wikipeida. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aegirocassis[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with panorama[edit]

Please see Commons:File talk:California Academy of Sciences pano.jpg for details. I really would like to use your panoramic image. Reify-tech (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Per Holknekt[edit]

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be in reasonable shape. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Laplace resonance[edit]

You said "the Laplace resonance is the only other example in the Solar System of a 3-body resonance in a satellite system". Then which is the other? --JorisvS (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Laplace resonance" refers to the Io:Europa:Ganymede resonance (although similar 1:2:4 resonances in extrasolar systems are sometimes also described by the same term). Hence, the Styx:Nix:Hydra resonance is described as "Laplace-like". Whether there is a universally accepted definition of "Laplace resonance" is not clear. An earlier version of this article defined it as any 3-body resonance. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why "Laplace-like"? --JorisvS (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I presume this is their terminology for a 3-body resonance that does not have the 1:2:4 ratio of the Galilean moons. Others have used "Laplace-type". Ask Mark Showalter if you really want to know. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it then simply a Laplace resonance? If so, we don't have to parrot authors' idiosyncratic wording. --JorisvS (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see the paragraph on the definition of "Laplace resonance" in the Types of resonances section of the orbital resonance artlicle. I think that answers your question. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, it does. I have rephrased it at moons of Pluto to explain this properly. --JorisvS (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

List of tall stuff[edit]

cf.. I think it was right, originally. ResMar 02:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If so inclined, you could add "asl" ("above sea level") to the elevation values, and approximate above-base values as well. Also, I think the precision shown for the Olympus Mons height is excessive. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)