Wikipedia:Peer review/Bachitherium/archive1

Bachitherium

I'm listing Bachitherium for a peer review because it is a particularly long article, and I'm not sure how easy or difficult it is for laymen to read, and unfortunately, Paleogene mammal specialists are pretty rare in this day and age including in Wikipedia. I wrote this article in part because of my interest in fossil mammals but also because I think that the concept of faunal turnovers are interesting in understanding the evolution of environments. I'm hoping that eventually I can get this article to good article (GA) status at least, so a peer review would definitely help.

Thanks, PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger

Since this is a peer review, I'm going to do a line-by-line of the lede only and a more cursory check of the rest of this article. At first glance, though, the lede is a mess- you're tracking to pack a ton of information into four paragraphs and achieving confusion instead.

• First off, bold the instances of Bachitherium in the cladograms.
• I am extremely uncertain about the inclusion of the various collapsed charts showing very technical measurements. While informative, I don't think they fit the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. The cranial and dental lengths tables are the worst violators of this; I cannot see what they add to the article.
• The Palaeoecology section is... very well-written, but very much wandering down a massive tangent. I'd suggest merging most of it into other articles and using See Also and Main Article links.
• I'm not sure you need to use collapsible lists for the synonyms in the taxobox since there's not many synonyms.

Anyway, back to the lede...

• Etymology: normally, I see the etymology of a name given in parentheses when it translates directly to a phrase, and given later in the lede as a separate sentence when it doesn't. For example, "Brontosaurus (lit. "thunder lizard")..." as opposed to Mimodactylus. Here, I would suggest moving the etymology to a separate sentence; something like The generic name comes from Bach, the French locality [why that locality? was it first found there?], and the Greek word θήρ, therium "beast". Note that there are templates for putting Greek letters into text.
• First sentence: I don't think you need to go into that it lived first in eastern then in western Europe right away; ...that lived in Europe from the late Eocene to the late Oligocene. would be fine.
• Previously identified as species of Gelocus, the genus was first erected in 1882 by Henri Filhol with the type species being B. curtum. - Here is where the confusion begins for me. Later in the article, it looks like they were always considered a different genus? My tentative suggestion is you change the sentence to something along the lines of The genus was erected in 1882 by Henry Filhol for two new species: Bachitherium curtum, the type species, and Bachitherium insigne. The points to hit here are: when was the first species described (and as what), and then when was the genus described and for which species.
• Bachitherium had gone through a taxonomic history of being classified with ruminant families of the infraorder Tragulina but has since been distinguished as belonging to its own family with 6 known species based on the presence of a caniniform P1 (premolar) tooth, small tusklike I1 (incisor), short upper canines, and other dental and postcranial differences that made it an evolutionarily "advanced" traguline.

Honestly, this whole article is very dense and very wordy. I can understand what it is trying convey most of the time, but only after reading each paragraph at least twice. I suggest you go through and copy-edit it with an eye for concision, summary style, and a focus on the family/genus/species. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I made quick revisions based on suggested changes to the lead section, and I'll copy-edit the article soon, although I would prefer eventual suggestions for improving the description section since I'm not yet used to revising information like anatomy-based texts to be easier for audiences to read. I'll prioritize revising the palaeoecology section, more to come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuing, starting from the lede again. I still have reservations about the length and density of this article, so I will try to be more thorough. Starting with the lede:

• Thank you for adding the sentence on the etymology, although I did add the templates used for Greek wording.
• First paragraph:
  • Bachitherium had gone through a taxonomic history of being classified with ruminant families of the infraorder Tragulina but has since been distinguished as belonging to its own family with 6 known species based on various dental and postcranial differences that made it an evolutionarily "advanced" traguline. This is a run-on sentence.
  • It is known as the first ruminant to have appeared in Europe, although it was also not the first to appear in the western European region. This is confusing.
  • I am going to suggest rewriting much of the first paragraph: Bachitherium is an extinct genus of Paleogene ruminants that lived in Europe from the late Eocene to the late Oligocene. The genus was erected in 1882 by Henri Filhol for Bachitherium curtum, the type species, and B. insigne; five more species have since been named (B. guirounetensis, B. lavocati, B. thraciensis, and B. vireti) although one, B. sardus, has recently been considered [dubious?]. The genus name derives from "Bach", the French locality where its first fossils were found, and the Greek θήρ/therium meaning "beast". Bachitherium has historically been assigned to various families within the ruminant infrorder Tragulina, but has been been considered part of its own family Bachitheriidae since [when?]. It is the first ruminant known from Europe, appearing in eastern Europe during the Eocene and migrating to western Europe by the [early/middle/late?] Oligocene. The Microbunodon Event in the late Oligocene, however, led to its extinction as it faced a changing climate, habitat, and competition from a new wave of migrating species.
• Now the hard part: rewrite the rest of the lede. In 2-3 paragraphs, you need to tell me and everyone else the approximate size and shape of Bachitherium a brief and extremely simplified explanation of what makes it different from other ruminants, a bit about what it ate, the habitat it lived in, and how much and, also very simplified, what material Bachitherium is known from. What you do not need to cover is the climate changes, geographical changes, migrations, etc.

I'll go through the history next. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Beginning Taxonomy/Early history section:

• I recommend starting in chronological order: if any species were described before the genus, start with them. E.g., start with saying that in 1877, French palaeontologist Henry Filhol described and named two new species of fossil artiodactyls, Gelocus curtus and G. insignis, based on fossils [if possible, what sort of fossils?] from [place]. [...] [Etymology of species names]. However, in 1882 he re-assigned "Gelocus" insignis to the new genus Bachitherium along with the newly-described B. medium and B. minus. [sentence about Bachitherium being assigned to what family. Repeat full genus etymology and then state etymology for species.]" Or "But in 1882, based on differences in the [dentition/dental formula/etc], he moved both species to a new genus Bachitherium along with the newly-described B. medium and B. minus." Add in more details as needed. (I am very much guessing at what exactly happened).
• The French palaeontologist Henri Filhol described two fossil artiodactyl genera from the lime phosphate deposits of the French province of Quercy that he thought indicated the Eocene epoch in 1882. What genera? Please name them here.
• According to Filhol, the lower dental formula of the genus was 3:1:3:3, and the genus was characterized by its compressed lower premolars, with the posterior edge extending as a deep furrow. It was therefore differentiated from Gelocus in that the newer genus had all compressed lower premolars whereas only the last premolar of Gelocus, which has four premolars total, was compressed. The incisors, he observed, were quite small, while the canine immediately following them was strong. Why is this in the taxonomy section? This is description.
• Based on these traits, Filhol erected the genus name Bachitherium, basing its etymology on "Bach," a location of phosphorite deposits. The first species, B. insigne, was determined to be a large animal while B. medium was much smaller than B. insigne but larger than the smallest species B. minus. Repeat the whole genus etymology here, note the type species, and then follow it with a sentence about the species' etymologies.
• In 1885, the English naturalist Richard Lydekker placed Bachitherium provisionally in the family Tragulidae (chevrotains/mouse-deer/tragulids) and listed the species Bachitherium curtum, for which he made "Gelocus curtum" and "Bachitherium medium" synonyms of because the specimens appeared to have belonged to the same species (notably, Filhol described the species "Gelocus curtus" and "Gelocus insignis" in 1877 prior to the erection of Bachitherium). -> In 1885, the English naturalist Richard Lydekker provisionally placed Bachitherium in the family Tragulidae and synonymized Bachitherium medium with Bachitherium curtum (formerly Gelocus curtus).
• Lydekker stated that Bachitherium was known only by some portions of the mandible and maxilla, that it was said to be closely allied to Gelocus but differed by its first lower premolar. He stated that the dental formula of Bachitherium was ?.?.3.33.1.3.3, that the upper cheek of the genus closely resemble that of Prodremotherium. Additionally, he also confirmed B. insigne as a valid species.
  • First, move that last sentence up to right after the first: He also included B. insigne in the genus, [did he say anything about B. minus?]
  • Lydekker stated that Bachitherium was closely related to Gelocus but was differentiated [by the shape of? or the presence of?] the first lower premolar, while the upper cheek teeth closely resembled those of Prodremotherium. He gave a different dental formula for Bachitherium than Filhol, ?.?.3.33.1.3.3, [why did he give it a different dental formula?].
• In 1886, the German palaeontologist Max Schlosser erected the genus Cryptomeryx for which he made Lophiomeryx gaudryi, as described by Filhol in 1877, and Bachitherium minus synonyms of the species Cryptomeryx gaudryi. -> In 1886, the German palaeontologist Max Schlosser erected the genus Cryptomeryx for Lophiomeryx gaudryi and included Bachitherium minus as a junior synonym.
• In 1957, the palaeontologist Friedlinde A. Obergfell erected a newer species of Bachitherium named B. serum from the German locality of Wintershof-West. He said that it resembled B. insigne from the phosphorite sites of Quercy based on the entoconid being connected to the metaconid on both the P3 and P4 teeth, leaving a valley on the tip from the protoconid to the entostylid. In 1971, Léonard Ginsburg created a genus named Andegameryx, of which A. andegaviensis is the type species. He acknowledged the similarities between B. insigne and "B. serum" but noticed that unlike Bachitherium, the tooth valley of "B. serum" is not, at least on the P4, closed on the rear; it instead turns inward and opens at the posterior lingual angle of the tooth. Because of this and other dental traits of the species, the taxon was reclassified to Andegameryx as the species A. serum. This contains twice as much technical details as necessary. In 1957, the palaeontologist Friedlinde A. Obergfell erected a new species Bachitherium serum based on fossils [what fossils?] from the German locality of Wintershof-West, noting that it closely resembled B. insigne. In 1971, Léonard Ginsburg named a new genus Andegameryx and its type and only species A. andegaviensis. He acknowledged the similarities between B. insigne and "B. serum", but because of differences in the dental traits between the two species, he reclassified "B. serum to Andegameryx.
• Last paragraph: clarify that P1 is the first upper premolar and that I1 is the first upper incisor.