Talk:Archelon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References section[edit]

The reference section would require to reformatted so to become clearer and following the guidelines layed in Wikipedia. --Francisco Valverde 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening[edit]

The previous version stated that Archelon is the largest sea turtle that ever lived. This is indeed possible, but impossible to prove. It is simply the largest yet discovered and disclosed. I have changed the wording to indicate that it is the largest currently documented. 209.202.3.94 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archelon ischyodus[edit]

I took a picture at the ROM of a cast of the extinct sea turtle and it's label. I was going to include the pictures but I didn't because I was concerned of licensing issues. Here is a summary of what is read on the label:

  • The cast is of Archelon ischyodus
  • It was found in South Dakota
  • It is 74 million years old, during the Late Cretaceous
  • The specimen was donated by the Louise Hawley Stone Charitable Trust

The specimen, on observation, does look like Archelon ischyros. I might be describing the vary same individual sea turtle, anyone know if it's still hanging out in the Wallace Building on the University of Manitoba campus?

Also, can someone help me figure out if my image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? --Canadafreakazoid (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, skeletons are not copyrighted by the museum, because they are not art. So you can do what you want with the photos. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the images I was talking about. --Canadafreakazoid (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taken at the Royal Ontario Museum on August 13, 2013.
Taken at the Royal Ontario Museum on August 13, 2013.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This guy always seemed strange to me. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the size comparison image should be first in the description section, and the skull moved a few paragraphs down? To reflect the adjacent text better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of duplinks, you can detect them with this script:[1]
It only detected 1. Remember the tool doesn't know that you wikilink something in both the main article and the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically distinguishes between the intro and the article body ("In addition, it highlights duplicate links within the lead and within the body of the article separately"), maybe you have another version. I still see two duplinks under palaeoecology (Xiphactinus and bivalves). FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[2] would seem like a better taxobox photo, if the background wasn't so busy, sadly...
c'est la vie   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images captions could state which museums the skeletons are in.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archelon had a pronounced hook." This is a bit vague, you should specify where this hook is located.
I just changed it to beak   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You show the species Inoceramus steenstrupi (misspelled "steenstrup"), but did this exact species live with Archelon, or another species of the genus?
The source specifically said I. steenstrup from the Pierre Shale (which is probably why it's misspelled, fixed it)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the external links seem dubious. One doesn't work, the other is commercial.
I forgot about the external links section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Greek ἀρχε- arkhe- "chief," χελώνη chelone "turtle," and ἰσχυρός ischyros "strong"" Does the original description really give etymology? Wasn't common at the time.
It doesn't and all internet ancient greek translators are the least user-friendly systems ever devised, what do I do because that is the correct translation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Casliber knows of a dictionary book we can cite? FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added now from my Greek lexicon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When first listing the full name and giving the etymology, you should also specify one is generic, the other specific.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He placed it into the" Use his name, as the preceding sentences don't mention him.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by O. C. Marsh" Spell out and link.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any cladogram?
I couldn't even give you a straight cladogram for sea turtles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have ignored [3] [4] [5] [6] from the last four years alone, which all include Archelon. 2001:569:782B:7A00:D3:A8CA:4C6E:41DD (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think one could be added, can be requested at WP:TREEREQ. If there are conflicting views, you can show two cladograms, as in Elasmosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the basis the shell underside (plastron) was thicker" On the basis that?
"that" is generally optional for English but I added it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a species of Protostega as P. marshii." Less repetition if you say ", P. marshii".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the former was recommended" Recommended seems like very weird wording, you mean assigned?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1953, after several more genera were added" Who did this study?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved to the newly erected genus" Simply to "to the new genus".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bit off by some large predator as a mosasaur" Such as? Also, link mosasaur here at first mention instead of under paleoecology,
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to note what further specimens that have been assigned to the genus.
fossilworks says there's only 3 but then it also says it's only found in the Dakotas so I don't think anyone's really kept track. I think it means 3 that have been described in a study. The best I could find is, "Fossils of this turtle have also been found in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, you could state what parts of the holotype were preserved, seems at least the skull was not known at the time (which would explain why the "head" of the holotype looks so different).[7]
Is, "mostly complete skeleton," good enough or should I say "radius, ulna, humerus, etc."?
Should be enough. But that source could also be used to state a skull was later found, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it have any synonyms itself?
none that I'm seeing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have photos of the Vienna specimen[8][9], supposedly the largest turtle known, a shame not to show somewhere. Perhaps the cladogram can make some usable white space to fill up.
added the second one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is so much white space next to the cladogram, perhaps move it there, since the description section is so image heavy? FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would move the cladogram down and leave a big gap between the text and the cladogram   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm that's because of the clear parameter at the bottom. Maybe IJReid knows how to fix it so that it doesn't break anything to place images next to the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Jts1882 knows too, now that Reid seems to be away. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work out exactly what the problem is. Can you point me to the edit that is causing the problem? It should be possible to put images next the the cladogram (which could be reduced in width and/or might need floating left).   Jts1882 | talk  21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be fiddling around with it now, so I apologize for any edit conflicts I may cause. I'm sure I'll figure out why the wiki html is breaking it here. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it, and basically, because the cladogram box template is treated as an image here, the bug was caused by the weird left-right image alignment. If an images on the right side is bumped down by another image, it will cause all images on both sides, if written into the article code on a later line, to be bumped down to beneath them, regardless of whether the following images are on the same or opposite side. This causes issues with stuff like cladograms and taxoboxes, which are treated as images, and I don't know why it exists but it does. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I'll be passing shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You jump between tenses a lot in the description section, should be consistent.
done. Past tense I had to use when they were making assumptions on how it was in life (like the live weight isn't the weight it is now so past tense is used)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The leatherback sea turtle" I think the caption could state the relevance, such as "the closest living relative" or some such.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit inconsistent that only the Desmatochelys species have full binomials in the cladogram, could give it to all.
some genera have multiple species, I think that would make things overly complex for the sake of consistency   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the reconstruction of the holotype with the tail bending almost completely horizontally is thought to be anatomically correct." Which reconstruction is that? You haven't mentioned it previously.
I just cut out the part about the holotype   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which are smaller than the other" Others?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has ten pairs of ribs" What has? Archelon? Better to specify, otherwise it should be past tense.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second to fifth ribs, inclusive" What does inclusive mean here?
I guess in hindsight it's not really needed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second to fifth ribs, inclusive" Again. Why is it needed?
  • Since the specimens seem to vary in size, you should state which specimen each measurement refers to.
I thought I did?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and haphazard sutures" What does that mean?
"hap·haz·ard /ˌhapˈhazərd/ adjective lacking any obvious principle of organization"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a strange context though, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...[neuralia] are joined...to the pleuralia by strongly marked, more or less imperfectly interlocking, sutural digitations"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should be more specific then, the term haphazard is never used in such a context in anatomical descriptions (also means "random, disorganized, slipshod, or hit-or-miss"), and we can't make our own very atypical interpretation of what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you have me say? I very well can't say "imperfectly interlocking, sutural digitations" because those words mean absolutely nothing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be closer to the source, even something like "irregular" and "finger-like sutures" for digitations would be closer to the mark. FunkMonk (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archelon has osteosclerotic structures" Seems odd to say this, and other things, in present tense.
Well the structures are still there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as opposed to a Y-shape" As in what animals?
camel plastrons, but I added "in other turtles"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The humeri in the arms" Specify upper arms.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fastest growing turtle" Add "modern", we don't know how fast the prehistoric ones grew?
added "known"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archelon was an obligate carnivore." How is this known? Seems a bit of a bald statement.
"Therefore, while there can be no doubt that Archelon was strictly carnivorous in habit..." and before that it goes off on how it definitely wasn't slow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archelon probably had weaker arms" How is this known?
They took the humerus/arm and hand/arm ratios of 5 turtles and plotted them on a graph and Archelon got close to Toxochelys and Toxochelidae are the sister group of Chelonioidea and they are known to have a poor development of the limbs into flippers and a preference for shallow water
You could state this then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the source does, you could mention which specific species it could have fed on.
It doesn't say Inoceramus but it describes a bivalve that exceeds 4 ft, and it specifically mentions a nautilus species which I added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are found without a flipper" Could be read as no flippers at all, you could say "a missing flipper".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The right lower flipper of the holotype is missing, and was probably bit off by some large predator such as a mosasaur or a Xiphactinus" You give entirelæy different reasons for missing flippers in the preceding sentence, why should this one be missed in another way?
I misread the source on that one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is estimated to have lived to 100 years" How?
didn't say. Do you trust the source I might ask? It seems legit but it isn't a journal or anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ok for GA, but might become a problem during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on replacing it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this is one of the last remaining issues (if you still plan on replacing it). FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find is an abstract from 1993 which seems to be the first mention of it, but it doesn’t mention live weight. The full article doesn’t seem to exist anywhere on the internet, and the abstract is found on a series of abstracts from Vertebrate Paleontology. Should I remove the part about the live weight?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Late Cretaceous Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska were all submerged" Oddly worded, how about "Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska were submerged in the Late Cretaceous" or some such?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Campanian-age Pierre Shale" The age should be given in the palaeoecology section, and you could give "million years ago".
Well Campanian-age refers only to the holotype, and it's not the only one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But are the others of different ages? In that case, even more reason to go further into this in the palaeoecology, as it would be a pretty big oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assume there are specimens found in Santonian and Maastrichtian sediment since fossilworks give a range of 84.9 to 70.6 Ma, but it only gives record of 3 specimens all from the Campanian Pierre Shale. I assume there's more than 3 because the former and because fossilworks only gives specimens from the Dakotas when another source says they've also been found in Kansas and Nebraska. No one seems to have published anything on Kansas nor Nebraska, so I don't know where exactly it's talking about, so the best I can do is talk about the latest Cretaceous seaway in a very generalist way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt more recent sources ignore this completely, there must be some that state its age. Also, Fossilworks is not always reliable, so if a journal article states only the Campanian, you should go wit that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can find is a newsletter saying "Cretaceous Period about 75 million years ago" so I guess we'll stick to Campanian. There's another that says it lived 144-65 million years ago but that's blatantly incorrect; they probably just meant to say Cretaceous instead of the actual years   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could state when it was named, and that other species were once assigned to the genus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should link A. marshii and A. copei in the intro.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added further replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick observations[edit]

added
  • If at all possible add a {{fossilrange}} to fossil_range as the color lights up the taxobox. Something like the following:
| fossil_range = [[Late Campanian]]<ref name=everhart/> {{fossilrange|74.9|70.6}}
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
74.9 to 70.6 was an example, it is unlikely to be correct. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're all really big turtles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

time[edit]

The whole long article doesn't tell when these animals lived. The German Wikipedia says during the Campanium, about 72 million years ago. It offers no source directly, but mentions a 1997 article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelon

this article says the Campanian   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archelon&oldid=1216967377"