Talk:Cetiosauriscus

Comments on Cetiosauriscus ICZN petition

As a last note, the petition of Charig (1993) was done under Article 70b (misidentified type species). 68.4.61.237 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Species referred to Cetiosauriscus

Upchurch and Martin (2003) could find no characters support referral of Cetiosaurus glymptonensis to Cetiosauriscus and considered it a distinct taxon of diplodocoid requiring a new genus name. Whitlock (2011), however, has taken a conservative position by assigning C. glymptonensis to Eusauropoda incertae sedis because he feels that the available evidence is insufficient to confirm the diplodocoid position of this taxon. Furthermore, Cetiosauriscus was recovered as a non-neosauropod eusauropod by Rauhut et. al. (2005) in their phylogenetic analysis of Brachytrachelopan. Ornithopsis greppini clearly represents a non-neosauropod eusauropod distinct from Cetiosauriscus (Schwarz et. al. 2007) but has not yet been given a new genus name.

Rauhut, O. W. M., Remes, K., Fechner, R., Cladera, G. & Puerta P. 2005. Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia. Nature, 435, 670–672.

Schwarz, D., Meyer, C. A. & Wings, O. 2007. Revision of Cetiosauriscus greppini – new results and perspectives. Pp. 57–58 in J. Le Loeuff (ed.) Fifth Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists Abstract Volume, Muse ́e des Dinosaures, Espe ́raza, France.

Upchurch, P. & Martin, J. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23, 208–231.

Whitlock, J. A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 872–915. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Review is coming. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I fear here is still a lot of work to do before reaching GA. This dinosaur is poorly known, and little has been published. This means that it is absolutely necessary to include most if not all of the few studies that have been published. There are important studies that are not included yet, so the article is partly outdated.

• "C." greppini and "C." glymptonensis are not species of Cetiosauriscus, I think this is out of question. "The Dinosauria" only lists the type species, as does the taxonbox and the "Invalid species" section of the article. Schwarz et al. (one of the studies that need to be included) states that C. glymptonensis has nothing to do with C. but is basal to Titanosauria. Everytime you mention "C." greppini you have to put "C." in quotationmarks.
• Considering that only C. stewarti is a valid species, we come to a bigger problem: The fossilized cartilaginous tissue also has nothing to do with Cetiosauriscus because it was discovered on C. greppini fossils; therefore it is out of place in the section "Description", since this section is supposed to describe Cetiosauriscus only.
• same for the bite marks in Paleoecology
• possible solution: move that information to the Invalid species section, that should be greatly expanded to provide abundant information about the other species as well.
• Most of "Discovery and naming" is sourced with Charig (1993), but I cannot find most of this information in that source. You even write "This was done in 1995" but use the 1993 paper as the source.
• Metacarpal 1 is short and massive, with the prominent process on the lower part of the posterior margin of the lateral face, a characteristic of the diplodocoids Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, Cetiosauriscus and Dicraeosaurus – I cannot find this in the source.
• The section "Vertebra" (shouldn't it be "Vertebrae"?) reads like random information from an detailed osteological paper. Why are these anatomical details notable, and everything else not? What vertebrae are described? Cervicals, Dorsals, Caudals? I mean, the holotype of C. is a pelvis if I recall correctly (that information should also be included). But there are only the sections "Vertebra" and "Limbs".
• It differs from Barosaurus in having a less complex sculpting laterally and ventrally in the caudals; in having a smaller humerus-femur ratio; and in having differently developed chevrons.[7] – again, I can not find this in the cited source!
• Cetiosauriscus is diagnosed by axially concave summits on the cranial and middle caudal neural spines.[2] – You cite von Huene (1927) here. He mentioned quite a lot of characters, but not this one.
• another important study that should be included:
• there is a nice informative overview in Gluts "Encyclopedia of dinosaurs".

I have to abort the review and fail the article for now, mostly because several of the sources do not contain the cited information. I strongly encourage you to keep working on the article and resubmit it when its ready. I can also sent you the sources I mentioned (except Heathcote & Upchruch 2003, we will need to ask in the Wikiproject Resource exchange for this one). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cetiosauriscus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

The article possessed a handful of minor grammatical errors when I began this review, but nothing I was not able to fix. Aside from that it follows the policies on prose, content and structure, and with my modifications, grammar. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a sizable quantity of reliable, published sources. No original reasearch looks to have been incorporated, and the content is laden with frequent citations. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all aspects of the topic which are relevant for encyclopedic inclusion. No irrelevant details appear to have been applied. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article does not demonstrate any bias towards or against its subject. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Looking at the edit history as far back as October, none of the editing which has occurred since then appears disruptive in any way. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The images are all validly licensed and do not violate any fair use-related laws. They also serve clear and relevant informative and illustrative purposes. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

With the above mentioned grammatical tweaks, I now feel this article satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cetiosauriscus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131212154934/http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=38667 to http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=38667
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131212154922/http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=67741 to http://phylum.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=67741

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Alligator CCF". Can we please clarify this?

Article says:

the cartilage caps of sauropods may have been larger than predicted by an Alligator CCF  

Can we please clarify the meaning of "CCF"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.51.140 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is currently in the process of being revamped and that will end up being removed during it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Metaphysics of bones?

Article says

... the cartilage caps extended fairly far onto the metaphysics of some long bones ...

We don't really want "metaphysics" here, do we? Can somebody fix this?

-- 189.122.51.140 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

This snippet of text seems incorrect or unclear: "The coracoid is incomplete, but enough is preserved to show it is rectangular, and longer, at 35 cm (14 in), than it is wide—38 cm (15 in)"

Are the measurements mixed up? Ubilaz (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)