Talk:Erettopterus

Anatomical Description

I have addeed an anatomical description derived from the Treatise on Invertbrate Paleontology.--Digthepast (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this image[1] shows this genus, and not Pterygotus as it is labelled as, Super Dromaeosaurus and Ichthyovenator? If this new identity is correct, it needs to be recategorised on Commons too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the fossil in the image has a bilobed telson which is one of the distinguishing features of Erettopterus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, Pterygotus' telson is different. And the name of the file "Pterygotus -b" could refer to Pterygotus bilobus, now classified as Erettopterus. Super Ψ Dro 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I wonder how many more mislabelled images we have like tat... FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I went through some of the Pterygotus images and re-categorized them as Erettopterus (1, 2, 3 and 4). There might be more out there and there might be similar cases with other eurypterids. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. As I told Ichthyovenator during the GA review of Slimonia (see bottom points there), I think it would be better to move all the info from the "species" section to sections where the info is more relevant, such as history and description, as now the "species" section is a hodgepodge of information. I'll continue the review once this is done, because the article will probably look a little different by then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment/question on this, since both Erettopterus and Pterygotus are very species-rich (19 species of both currently), perhaps it would be good to have some kind of list of species in the article? Currently there is no list in their infoboxes like there are for other genera since there are just so many species referred to them. Is there some precedent for genera with a lot of species? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Long lists in taxoboxes can be collapsed, like in for example quagga. I've seen it done for species lists too, but I don't remember where. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited Acutiramus to no longer have a separate species section, and used collapsable lists for the synonyms so I suppose that works, I'll get around to Pterygotus in the coming days and see how it looks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks very good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult, but I'll see what I can do. At the moment I made a collapsible list of species in the taxobox. Super Ψ Dro 13:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Good start, take your time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Super Ψ Dro 17:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• It would be better to have the life restoration or size comparison in the description section the current diagram there is very vaguely drawn. It could be moved to another section.

Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• It would probably be best to put the photo back in the taxobox; it looks nice, is well preserved, and is the actual evidence. The current horizontal image also makes the taxobox very long, clashing with images below.

Done.

• "there are smaller species such as E. globiceps, the smallest species, measuring 9 cm (3.5 in)." You mean specimen?

I eliminated that.

• "with E. osiliensis, largest species" The largest species.

Done

• "An incomplete telson" Link and explain what that is.

Done

• "Erettopterus is small in comparison" You change to present tense for soem reason.

Changed.

• It seems odd that the first paragrapgh of description is about size, yet you have another section called size. The two should be consolidate into one, and I don't thinka separate subsection is needed.

I rewrote the text and passed the size chart in the classification section. It's okay like that?

• "Erettopterus can be distinguishable" Distinguished.

Done

• "The chelicerae of Erettopterus are enlarged" Explain term, and use past tense.

I do not know why I wrote that, changed word.

• There are more places were you use present instead of past tense in the description, please standardise throughout.

I rewrote the section.

• Admittedly not a great photo, but perhaps this one[2] could be put back i somewhere, as there is only one photo otherwise.

Placed in the paleoecology section.

• "Erettopterus is classified as part of the pterygotid family of eurypterids, a group of highly derived eurypterids of the Silurian to Devonian periods" This should be under classification.

Done.

• "the most largest reliable species" This is weirdly written. Do you mean the largest valid species?

Not exactly, I meant that the size of E. osiliensis is confirmed, but that of E. grandis is doubtful. I eliminated that.

• There is info on behaviour and movement udner description which could maybe be moved to palaeoecology.

Done.

• You should state when and by whom the cladogram included was published.

Done.

• All measurements need conversions, I see a few haven't.

Done.

• Will continue the review when the above is dealt with.
• I will be away until Monday, but here are a few comments for the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Citations are not needed for the intro, which is only supposed to be a summary if the article, with no unique info.

Citations eliminated.

• "Ascension to genus" Seems a bit esoteric, could it be reworded to make it more understandable for most readers? If the section is about formerly assigned species, it could simply be called that.

Honestly, I do not see it too complicated to understand. I changed the text a bit and added one more sentence.

The problem is that at first sight, one might think the section is only about the "ascension of the genus Erettopterus itself, and not the various other genera that were split off from it. This is in fact what I first thought, and I think the problem is that all the preceding text is written in chronological order (ending in the 21st century), while that last section suddenly jumps back in time (to the 19th century, it seems). It could maybe help if you redistributed the info to other parts of the section where it fits chronologically, so that the history section begins with discussion of the the type species, then the subgenus, and then assigned species, until you get to its recognition as a genus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. Done.

• I think you could still use that diagram somewhere in the article which you removed form the taxobox.

Done.

• There are many technical terms which should be explained in parenthesis at first mention, including anatomical terms.

I added all that I saw. If one is missing, let me know.

• "but this size is indicated by an isolated incomplete telson (the most posterior segment of the body), therefore, this size" Second "this size" is not needed.

Eliminated.

• "of only 9 cm" At only would sound better.

Done.

• "The telson" Explain what this is in parenthesis, as most readers will not know. Same with "its chelicerae", "ontogeny", "derived", and "ecnognath".

I forgot the last one. Done.

• "reason which is why it was" should be "which is the reason why it was.

Changed.

• "of a gigantic Ceratiocaris" Explain what that is.

Done

• "the rami ends" Rami is plural of ramus, so it should be "end".

Changed.

• You should mention in the history section when species were named and by who, as well as other taxonomic revisions. Now you have for example "E. laticauda was first described as a variety of E. osiliensis, but due to telson differences, it was elevated to the species range", which could be expanded

Done.

• You should mention what is shown in images that show isolated anatomical elements.

Done.

• "with only 9 cm" It is not correct to say "with" if you don't say "with only a length of" or similar.

Changed.

• "The Norwegians E. vogti" Hehe, Norwegians would refer to people, just say "Norwegian". I did this small change myself.

I did not know this, thanks for correcting it.

• "in the same place as the holotype" You mean in the same slab?

No, in the same museum. Changed to avoid confusion.

• "and the paratype (43805, in the same place as the holotype) it includes" "It" is not needed.

Eliminated, what a mistake...

• "a species known to a only known specimen" Only known from one specimen.

Done.

• "89411", "43790", "31886", others as well, don't these have museum name abbreviations too?

In the quoted document this is not mentioned, I will investigate other fossils placed in the same museums.

Added. I did not find those of E. serricaudatus and E. carinatus, so I removed them.

• "consists on an unusually" Consists of.

Changed.

• "A fine ribbing striations" Of striations?

I changed it to how it is in the journal.

• "is visible in both tooth" Teeth.

Done.

• " to a posterior rounded" Rounding?

I changed it to how it is in the journal.

• "Finally, in 1971" Saying "finally" might be dangerous, as we don't know if more species will be assigned in the future.

Word eliminated.

• " is remarkable by the group" Remarkable due to.

Changed

• "by the outwardly bowed rami it has" Just say "its outwardly bowed rami".

Changed.

• "20 mm in length and 13 mm in width that indicates that the complete telson measured 40 mm of estimated length, 20 mm of maximum width" Conversions needed.

Done.

• Since all other eurypterid GAs so far were written by Ichthyovenator (who also knows more about the group than I), I wonder if they have something to add. And by the way, is it a coincidence you both started expanding eurypterid articles at the same time?

No, it was not. What happens is that in my beginnings in (Spanish) Wikipedia, I "edited" paleontology articles, so when one day I was patrolling new articles, I came across one of his articles, I was interested and started to like this topic.

I can read through this at some point during the next few days and see if there is any information I find to be missing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be very helpful.

• " clearly adapted to be used for active prey capture and more similar to the claws of some modern crustaceans, with well developed teeth on the claws, than to the chelicerae of other eurypterid groups.[14] Another feature distinguishing the group from other eurypterid groups were their flattened and expanded telsons, likely used as rudders when swimming.[15] Their walking legs were small and slender, without spines,[16] and they were likely not capable of walking on land.[17]" Most of this is about behaviour, which is more relevant under paleoecology.

Done.

• "Originally it was classified as a species of Himantopterus, H. bilobus, then it was referred to Pterygotus and then it was raised to subgenus until 1961, when Kjellesvig-Waering granted Erettopterus the genus level." This belongs in the history section, and should be placed where it makes chronological sense. Changes in names are usually covered under history/taxonomy, whereas higher level placement is covered under classification.

Redistributed.

• "The cladogram below done by" Published by.

Done.

• "two outgroup taxa" Explain and link.

Done.

• Give conversions for the measurements listed in the cladogram.

Done.

• Explain what Cope's rule means for this animal.

In the 17th reference, it is mentioned that the Cope's rule is applicable to pterygotids of more than 1.5 m, and Erettopterus did not reach this size, therefore, does not obey this rule.

• "and that he used its chelicerae to grasp", "and probably used his enlarged chelicerae" Hehe, so it was one guy?

Oops...

• "various faunas of eurypterids as" Such as.

Changed.

• What other non-eurypterid animals lived alongside it?

Included in the article.

• You could physically describe the compound eyes under description.

Done.

• Describe it physically in the intro. For example, it is quite an oversight that you don't mentioned the bilobed tail that distinguishes it.

Done.

• What is the meaning of the genus and species names?

I have searched for the meaning of the generic name in free journals and I have not found it, and I do not have the full text of the original description of Erettopterus where it is probably mentioned. Regarding the names of the species, there are some very obvious such as E. bilobus or E. carinatus that is known what it means, but this is not mentioned in any of the sources cited. Should I still include them?

I think the most important one to translate is the genus name. It is allowed to make such translations ourselves, by sourcing to dictionaries. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, eretto means erect or upright. I do not see it much sense. And we already know that pterus means wing.

"Erect wing" could be an option, I'll ping Casliber, he is always good with dictionaries... FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, remember to add sources for all the etymologies. Now I see one paragraph ends without citation, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Some are from Wiktionary, should I quote it? That would fill the article with several references only for specific names. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, it might be a bit iffy to use Wiktionary as a source to begin with. It is probably ok for now, but wouldn't be accepted if it was nominated for featured article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, I will quote it. To not make so many references, I'll compress it into just one reference. If you want me to use another type of better dictionary, let me know. Super Ψ Dro 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems the meaning of the genus name is the only missing issue. But if it can't be found, it won't hold back promotion. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I added references to specific names. If the generic name does not affect the review, then I guess this point is done. Super Ψ Dro 12:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• You could still mention when the specimens pictured are holotypes.

Done.

I will put down things I notice here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Putting E. osiliensis as the biggest species is still somewhat of an unclear thing to do in my opinion. The source used for most of the eurypterid sizes in these articles does put E. grandis at 2.5 meters in length based on an isolated telson. This would mean that it would rival Jaekelopterus as the largest eurypterid, but I can not find any other source that lists it as this large. Discarding this size estimate because it is based on an isolated and fragmentary fossil is a bit unfair since the Jaekelopterus estimate is too, but I feel like it is important to find the source of the E. grandis estimate and see if it has been discussed any further (because it is not mentioned at all in sources that put Jaekelopterus as the largest, e.g. most sources). I can try and help out with this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be the original description of Ceratiocaris grandis, and it does not mention anything of 2.5 m. In the second reference, it speaks of more than 5 ft or 152 cm, so I have no idea where they could have taken that size. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this is worth mentioning at the points in the article where you discuss the size of E. grandis. I do not think just labelling the measurements as "unreliable" is the right thing to do, but based on the fact that they are not mentioned by most sources and most sources agree that Jaekelopterus (at 2.5) is the biggest I would assume that they are incorrect. Perhaps "2.5" is a mistyping and 1.5 was intended? The paper that this supplementary information derives from makes no mention of E. grandis and puts Jaekelopterus as the biggest as well. Do you have the measurements of the telson in question? In that case we could estimate the size ourselves (we can not really put those estimates in the article, but it allows us to determine sort-of how large it would have been and see what is going on here) to compare with other eurypterids. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The telson measured 9.5 inches or 24.13 cm in width (its largest diameter) and 5.25 in or 13.3 cm in length. Super Ψ Dro 15:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Following this image, it appears that the length Erettopterus is about 7.5 times that of its telson. A telson 13.3 cm long would then give a size of about a metre. However, the telson of E. grandis looks to be pretty wide and quite a bit shortened (either naturally or because of how it was preserved) going by the image you have of it in the article so a larger size is possible. Still, it is obvious that 2.5 metres is much to large and I think something around 1 metre, potentially a bit longer, is more reasonable. Not sure how to deal with this in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This journal states that E. grandis had that size, so I suppose it is valid. Super Ψ Dro 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so then. I'm going to have to make some minor changes to some of the articles and the Erettopterus size diagram needs an update if the 2.5 meter size is valid. Still a bit weird that it's rarely mentioned, especially that it was left out of the paper that declared Jaekelopterus to be the biggest. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will ask Slate Weasel to modify the size chart. Super Ψ Dro 12:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The issues are pretty much solved now, will pass. Hope this review will make writing other articles easier. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this review, it will definitely help me write other articles in a better way. Super Ψ Dro 20:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)