Talk:Ypresiomyrma/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• I took the only photo in this article, so I might as well review it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for taking this on. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• One thing, isn't the two Y. rebekkae specimens the holotype and paratype? There can only be one holotype, yet you refer to them as holotype queens.

Corrected.

• "Fossils of Ypresiomyrma were first studied and described by Bruce Archibald etc. in 2006" Well, this is incorrect, since you mention further down that some of the species were described earlier (1999), just not as part of the genus. So retroactively, they were still fossils of Ypresiomyrma. So maybe just reword and say the genus was first described by Archibald etc. in 2006.

Done.

• Tribe needs link, malar, and synapomorphic could need explanation.

Done. Explained what malar is in the article since no article on it, although I have redlinked it.

• "that the antennae of the type species could not be properly determined" What is meant? The shape or type of them? How does one determine an antenna?

The shape I would assume, since the morphology of the antennae is important to identify ants. Since the antennae was absent, Baroni Urbani believed the ant cannot be confidently identified, although another species had antennae that shared key diagnostic traits for Formicidae, which is why he classified it as incertae sedis within Formicidae.

• "which means the fossil is definitely an ant" So there was doubt it was even an ant? This should be said clearly before.

Done.

• "noted that the development of the malar area was different to the synapomorphic reduction of the malar" This sentence makes little sense. So in what group is it reduced?

The malar is reduced in most of Myrmeciinae except for Ypresiomyrma. Done.

• Why are two cladograms needed? They don't show different topology, simply more taxa, making the smaller one redundant.

Removed.

• No word on how the three species are interrelated?

I'll look at the original source and see what distinguishes the three species from each other and among other things.

Wait, that was already done. I read the source and I cannot really see any info that correlates with your issue.

• "and a noticeable sting." Sting or stinger?

Corrected.

This should also be corrected a couple of other places in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think.

• "numbered UCCIPR L-18 F-749 and UCCIPR L-18 F-750 for the part and counterpart" Even though they belong to the same individual, I think only one can be the type specimen?

Would this be the case for the other two species?

• No, in compression fossils the part and counterpart are often considered a single specimen, and both counted as the full holotype.--Kevmin § 21:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So.... after Kevmins comment, does this comment need addressing in any way? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, just the other unaddressed issues are needed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, apologies for the inactivity today. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• " It is convex and domed," What is "it"?

Mesosoma, done.

• "this is due to the early taphonomic process" Term could be explained.

Done.

• "did not recruit nestmates to food sources" COuld be explained a bit more, recruited and led to?

Did a tiny rewrite, but I'm not sure what can be explained further.

• "most likely used their large eyes to capture prey" Wouldn't it rather be to find prey? How does one capture something with the eyes?

Reworded.

• "The abundance of Ypresiomyrma specimens collected suggests that these ants mated in swarms" Wouldn't it rather be because of the abundance of queens?

Done.

• "which contains three species, first described in 2006." Again, first species described in 1999.

Sentence rewritten to imply the genus was described in 2006.

• "The alates were poor flyers" Term only used in intro.

It is in the ecology section, but I have rewritten it a bit if you meant something specific.

• If bulldog ants are a specific, extant genus, why is this genus presented as such in the intro?

Removed, since this restricted to Myrmecia.

• "ants in the subfamily Myrmeciinae of the family Formicidae" Don't think you need to mention Formicidae here, as it is synonymous with ant.

Done.

• A last thing, I think species, years and authors could be listed in the taxobox with no problem. Not sure why it has become a trend to write "see text". FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I have incorporated it in. I should be able to address your remaining issues in the next hour btw. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• "with eight to 12 teeth" You should always be consistent in whether you spell out numbers or not.

Done.

• Alright, looks good, so passed. Some nice articles you're churning out there! FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the biology section of the GA nomination page shows I have been a bit busy lately. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)