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.
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...
"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.
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 talk18:29, 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."?
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.
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
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
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 |
talk21:46, 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
"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.
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
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
"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
"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?
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 talk18:32, 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?
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 talk19:07, 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 talk19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The intro could state when it was named, and that other species were once assigned to the genus.