Jump to content

Talk:Gorgonopsia

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

Are humans related?

[edit]

Are humans related to Gorgonopsia?, because Gorgonopsia was one of the ancestors of all mammalsPhthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Phthinosuchus[reply]

Technically, Humans are related only very distantly related, just don't be calling people "Beast face".--50.195.51.9 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgonopsia was probably not our ancestor, just a relative of our ancestor. For what it's worth, we're much closer to Gorgonopsia than we are to dinos, though. --Saforrest (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niuksenitia

[edit]

Is this the same Niuksenitia as in Burnetiidae? Classification dispute? Error? Two with the same name? Shinobu (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inostrancevia

[edit]

"The largest known, Inostrancevia, was the size of a large bear with a 45 cm long skull". Actually, Inostrancevia could be at least 1.5 larger. There are evidence from separately found bones, and also from size of some skulls known (see also Discussion sheet at Inostrancevia Wiki-page)--188.123.252.14 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Synapsida not Reptilia"

[edit]

This claim of "deceptive wording" is annoying:

although this description is deceptive because theriodonts are Synapsida, not Reptilia.

Historically theriodonts were classified as reptiles, later in a new cladistic-based interpretation which did not include a clade called "Reptilia" (because any such clade would be paraphyletic) they were classified under Synapsida. There is nothing deceptive here; these were separate and distinct classifications. --Saforrest (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    * Lead:
  • Lead:
    • To avoid losing your readers - perhaps add a date range at the end of "from the Middle to Upper Permian."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description:
    • "and an overall elongate shape" ... reads a bit odd to me, perhaps "and an overall elongated shape"? if this is a specific biological term we should probably link it so that the specialized meaning is presented.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The braincase was also rather reptilian, being comparatively smaller and not as thick." "smaller" and "not as" imply comparison, but what are we comparing TO? If there's something we're comparing to, we need to mention it, otherwise we should go with "The braincase was also rather reptilian, being comparatively small and not very thick."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is related to the vestibulo–ocular reflex (stablise gaze while moving the head)" the parenthetical phrase is poorly attached to the rest ... perhaps "is related to the vestibulo–ocular reflex (which stablises the gaze while moving the head)"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence/pararaph beginning "Like other Permian therapsids..." is insanely long and convoluted. Perhaps: "Like other Permian therapsids, gorgonopsians had developed several mammalian characteristics. These included a parasagittal gait where the limbs were vertically oriented and moved parallel to the spine as opposed to the sprawling gait of amphibians and earlier synapsids. Because of the gait changes, there was a reduction in tail size and phalangeal formula[7] (the number of joints per digit, which was 2.3.4.5.3 like reptiles[3]). Other developments included a fibrous lamellar cortical bone, a temporal fenestra (a hole on the temporal bone), deeply-set teeth, and a secondary palate (which separates the mouth from the nasal cavity, but gorgonopsians may not have had this).[7]"? I hope I haven't mangled the science too badly in an attempt to make it readable for non-specialists.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • again "were elongate" - I would expect "were elongated" - as above about specialized meaning.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "canines on these sockets" wouldn't it be "in these sockets"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification :
    • "Many of Broom's taxa would later be invalidated." I'm assuming this is pretty normal and not a sign of any misconduct?
no, that just means a lot of the genera and species he named don't have proper justification to be distinct from another genus/species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolution:
    • link for "everwet"?
link to where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "major adaptive radiation (all carnivores) continuing into the Upper Permian" - the parenthetical "all carnivores" implies that it is a definition of "radition" but it's not - so I'm confused by what exactly the parenthetical is supposed to be describing?
all the therapsids in the Upper Permian were carnivores   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bite:
    • "rubidgeines have an especially built skull among gorgonopsians" "especially built" here is very odd... especially usually is used as a superlative, but ... applying a superlative to "built" is very strange. did we mean something like "especially robustly built" or some other missing adjective before built?
especially built should work, much like especially robust   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "along with other early carnivores as well as crocodiles" - this implies that crocodiles aren't carnivores? Perhaps "along with other early carnivores including crocodiles"? but is there some reason we're emphasizing crocodiles especially here?
early carnivores   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The temporalis and masseter had only separated in mammals" - I think this means that the evolution of the masseter muscles only came in with mammals after the extinction of the gorgonopsians. We probably need to reword this ... but I don't want to make a stab at it until I'm sure I've understood what is meant first. And this whole sentence is very run on and could use some simplifying into smaller sentences.
it means the differentiation of the temporalis and the masseter only occurred in mammals. Thus, a non-mammalian therapsids cannot be described as having either a temporalis or a masseter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...and the jaw likely could not exert shearing pressure necessary for crushing bone open to access the bone marrow. They had no use for this since synapsids at this time did not have bone marrow." First it should be "crushing bones open". Okay, did ANY animals living then have bone marrow? If not, suggest rewording to "..and the jaw likely could not exert shearing pressure necessary for crushing bones open, but since no animals at the time had bone marrow, this was not a disability."
I would assume the Permian representatives of the line going to dinosaurs, lizards, snakes, etc. had bone marrow because all modern members of these groups also have bone marrow   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locomotion:
    • link for "humeral head"?
that goes to humerus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There was developed attachment for all the scapulohumeral muscles, particularly the deltoids." Mostly, I've been able to follow the descriptions in the article really well (which is good, since my last biology class was in 7th grade - I was a chemistry geek before I became a medievalist) but this one is totally flumoxing me. I can't figure out what it means and why it's reading so weirdly to me. I think there's a word missing? "was a developed"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and coracobrachialis muscle lowered" is there a "the" missing before "coracobrachialis"?
  • Senses:
    • "Unlike more derived theriodonts" ACK! Jargon alert - link for "derived"? I have no idea what this means here...
changed to "unlike eutheriodonts"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rather developed sense of smell" do you mean the more laypersonish "rather highly developed sense of smell"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleoecology:
    • "featuring large, ephemeral (temporary) rivers" why not just "featuring large, temporary rivers"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what am I supposed to do?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was this originally published somewhere else? I see "January 2004 Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 21(1)" at the top - is this the original publication? If so, cite that with a conviencene link to the researchgate link IF they have the right to reprint it ... we can't link to copyright violations. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the actual journal [1] makes you download a pdf   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citation for you. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns.
I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.
I'm assuming I will see this at FAC, and took the opportunity to be a bit more thorough in anticipation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palatal teeth

[edit]

While expanding Viatkogorgon, I just learned that gorgonopsians retained palatal teeth, which were otherwise lost and reduced in most therapsid groups. This certainly warrants a mention in the dentition section, which doesn't mention these teeth at all now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Permian extinction?

[edit]

Gorgonopsia went extinct a million years before the extinction acording to the timeline--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dinocephalian extinct date

[edit]

I wouldn't rely on a single 2015 paper as an authority on the date of the extinction of the dinocephalians, a paper that came out this year The Late Capitanian Mass Extinction of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Karoo Basin of South Africa states: The Poortjie dinocephalians all occur within the 30 m interval above a tuff horizon that has produced a CA-TIMS age of 260.26 Ma, which constrains them to the late Capitanian, citing the 2015 paper When and how did the terrestrial mid-Permian mass extinction occur? Evidence from the tetrapod record of the Karoo Basin, South Africa Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changed the lead, I see the text in the body of the article was correct Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of labelisation

[edit]

Hello everyone, I have a small anomaly to reproach concerning the article in question. Indeed when an article is labeled and when you go to another language, the labeled article is always accompanied by a star symbol which shows the quality of the article (grey star for "good article" and yellow star for "quality article"), which, obviously, is not the case for Gorgonopsia, and I would like this frustrating problem to be fixed... Amirani1746 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New important article

[edit]

Hi Dunkleosteus77 or DrawingDinosaurs, after the publication of this article, some of the statements further in the article down would need a good rewrite, given that this is a relatively important finding. Amirani1746 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a quick-ish attempt at incorporating the new info, should hopefully cover the key points. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 13:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! Amirani1746 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gorgonopsia&oldid=1263916978"