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) PhthinosuchusReply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
link to where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
all the therapsids in the Upper Permian were carnivores   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
especially built should work, much like especially robust   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
early carnivores   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
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[reply]
that goes to humerus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changed to "unlike eutheriodonts"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what am I supposed to do?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
the actual journal [1] makes you download a pdf   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the citation for you. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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