Anhangueria?[edit]

So what to do with this new clade in relation to this one?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anhangueria appears to be more inclusive than Anhangeridae/Ornithocheiridae and less inclusive than Ornithocheiroidea/Pteranodontoidea, so it should be discussed on one of those pages or given a separate article. It doesn't seem to be a synonym of any pre-existing clade. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then separate pages for Anhangueria and Anhangueridae should be created if new discoveries in England, Morocco, and America further reinforce the separation of Tropeognathus and Uktenadactylus from Ornithocheirus and Coloborhynchus respectively. As a side note, Agnolin and Varrichio don't place Piksi in Ornithocheiridae; they place it in Ornithocheiroidea, but don't say if it is a pteranodontid or a nyctosaurid. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm on it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JurassicClassic767: Thanks for taking hand on our neglected pterosaurs. You did choose, however, a very difficult article which needs considerable effort to bring to GA level. Articles about newly named genera are easiest, but this is a whole group, and a group whose taxonomy is a complete mess. I'm happy to help as I can, but it is still some way. Lets start with the History section. Here I see, for now, two general issues on which we could focus first:

Also consider listing the article at the Paleo Peer Review (by including this discussion), so that others may give additional input (we do not regularly write group articles, so it might be good to discuss what precisely the best approaches are). This GA review can stay open for a while. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: For now I've removed several paragraphs that were potentially unreferenced or confusing (and potentially irrelevant); mostly in the description and classification sections, but yeah, the history section is the one that we should work on the most (and the one that is mostly a mess); I definitely agree with all that you've said above, and I'll definitely make an effort for the article. Also, after removing the unhelpful info, would listing this article to Paleo PR as in right away would be the best idea? The whole article would still be a mess, and we (at least me) would also need to work on the sources and citations, so it would take some time before it would really be ready? But yeah, Witton's book does contain a lot of info on pterosaurs, and if we would want to talk about the history in particular, I do know several papers that mention (at least brief) info about the history of the family, like who named it, or what genera were included. However, many of these are outdated, since there are new papers on new pterosaurs (and new conclusions of course), for example Ferrodraco or Targaryendraco, and then it affects the classification and placement of other genera, so introducing large bits of info that are now outdated is also something that we should consider. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as long as you know what to do and my input is sufficient, there is no need to list it at the review. We can consider it once we are done, or once we get stuck; in any case it is always good to have more eyes on it. Let me know, then, when you need anything from me, when you got any problems, or when you are through with above comments! And btw., another good source seems to be Unwin 2003 On the phylogeny and evolutionary history of pterosaurs, p. 178: Here you find the definition of the group, which is very important to mention! It also lists distinguishing characters (synapomorphies), at least some of these could be included (but in a comprehensible way) in the description I think (hopefully they are not too outdated, if you have a newer source for the synapomorphies than it is even better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for all the support! And I think I've seen a PDF for the Unwin 2003 paper; it is already cited in the article itself, but only links to the abstract of the paper, so its not that useful for now. So yeah, I think I'll start with the easier segments first. Again, thanks for the support! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: It's been a few days since I was last active on the article page, my apologies. For now I've finished with the history section, also put some extra relevant details about the group. I'll make some major changes to the description section soon, so let me know if I need to add more or remove info about the history section. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Changed to present tense.
 Done - Added some brief info about how the taxonomy is convoluted, and also how the group is popular within pterosaur groups.
I forgot to put that the analyses cited in the end of the paragraph follow the 2014 analysis by Andres and colleagues, not Unwin (2001). So what I've done is that I added a small sentence that says this, which is also stated in the citations themselves. But it may still be confusing though?
I think this would be better discused in the Classification section. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Jens Lallensack:, would you consider failing the review for now? I don't think it's good to have a GA review open for many weeks, and I still need to do some fixes to Paleobiology and Paleoecology. I've also been quite busy these past weeks to do bulky edits and changes. I'll probably re-nominate this article sometime next month. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm a bit short of time myself as well at the moment. Just re-nominate (or send to the review) when you feel ready. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morphs?[edit]

In the description section (third sentence at time of writing), the article mentions "giant morphs" when the previous clause of the same sentence refers to the size difference of species. "Morph" is usually used to describe differences in form between individuals of the same species, so the sentence as it stands doesn't really make sense.

Given the difficulties of classifying fossils, it seems unlikely that it means that some species are known to have, within one species both four foot and eight foot sized forms! But if it means that there were separate species of different size, the use of the word "morph" is at best confusing.

Could this be clarified/corrected? I'm not certain enough as to what is meant to correct it myself. FloweringOctopus (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]