Talk:Lambeosaurus/Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] General
Decide whetehr or not you want to treat L. laticaudus as a species and get rid of its mentions or of the question mark accordingly. Having the question mark for the whole article (instead of explaining the situation in the "species" section) is just pointlessly confusing. If it's so dubious (and yet not a nomen dubium), why mention it at all?Maybe you should only keep the question mark at the "Reconsideration and consolidation" mention. For all practical purposes, Wikipedia treats it as a Lambeosaurus, so keeping the question mark is just pointlessly confusing.- Okay, fair enough
The only people links in the reference that are not in the article are Weishampel and Norman. All other (especially seeing as most are repeated) can reasonably go.- How about a temporary compromise, wherein I take out all the repeats? I kind of like to have at least one link there to the relevant article.
- Certainly an amelioration.
- How about a temporary compromise, wherein I take out all the repeats? I kind of like to have at least one link there to the relevant article.
Is there a specific reason so few specific specimens are mentioned. I like tat aspect of other dino article, but then I'm nerdy like that.- Okay
[edit] Intro
- are well-known at this point.
Done
- "are currently well known" or "have been the topic of much studies" etc.
- okay
- "are currently well known" or "have been the topic of much studies" etc.
- The taxonomy of Lambeosaurus has had a complicated history Done
- Maybe just "The genus has had a complicated taxonomical history"
- okay
- Maybe just "The genus has had a complicated taxonomical history"
- small crested Done
- Is it an error for "small-crested" or does it mean "small-sized crested"?
- Both descriptions are truthful, but the "small bodied with crest" connotation is more important
- Is it an error for "small-crested" or does it mean "small-sized crested"?
- That sentence and the previous one are slightly repeating themselves. Done
- I agree; I switched them around, but I don't think that has totally fixed it yet. I do think they work better in the reversed order
- They do
- I agree; I switched them around, but I don't think that has totally fixed it yet. I do think they work better in the reversed order
- social functions, like noisemaking and recognition. Done
- drop that comma
- okay
- drop that comma
- that large ?L. laticaudus was Done
- that the larger
- since its great size was already addressed a couple of sentences above, I decided it didn't need repeating.
- that the larger
[edit] Description
- and vertically-stacked hollow chambers in the front within the crest.
- I don't like this phrase, though I can't see what to do with it at the moment
- I think I got it
- Tried to further tweak it, but I suspect we'll eventually decide to rewrite the entire sentence from scratch.
- How's this version?
- Tried to further tweak it, but I suspect we'll eventually decide to rewrite the entire sentence from scratch.
- I think I got it
- I don't like this phrase, though I can't see what to do with it at the moment
- all fours as shown by footprints of related animals. Done
- ad a comma before "as"
- okay
- ad a comma before "as"
- preventing it Done
- "that prevented it" minus the comma in front
- okay
- "that prevented it" minus the comma in front
- is the lack of a thumb relative to humans or related dinosaurs? Done
- That one turned out to need more work, since most people are probably unfamiliar with the idea of finger counts and the order they go in.
- I like the explanation
- That one turned out to need more work, since most people are probably unfamiliar with the idea of finger counts and the order they go in.
- pompadour needs disambiguation Done
- okay
- its great size and very tall tail. Done
- "very tall tail" doesn't seem to make much sense to non-anatomist lil' me
- How does "deep" strike you? Perhaps "vertical" should get into the act as well somewhere.
- Still doesn't mean anything to me, I'm afraid. Maybe rework it by describing the tail's attachment instead of the tail itself...?
- Well, the tail itself in profile is tall; I tried another tack by describing the bones concerned.
- Better.
- Well, the tail itself in profile is tall; I tried another tack by describing the bones concerned.
- Still doesn't mean anything to me, I'm afraid. Maybe rework it by describing the tail's attachment instead of the tail itself...?
- How does "deep" strike you? Perhaps "vertical" should get into the act as well somewhere.
- "very tall tail" doesn't seem to make much sense to non-anatomist lil' me
[edit] Classification
- little to separate them Done
- "separating"
- okay
- "separating"
- in the tribe Lambeosaurini, but this has not been formally defined. Done
- "in a tribe Lambeosaurini, but such a tribe has not yet been formally defined."
- okay
- "in a tribe Lambeosaurini, but such a tribe has not yet been formally defined."
- made up Corythosaurini. Done
- "makes", maybe?
- "Make"?
- Oh, right.
- "Make"?
- "makes", maybe?
[edit] Discovery and history
- All those parenthesised names are just making a whole lot of confusion. Use one name (ideally the one the authors of the time used instead of looking like you don't now which way to go. Paleontological conventions are all fine and dandy, but I've said it before: this is a general encyclopedia, not a paleontological book. Done
- Er, that's what it was called; at that point and to that author, Pteropelyx was a subgenus of Trachodon.
- I'm not sure mentioning a subgenus that gathers no mention in the genus article is necessary, then.
- Okay. I cut it out.
- I'm not sure mentioning a subgenus that gathers no mention in the genus article is necessary, then.
- Er, that's what it was called; at that point and to that author, Pteropelyx was a subgenus of Trachodon.
- Linking paleontologist (redirect to paleontology) looks pretty pointless to me. Done
- okay
- (then called the Belly River Formation) Done
- Interesting, but ultimately unnecessary parenthetical note. It would be better placed in Dinosaur Park Formation itself.
- Okay
- Interesting, but ultimately unnecessary parenthetical note. It would be better placed in Dinosaur Park Formation itself.
- Lambe decided that two skulls belonged to T. marginatus and were evidence that it deserved a new genus, which he named Stephanosaurus marginatus in 1914. Done
- This sentence might do a poor job of summarizing because (haven't read the next part) it makes little sense to me. "Decided" is probably a poor choice of verb too.
- I think it's more graceful now.
- This sentence might do a poor job of summarizing because (haven't read the next part) it makes little sense to me. "Decided" is probably a poor choice of verb too.
[edit] New species and procheneosaurs
The intro lacks any context, and again makes almost no sense at all. I expect a "restart" with the "intro" text being a summary of the two next sections, but this section sounds like it picks where the previous left, which is not the case and... *head asplodes* I have to say this is one of your least clear work on taxonomic history, people. Now returning to your scheduled copyediting...- a left upper jaw from the Dinosaur Park Formation, described by Henry Fairfield Osborn Done
- Drop that comma
- okay
- Drop that comma
- It was referred to as Trachodon (Pteropelyx) altidens by Lambe Done
- Did he used that name,with the actual parentheses? (oh gawds...)
- Yes. No comment.
- See above re: the same.
- It's gone.
- See above re: the same.
- Yes. No comment.
- Did he used that name,with the actual parentheses? (oh gawds...)
- Parks believed that this was inadequate. Done
- What "this"? The name? The attribution? The new genus?
- The naming
And this whole thing is swerving wildly without a clear linking between the species.- Tried to help out a bit with the magic of nouns.
- definitely better
- Tried to help out a bit with the magic of nouns.
- What "this"? The name? The attribution? The new genus?
- the type species Tetragonosaurus praeceps and second species T. erectofrons' Done
- Missing a "a" somewhere, I think
- okay
- Missing a "a" somewhere, I think
- Procheneosaurus praeceps and altidens have become probable synonyms of Lambeosaurus lambei, Done
- Let's be a bit more categoric here: "are considered likely synonyms of" (with link to synonym (taxonomy))
- okay
- Let's be a bit more categoric here: "are considered likely synonyms of" (with link to synonym (taxonomy))
- although both predate that name and should technically be suppressed.
- Consider rewriting that ("suppressed"??) or dropping it entirely. A source would be a good idea too.
- "Suppressed" is actually the term used, although it certainly reeks of human power politics. Basically, the names are both older than Lambeosaurus lambei, so the correct binomial becomes Procheneosaurus altidens (oldest genus, oldest species) if taken to the extreme.
- I know that, I was just surprised, probably because I'm more used to "rejected"
- "Suppressed" is actually the term used, although it certainly reeks of human power politics. Basically, the names are both older than Lambeosaurus lambei, so the correct binomial becomes Procheneosaurus altidens (oldest genus, oldest species) if taken to the extreme.
- Consider rewriting that ("suppressed"??) or dropping it entirely. A source would be a good idea too.
- I think this section would gain from starting with making the preocheneosaurus-lambeosaurus link sooner. Done
- How's the first sentence work for you now? I'm trying to get away from my essayist instincts here.
- Works like a charm
- How's the first sentence work for you now? I'm trying to get away from my essayist instincts here.
[edit] Reconsideration and consolidation
- in a short geological time frame and in a small area Done
- "within such a short geological time frame and small area"
- okay
- "within such a short geological time frame and small area"
[edit] Species
- L. magnicristatus (C.M. Sternberg, 1935) is only known from two specimens, both with skulls; unfortunately, the majority of the articulated skeleton of the type specimen was extensively damaged by water while in storage and was discarded before description; other portions of this skeleton have also been lost. Done
- I'm not sure the long sentence with semi-colon is needed, especially as it's not aimed to wrap everything for a reference.
- Took out the first semicolon.
- I was thinking about breaking the sentence, actually.
- Okay. I split it again.
- I was thinking about breaking the sentence, actually.
- Took out the first semicolon.
- I'm not sure the long sentence with semi-colon is needed, especially as it's not aimed to wrap everything for a reference.
- I'm not sure which section is best for that, but there should some details on why the placement of L. laticaudatus is so uncertain.
Not done
- Probably here is best, so I inserted a couple of sentences.
- Actually, what you added does not explain why the placement is uncertain (or did the material from "locomotion" accidentally overwrite it?)
- Are you sure you're in the right section? In the species section, the wording is: "Morris used a question mark in his work because no complete crest had been found for his species, and without it a definitive assignment could not be made. From what was known of the skull, he considered it to be most like Lambeosaurus."
- Yeah, I didn't see that part, which I thought should have been added in the paragraph where it is first said "because he could not definitely assign it to Lambeosaurus but found it to be most like that genus."
- My screw-up. I put it in the wrong place and then wrote essentially the same sentence to go with it. Is there some sort of prize for a double error like that? Upon further review, I agree that it should go with the earlier paragraph.
- Yeah, I didn't see that part, which I thought should have been added in the paragraph where it is first said "because he could not definitely assign it to Lambeosaurus but found it to be most like that genus."
- Are you sure you're in the right section? In the species section, the wording is: "Morris used a question mark in his work because no complete crest had been found for his species, and without it a definitive assignment could not be made. From what was known of the skull, he considered it to be most like Lambeosaurus."
- Actually, what you added does not explain why the placement is uncertain (or did the material from "locomotion" accidentally overwrite it?)
- Probably here is best, so I inserted a couple of sentences.
- L. paucidens is regarded as a dubious name in the review, and is listed under Hadrosaurus paucidens, although at least one author, Donald F. Glut, has accepted it. Done
- Drop "the review", since it's pretty much the current consensus.
- The sentence seems funny without using some form of "the review", although I think it works better after the second clause.
- Indeed, it does
- The sentence seems funny without using some form of "the review", although I think it works better after the second clause.
- use "accepts", "has accepted" implies he does not anymore Done
- okay'
- Drop "the review", since it's pretty much the current consensus.
[edit] paleoecology
- I'm not sure the semicolons really make the enumeration more legible. Done
- Okay, how about commas?
- looks okay, but then I suspectit'll end up going back and forth in the long run anyway
- Okay, how about commas?
- L. lambei was common, but L. magnicristatus was rare and only present at the top of the formation, where the marine influence was greater. Done
- You compare a live species and a fossil here.
- Combined this with part of the troublesome paragraph from below.
- I think I liked it more with 2 paragraphs (though admittedly I'm not sure where a break can be introduced)
- Combined this with part of the troublesome paragraph from below.
- You compare a live species and a fossil here.
[edit] Feeding
- dental batteries that contained hundreds of teeth Done
- Hundreds per battery (!) or hundreds total?
- Both are accurate to a degree; I don't have exact numbers for Lambey, and it varies by size, but a typical lambeosaurine count is 40-45 tooth positions per battery, 3-4 teeth per position, giving 120-180 per battery and 480-720 per jaw, so "over 100 each" is pretty safe.
- okay
- Both are accurate to a degree; I don't have exact numbers for Lambey, and it varies by size, but a typical lambeosaurine count is 40-45 tooth positions per battery, 3-4 teeth per position, giving 120-180 per battery and 480-720 per jaw, so "over 100 each" is pretty safe.
- Hundreds per battery (!) or hundreds total?
[edit] Cranial crest
- The large size of hadrosaurid eye sockets and the presence of sclerotic rings in the eyes imply acute vision and diurnal habits, evidence that sight was important to these animals. Done
- Unless that's from Hopson, a source would be a good idea here.
- That's Hopson, also repeated in Norman 1985
- Unless that's from Hopson, a source would be a good idea here.
age and gender differences are more likely than having- "more likely explanations"
- removed as redundant
- "more likely explanations"
Along these lines- "For that reason"
- removed as redundant
- "For that reason"
Additionally, because of differing layouts of the nasal passages, the three species would have had intrinsically different sounds if their hollow crests were used for vocalization.- Blends very poorly with the rest of the paragraph, which describes temporal placement and likeliness of age/sex difference. Sound more like an argument for separating them than like something pertinent to "Paleobiology"
- The whole paragraph, actually, is slightly out of place in that regard, as it does not describe the impact of the crest on their biology/ethology as much as its taxonomic implications
- Upon further review, much of the paragraph had already been stated before in other places, and the part about stratigraphic separation makes much more sense in Paleoecology.
[edit] Locomotion
Rename that section or add more on the terrestrial locomotion of the genus- For example, hadrosaurid tails are heavily reinforced by ossified tendons, reducing their flexibility, and their posture is shown by many skeletons to have been more like a quadrupedal animal than the classic tripodal posture, which would have reduced the stress on its hips.
- Make it clearer those are counter-arguments to Morris,not the aquatic hypothesis as a whole. Done
- This section wasn't really fair, as the second half was about hadrosaurids in general as no one has commented on his specific interpretations. Therefore, I took part and added it to the earlier discussion on L. laticaudus, and deleted the rest.
- See above re: the effects of that reworking
- This section wasn't really fair, as the second half was about hadrosaurids in general as no one has commented on his specific interpretations. Therefore, I took part and added it to the earlier discussion on L. laticaudus, and deleted the rest.
- Make it clearer those are counter-arguments to Morris,not the aquatic hypothesis as a whole.
