User talk:Leptictidium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Evolution of mammals

The lead of Evolution of mammals has to summarize the entire article - top to bottom - or it won't satisfy WP:LEAD. Yes, it must repeat the body and is not an introduction. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized you are working on it! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in Evolution of mammals. Unfortunately I don't think your changes to the introduction are quite right:
  • Mammary glands are the distinguishing feature of modern mammals, but little is known about they evolved (summarised in the article).
  • The same applies to neocortex (not mentioned in the article, so should not be in the intro).
  • Molecular genetics has been used to investigate the evolution of mammals, but the results are controversial (summarised in the article).
  • There's been a rapid increase in the number of known Mesozioc mammal fossils in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10 years and especially from China.
On the other hand the article does need a larger introduction. If you'd like to contact me via my Talk page we can work on an intro. Philcha (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for proposing the article for FA status, I take that as big compliment. I'll worry about the refs and the othe complaints when they happen (I can see some battles coming - some people want Wikipedia to read like a collection of academic papers, a neurotic condition I think of as "academics envy"; I strongly believe Wikipedia should be written for non-specialists).
Re the intro, how do you like this:
“

The evolution of mammals from synapsids (mammal-like "reptiles") was a gradual process which took approximately 70 million years, from the mid-Permian to the mid-Jurassic. By the mid-Triassic, there were many species that looked like mammals, and the first true mammals appeared in the early Jurassic.

Although mammary glands are the signature feature of modern mammals, little is known about their evolution, and virtually nothing is known about the evolution of another distinctive feature, the neocortex region of the brain. Most study of the evolution of mammals centers round the development of the middle ear bones from components of the ancestral amniote jaw joint. Other much-studied aspects include the evolution of erect limb posture, a bony secondary palate, fur and hair, and warm-bloodedness.

Most of the evidence consists of fossils. For many years fossils of Mesozoic mammmals and their immediate ancestors were very rare and fragmentary, but since the mid 1990s there have been many important new finds, especially in China. The relatively new techniques of molecular phylogeny have produced some interesting hypotheses, although these are disputed by many traditional "fossil-hunting" paleontologists.

From the point of view of phylogenetic nomenclature, mammals are the only surviving synapsids. The synapsid lineage became distinct from the sauropsid ("reptile") lineage at the end of the Carboniferous period, between 320 and 315 million years ago,[1] and were the most common and largest land vertebrates of the Permian period.[2] But in the Triassic period a previously obscure group of sauropsids, the archosaurs, became the dominant vertebrates and one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the rest of the Mesozoic era. These changes forced the Mesozoic ancestors of mammals into nocturnal niches, and may have contributed greatly to the development of mammalian traits such as endothermy, hair and a large brain. After the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, which wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs (birds are generally regarded as the surviving dinosaurs), mammals were able to diversify into many new forms and ecological niches throughout the Tertiary, by the end of which all modern orders had appeared.

 ”
Philcha (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Done now, and I also worked in your material about the later Mesozoic ecological diversification of mammaliforms and about the earliest known marsupial, eutherian and monotreme fossils. I particularly liked the the way you wikilinked the new Mesozoic niches to the articles on the particular animals, e.g. aquatic, I'll try to remember that technique. Many thanks! Philcha (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horse FA

The horse article is nowhere near ready for FA review...or even GA. There are large sections that are unreferenced, the lede sucks, and the entire article needs serious prose work. There are several editors that have been working on and off on this article over the past few months and yes, it has improved, but it needs many more hours of work before we can even think of GA/FA. Thank you for your interest, and if you would like to make helpful contributions to the editing process on the article, you are more than welcome to. We need all the help we can get on the equine articles! Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miacis

Hi, thanks for your nice comments. I will put Miacis on my to-do-list but it won't be before a while as I am pretty busy these days and don't have much time for wikipedia. How soon do you want it? The article is way too short for FA status so I guess it can wait a while. There are other artists on wikipedia who might be able to respond quicker to your request, such as User:Apokryltaros, and you might want to check with them as well. Cheers! ArthurWeasley (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Miacis, the pre-ur-weasel? I'll get right on it.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[1] Does its hips look too small?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Leptictidium tobieni.jpg

Just a question: have you even bothered to read the fair-use rationale for the image, or are you one of those people who just like to say that almost any fair-use image is replaceable? Besides, you didn't even take the time to notify the uploader (me).

Yes I did, and I maintain my assertion that the image is replaceable. Just because the museum is closed to the general public doesn't mean that nobody goes there. Is it impossible to write the museum and ask them to release a free picture of the fossil? No, I don't think so. And I really have no obligation to notify the uploader that I tagged an image as replaceable. Melesse (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not an equal example. You are pointing out an issue of copyright and derivative work, while the fossil is an issue of who can get a photo. Oh and I've added a notice now, satisfied? Melesse (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Leptictidium tobieni.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Leptictidium tobieni.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Melesse (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gyromitra esculenta

Given that you are catalan, I thoguht I may ask you about this - this mushroom I am working on, do you know anything about legislation in Catalonia (or Spain for that matter) making it illegal to sell?

I removed this text a while ago as I was unable to source it:

As a result, all false morels are listed as toxic and inedible in mushroom lists published by the Catalan Government in Spain, even though some people do consume some of them.

if you had any idea on if this were true (or what) I could re-add some material. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! I placed the ref here, but am not sure what is the official name of the web page, the publisher, author or government department. If you could fill in the spaces in the reference that would be great. Also, you wouldn't have any reference for the previous sentence which said they had been consumed in Spain (web or book)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


....Let's see... I haven't got any books about mycology, so the best I can give you is a weblink:

  • [2] says: "This mushroom is considered edible and is highly appreciated in some counties of the Pirenees, but if consumed fresh or little cooked is very toxic, and can even be lethal."
That's about all I've been able to find. Leptictidium (mt) 11:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's great. I'd love to use that as a ref. Can you put in cite format (what is the organization anyway?) - I would be extrmely grateful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rosetta Barnstar

The Rosetta Barnstar
To Leptictidium, I award this Rosetta Barnstar for some very timely help in solving a 6 month old problem for an article on its way to FAC... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Something to decorate your userpage with :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)