Talk:Styracosaurus/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] intro

  • "a single horn protruding from its nose, at 60 centimeters (2 feet) long"
    • Use something else than "at."
Thanks; fixed.
  • "Like other ceratopsians, this dinosaur was most possibly a herd animal, traveling in large groups and caring for its young after they hatched."
    • Compare this and "there is no solid evidence that Styracosaurus lived in groups." under "paleobiology"...
I've added the caveat that there's no definitive proof that it did live in herds. Thanks.

[edit] Description

  • "parietosquasomal frill"
    • HOLY JARGON BATMAN! Parenthetical definition anyone?
What's wrong with parietosquasomal frill"? ;) OK, OK, I've added a parenthetical with a link to neck frill. Thanks for the suggestion.
  • "those seen in Centrosaurus"
    • Why isn't Centrosaurus linked?
Because I must have goofed and removed it. Fixed.
  • "Unlike Triceratops, Styracosaurus had large fenestrae (skull openings) in its frill."
    • Why compare specifically to Triceratops? Was having fenestrae rare, or the opposite? In any case, "unlike related genera, like T." wouldbe better
I compared specifically to Triceratops because it is the best known horned dinosaur to the general public. I'm pretty sure most people will know what a Triceratops is, but not everyone will know Styracosaurus. This was an attempt to provide the reader with a comparison with something more familiar, so even in the absence of images, they could understand what was being said. I've reworked the area you've specifically commented on, and if you have further suggestions, I'm certainly game. As far as related genera in both groups, they mostly did have fenestrae; Triceratops is a rather rare exception.
If Triceratops is an exception, and most ceratopsid actually had fenestrae, maybe it's better to simply say "Like most ceratopsid, it had fenestrae" (or however best it can integrate) ?
Done, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Above the eyes, Styracosaurus had tiny, undeveloped brow horns."
    • Return the "above the eye" to a more natural position at the end.
Done, thanks.Firsfron of Ronchester 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posture

  • Compare Triceratops: no need for a new section (if there was, it should probably go in Paleobiology?)
I've eliminated the section heading, per your observation.
  • The section leaves the reader wanting: it says "Various limb positions have been proposed", but only mentions one.
I've mentioned the other main one, which was sprawling forelimbs. J. Spencer recently linked to a new article on this, I think, so I suppose the section could use some expanding. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] classification

  • the Centrosaurinae, a family of large North American horned dinosaurs
    • It's a subfamily, not a family
It is. Here I was being too informal, and just trying to relate the idea to the reader that they're related. I've adjusted the text to read "subfamily". Much thanks for this comment, which would definitely have counted as a mistake in one of those Nature reviews.
  • "relative to the ceratopines"
    • Isn't it "ceratopsines"?
Either is correct.
  • "a projection into the rear of the nasal fenestra."
    • A projection? what is that
I've just found that that is a copyvio of J. Spencer's Thescelosaurus site. Unless he wrote it himself here, I will attempt to rework this so it's not a blatant copyvio.
Well, you can formally quote it, if it comes to that.
J. has an excellent web-site, Thescelosaurus!, which is highly regarded in the dinosaur community. It is thorough (hundreds of genera are discussed), easily accessible to amateurs, and is well-researched. Unfortunately, it is a personal web-site, and may not pass WP:RS. There is a well-meaning regular FAC reviewer who refuses to pass articles which use personal web-sites as references, even if those sites are written by professionals in the field and even if those sites appear as references in print publications. We have been fortunate enough to have been allowed to use J.'s site as a reference on articles of lesser quality, but I worry that this reviewer would object to the use of J.'s site if this article were to reach FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Other members of the clade include"
    • Since there is no actual discussion of technical cladistics, I think we can replace "clade" with "subfamily"
I'd prefer to keep "clade" here, rather than using the same word again.
It feels needlesly jargonic to me, but I'll respect your preference.
  • "possibly members of the opposite sex."
    • Maybe a parallel to Triceratops, were many species were reduced to gender differences is apropriate here?
Probably not. Styracosaurus hasn't had very many species referred to it, unlike Triceratops.
  • "Dodson (1996) found enough variation"
    • The Dino articles generally avoid the author-date format (a good thing IMHO). The rest of the article does. I think the 2 instances should be removed.
Oh, man. "Dodson (1996)" was my attempt to make it clear I was referring to the 1996 book, not the 2004 book. I don't have the 2004 book, and don't know what he said in it. Therefore, I'm reluctant for now to change this to read like he has stated this in multiple books. Perhaps the WP:DINO team can help me address this part. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
THere's nothing wrong with having the info. I just don't think author-date is the best way to include it. Circeus 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Dodson also believes one species of Monoclonius, "M". nasicornis"
    • The previous sentence is in the past, this one is inthe present...
Fixed, thanks.
    • The scare quotes are not necessary. Even if it is considered otehrwise, it's still primarily a Monoclonius.
Dodson is one of the authorities of Ceratopia, and he's done more work on them than most other paleontologists. If he considers "M." nasicornis possibly a female Styracosaurus, it probably is, but until this has been presented in a scientific paper, I believe it really should be written the way it is, with the quotation marks. If other editors also think it should be changed, I certainly will. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Even then, until it's the new combination Styracosaurus nasicornis has been properly proposed, the only valid name is still Monoclonius nasicornis. Look at Dryandra prionotes: Even though Dryandra has been sunk into synonymy with Banksia, Dryandra prionotes is still the valid name (There's already a Banksia prionotes) until a new name is published. Saying "Monoclonius" nasicornis makes no sense, taxonomically or nomenclaturally. Circeus 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, makes sense to me! Fixed, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

  • "The exact origins"
    • How about "the evolutionary origins" instead?
    • Also, wouldn't this apply to most centrosaurines?
Changed to "evolutionary", and yes, it applies to all ceratopsians, as it says in the sentence. Will be back later to fix the rest of the stuff, with further comments. Thank you VERY much for your suggestions and comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "and suggest a Jurassic origin for the group in Asia,"
    • Poor,ambiguous wording. Did the group originates in asia, or does its appearance in Asia dates fro the Jurassic, and it exosted somewhere else earlier?
The group probably originated in the Jurassic in Asia: the earliest finds are from Jurassic Asia; even if something earlier is found, it will also be from the Jurassic: the Jurassic spanned 50 million years, and Yinlong, the only Jurassic find, and about as basal as you can get, is Late Jurassic in origin. Suggestions for less ambiguous wording are appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
How about "and suggest that the group originated from Jurassian Asia" or "during the Jurassic in Asia" ?
You're a bit of a miracle worker, you know. I have now modified the sentence to read, in part, "and suggest that the group originated during the Jurassic in Asia", as I think "Jurassian" doesn't get much usage in this context. Thanks for the suggested rewording. Often, I'm stumped at how to reword a sentence, and am always hoping someone will suggest something better. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discoveries and species

  • Drop that year link
Dropped.
Adjusted.
  • "from the same geological formation and from the same general locality"
    • "from the same general locality and geological formation"
Thank you. Fixed.
  • Styracosaurus parksi
    • Call it a personal quirk,but I'dlike to see an etymology for the names. Who was Parks? Is he William Parks?
Yup. Fixed.
  • Until a specimen in a better state of preservation is found, there are some lingering doubts amongst paleontologists about the validity of S. parksi.
    • This should be cited
Cited, thanks.
Linked, thanks.
  • That paragraph and the next one should be cited.
  • Again, an etymology for ovatus would be nice.
  • What remains was the description based on? Sounds like a partial skull.
No, there was a skeleton and a partial skull.
  • Is S. sphenocereus a Styracosaurus, a Monoclonius or a nomen dubium??
The fossils are fragmentary, and it was described as StyracosaurusMonoclonius, but and it may be Monoclonius.
Uh... The article says it was first described as a Monoclonius and nothing about it ever being described as/transferred to Styracosaurus...
Still doesn't work out. So it's X, and maybe X instead... I thought that was a fallacy of definition... lol
So, after a look at Monoclonius, I gather It was originally described as Monoclonius, variously attributed to Styracosaurus and Agathaumas, and currently considered a nomen nudum, is that correct? I still think that sentence needs at best a rewording, at worst a compelte rewrite...
  • Why isn't there a complete list of the names similar to that in Triceratops or Iguanodon? As is, it's not clear whether the article lists all species assigned to Styracosaurus.
As far as I know, that's it. Styracosaurus never became the wastebasket taxon that Iguanodon and (to a lesser extent) Triceratops became. Lots of dubious material was assigned to Monocolonius, but this genus appears to have escaped that fate. If there are other species, I don't know of them. I'll double-check with the WP:Dinosaur folks, but this may be it: they all added material during the peer review process. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense.

[edit] Dentition and diet

  • "fed mostly on low growth because of the position of the head."
    • "fed mostly on low growth because of the head's position."ΒΈ
Fixed, thanks for the suggestion for rewording.
  • "were continually replaced by new teeth underneath"
    • Less-than-ideal formulation
I'm not sure what a better formulation might be, and am open to suggestions, natch.
Maybe just "replaced by the teeth underneath them"?
Done, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horns and frill

  • "The function of these facial adornments has been the subject of debate ever since the first specimen of Styracosaurus was discovered."
    • Hasn't the debate covered the whole of the ceratopsids?
Yes. I was hoping the first sentence in the second paragraph addressed this, but have adjusted the end of the first paragraph. Let me know if it's still not up to par.
Sounds okay now.
  • For the most part, this section is a shorter version of that in Triceratops, right? Maybe it can and refer to the section in Triceratops with a see also or more details link?
Yes, it's a shortened version of the one in Triceratops. I did cull some material that didn't pertain to Styracosaurus and tried to use more summary style on the rest. If you think it will help, I'll link it to the Triceratops article, but I worry that it will confuse people: Styracosaurus wasn't Triceratops; despite many similarities, they weren't in the same subfamily, and although I wanted to draw some parallels between the two (because most people will know a Trike but will probably be unfamiliar with Styracosaurus, ) I didn't want to go overboard with the references to another genus...?
Nevermind. You're right, it would probably just be confusing.
  • "may have helped to increase body area to regulate body temperature."
    • Maybe a parallel with the modern elephant's ears is appropriate.
Done. Thanks very much for the suggestion. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  • General references are generally listed before specific ones. They should accordingly be reduced in size (subst'ing {{reflist}} might be necessary)
I'll check into this, thanks.
    • Drop the Dodson general reference.
Dropped, and since that left only one general reference, I moved it up to in-text, as it looked silly by itself.
  • The doi for Gregory and Christansen breaks because of "<>" characters. There is a provision in {{cite journal}} that is supposed to cover this.
I'll check, thanks. Hm.... It says "If the doi contains some characters that must be escaped, use "doilabel" for the unescaped version. See doi:{{{id}}} : "id" is equivalent to "doi" and "label" is "doilabel". I wish they'd write these things in English..Firsfron of Ronchester 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually am the one responsible for that >.>;;;; I had hoped the link to percent-encoding would do the trick. Somehow, my code in cite journal won't work. I fixed it in another fashion.
  • The later references to The Horned Dinosaurs should be abbreviated. They are not even formatted consistently!
OK, will do.
  • The book is given 2 different ISBNs: 0-691-02882-6 and 0-691-05900-4. Are those twin ISBNs or different editions? Worldcat (which only gives 0-691-02882-6) also indicates that the full title is The Horned Dinosaurs: a Natural History.
My copy, and oversized paperback, has 0-691-05900-4. It is titled The Horned Dinosaurs on the front cover and first page. It has the subtitle A Natural History on the title page and back cover. I can certainly adjust the refs and add the subtitle, but I'm not sure about changing ISBN and other things to one version because the pagination between hardcover and paperback could be different.
Then pick either pick one version and standardize all references to it or Specify the differences in the note.
  • The doi for the Brown and Schlaikjer is improper.
???
It's not a doi, it's a URL. There's no DOI at all for it. I deleted it. Circeus 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The second reference to Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia should also be abbreviated.
Will do.
Ah, it turns out the two references have different pagination, which is why they were separate. The first is for pages 396-398, while the second is for pages 865-868. During other reviews, reviewers specifically wanted the references broken up, with specific references using page numbers.
  • Advances in Anatomy, Embryology, and Cell Biology is a monography series (ISSN: 0301-5556) where each monography has an individual ISBN (Here ISBN 0-38713114-0). That ref should be formatted as a book using the series field. It's also got a PMID (PMID 6464809)
OK.
Hmmm... None of the book citation templates listed at WP:CITET have the correct fields.
Will adjust.
I don't know what that means.
OCLC numebrs can be used to locate books in WorldCat when they don,t have ISBNs.
  • The "pages" parameter in {{cite journal}} should NOT include "p." or "pp." abbreviations.
Will fix. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Circeus out. Circeus