Talk:Podokesaurus/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• the writer Jan Peczkis – why not "paleontologist" here?

This is a strange one, all I've able to find out about him is that he's a teacher[1] who is also a Polish nationalist[2] on the side... Can't say if it's the same person, but it seems so. And if so, I'm not sure if he's a reliable source, but it's from JVP, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the article... The only other article on dinosaurs he has is "Simulating Dinosaur Digestion in the Classroom"[3] (where it is confirmed he's a teacher), so "writer" seemed most fitting.. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• no indications of cartilage where this would turn to bone with age – I don't really understand, do they argue that the skeleton was fully ossified? I'm also have a hard time to make sense of the grammar ("where this", where and what?), maybe there is a simpler wording?

That claim was not made in a scientific paper either, but in a book about the college[4], using quite informal wording: "Most of the geologists who saw the fossil do not think that it was a young one as there are no certain indications of cartilage in places where cartilage turns to bone with age." So it would seem I may have even simplified too much, and should instead specify it is where cartilage would be exoected? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so it has to stay unspecific. What about "no indications of cartilage that would turn to bone with age to be a bit simpler? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• While the college's fossil collections were almost entirely destroyed by the fire, facilities and collections continued to grow and improve due to Talbot's efforts. – Sounds a bit contradictory – the collection was destroyed but still continued to grow? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

After the college's collection was destroyed, they added new fossils to it. Should I add "the college's" before "facilities and collections"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is quite unspecific, but if the source is not more precise than I would say it is fine as is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The source says "Unfortunately the fossil collections were almost entirely destroyed by a fire in 1916, which wiped out the only existing skeleton of her little dinosaur. Despite this disaster, departmental facilities and collections continued to enlarge and improve over the years "due almost wholly to Talbot's perseverance and unremitting program of collection, purchase, exchange and correspondence"." I added "afterwards" to perhaps make it clearer that it was since the fire. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• fourth trocanther (a tubercle near the connection with the hip). – Not precisely close to the hip, is it?

Ah, confused it with one of the higher trochanters (and misspelled it multiple time), how about "a flange placed mid-length at the back of the femur"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• and the ischium of the pelvis with its well-developed ridge – not mentioned in description; which ridge?

I'm not sure actually, she says "The bone that was thought to be two bones, the pubis lying over the ischium, is probably the ischium with a well-developed ridge as is seen in Copmsognathus. There would be, therefore, no bone to call the postpubis and the form must be removed from the herbivorous group of dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• The only feature he found inconsistent with this interpretation was the short finger with a claw – Which finger, and why is it inconsistent?

He didn't specify, further, but refers to what is marked as "D" in the middle of this figure:[5] Talbot only calls it "Digit", without stating where it belonged, but it is mentioned under "hindlimb" in her paper... As far as I could see, this digit is not even listed in the Dinosauria, which otherwise lists the bones... Maybe von Huene had something to say about its identity? FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• He suggested that the issue could be determined if the skull, sternum, and clavicle were found in the rock – Maybe this needs a bit of background/explanation, otherwise readers will feel helpless. Why these bones in particular?

He doesn't specify, because he probably assumed the reader would know, but I added "bones that would be important clues for classification", which is more or less implied. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• than was present in the later supposed descendant Ornithomimus, which he thought would have developed a completely bird-like middle-foot by that time – So did he challenge the interpretation of Podokesaurus or that of Ornithomimus?

It is a somewhat unclear critique of Lull's interpretation of the foot of Podokesaurus, I've added this to the beginning of the sentence: "Heilmann wished for a clearer explanation of the placement of the middle-foot bones in relation to each other". FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• He also found Lull's reconstruction of a forward directed the pubis unlikely, and suggested it would instead have been directed backwards. – feels repetitive; also maybe explain why it is a big deal whether its pointing backwards or forwards, readers won't know.

I've added "(as in birds)" after "when the pubis was interpreted as pointing backwards", but I see what you mean by repetition. I tried by merging the two sentences into one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• the later American genera – "North American"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• oburator opening – "obturator"? Need to get a glossary entry for this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I see it is already in the glossary (obturator foramen). Maybe it makes sense to name it foramen, which is much more common than "obturator opening". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. There are a few more dinogloss links that need redirects, I'll try to fix them later. And by the way, do we need an entry for "postpubis"? I'm not sure what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• By the way I added a new restoration if you have any comments:[6]

• and was deposited after the Central Atlantic magmatic province was formed by igneous rock – Igneous rock is only the result (after the magma cooled down). Igneous rock was not involved in the formation of the province.

I've tried by just removing " by igneous rock", is it better? I can't say I know much about these processes... FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• red eolian (affected by wind) – "deposited by wind"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• By the time the description was published, the fossil had been sent to the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University – according to Huene (1914), it was Talbot who sent it. This could be specified. Also, Huene said that he studied the specimen while it was at the Peabody Museum.

Ah yes, I thought I read he saw it there but then I couldn't find the part again. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• According to Huene: 16 presacral vertebrae preserved, the anterior 5 of which are cervicals. The front half of the neck is therefore missing. Podokesaurus had 11 dorsals, which had elongated centra and narrow, high, and backwards-inclined neural spines. Cervicals had long, straight, and narrow cervical ribs as in Anchisaurus. Dorsal ribs thin and strongly curved, reminiscent of Saltopus and Hallopus. The anteriormost gastralia had broadened ends, a condition often found in sternal ribs. The skeleton just posterior to the pelvis is not preserved (a long gap after the pelvis); an accumulation of bones after this gap is interpreted by Huene as mid caudals, but has been thought to be skull bones by Talbot. Associated (and posterior to) this accumulation are a series of 24 very elongated distal caudals; this series had two gaps, and the original vertebral count of this series was 26. Tail was ca. 70 cm long, this means more than 1.5 times the length of trunk, neck, and skull taken together. Huene estimates the total length at 110 cm, "if no longer tail end is missing". In front of the pubis there are a number of gracile gastralia in their original position. Between the latter and just in front of the distal end of the pubis is a ca. 11 mm long rounded pebble that is distinct from the smaller grains of the sandstone; Huene agrees with Talbot that it is a gastrolith. Of the shoulder girdle there is almost nothing preserved, only a fragment of the left scapula and a small fragment of the right coracoid. The 42 mm long left humerus is preserved in situ, has a strong processus lateralis 30 mm above the distal end of the bone. Based on experience, the length of the radius would have been this length (30 mm). Of one hand, parts of three fingers are preserved between the dorsal vertebral series and the pubis. There are only phalanges preserved, the distalmost of which are sharp curved claws. The phalanges are so slender that they are reminiscent of Ornitholestes. Two claws lay side by side, and above the more complete digit is a very elongated phalanx which probably belonged to the first finger.

Most of the above should now be summarised. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Of the pelvis, only ischium and pubis are preserved, probably from the right side. The pubis is exceptionally long (95 mm). Its lateral border is thickened, the distal end is strongly thickened on its top. The acetabular end is incomplete. The ischium is 50 mm long. The shaft is slender and somewhat thickened at its distal end; below the acetabulum there is a broad lamella running towards the pubis. The right femur is complete, of the left femur the distal half is preserved. The femur is 86 mm long. The shaft is strongly bended, with a strong Trochanter quartus (=Forth trochanter) at midlength. The length of the ridge (of the fourth trochanter) is 9 mm, and its lower margin is 60 mm away from the proximal end of the femur. The distal condyles are strongly protruding posteriorly. The tibia is 104 mm long, therefore much longer than the upper thigh. Of the right tibia there are only distal and proximal end visible; they lay on the vertebral column and are equal in length to the left tibia. The left tibia is badly preserved; Huene thought it was crushed and therefore broadened, while Talbot assumed that there is a slender Fibula right next to it [the crushed broad tibia interpreted by Huene vs. tibia + fibula interpreted by Talbot]. When Huene studied the specimen, Talbot description had not yet been published, so Huene was unaware of this her interpretation when he saw the specimen. Of the tarsus there is only a fragment of the right astragalus. Of the left foot, there are three equal-length metatarsals in their original articulation next to each other; their distal ends are complete, but not their proximal ends. The bes tpreserved and longest metatarsal, probably the second, is 68 mm long, and would have been 75 mm in length if complete at the proximal end. Three phalanges follow, of which the first complete is very slender and 12 mm long. Of the right foot there are distal ends of two metatarsals on top of the left femur. Above the pelvis there are two vaguely preserved bones, which Huene thinks are phalanges of the right foot; they are 10–12 mm long. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that translation! Will have a look soon, the article was also just copy edited, so I'll fix some issues brought up with that (on the talk page) too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Did Huene specifically state that he studied the specimen before Talbot published it (and on which page)? Could be a nice addition... I'll probably add parts from Huene in drips as I compare the texts, but for now I've added his interpretation of those isolated digit bones, as the other papers didn't say much about them. And his interpretation of the "skull" bones is interesting, so also added. I now call them "uncertain bones/fragments" instead of "possible skull fragments". FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes he did state that ("Ihre Schrift war noch nicht erschienen, als ich das Stück untersuchte" -> "Her publication was not yet published when I studied the specimen", p. 32). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now added (also added Huene's measurement of the supposed gastrolith). I really like that we have been able to add information from sources in three different languages! FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• The German paleontologist Friedrich von Huene was the last to study and describe the holotype specimen in a 1914 publication before it was destroyed (he had studied it at Yale before Talbot's description was published). – Huene said that the specimen arrived in Yale while he was present there. This would mean that he and Lull studied the specimen at around the same time. So Huene was maybe not the last to study it (but maybe he was the last to publish his interpretation).

The statement is from Welles Dilophosaurus monograph, where he says "The specimen was last studied and described by Huene before it was destroyed". Whether it is an inference by him I can't say, but at least that's what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder if more detail on how the fossil was preserved is needed. Huene told quite a bit about it. I mean, instead of just listing all present bones, it could be interesting to know which parts of the vertebral column are in articulation, where are gaps in the sediment, how the bones lay (roughly) in relation to each other. Vertebral count is also important. Personally I find such information much more interesting then the outdated comparisons with unrelated taxa such as Ornithomimus.

Yeah, I intend to include as much of von Huene's paper as possible (what's unique of it), so it's nice to get pointers as to what you would find interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait then until you finished including the interesting information. Let me know when you are done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Now most should be summarised, Jens Lallensack, but of course, point anything out you think I've missed. There was one inconsistency between sources I was unsure what to do about. You wrote von Huene said the femur was strongly bent, whereas Talbot said it was "nearly straight". Perhaps they were viewing it from different angles or something? It looks pretty straight in the figures... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I think you got everything important! About the femur, Huene says: "Der Schaft ist ziemlich stark gebogen" -> "The shaft is fairly strongly bended". I don't think it is a matter of viewing angle since the specimen is preserved on a slab. Maybe Talbot thought "the femur looks straight", but Huene thought "the femur is more curved than in similar dinosaurs I know"; if so, they would not necessarily contradict each other. But I don't know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This shows, however, that such more subjective statements and comparisons, when outdated as these are, are of limited use to start with; they are interesting from a historical point of view though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you think would be best, just leaving Talbot's wording, or stating Talbot said one thing and von Huene another? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As subjective as it is, this information doesn't seem to add much for the description. Maybe just remove it. It's a detail; stating the opinions of both of them would over-emphasize it too much. But this is only my personal opinion, of course! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I'll just leave the text as is then, since it would be conspicuous that the overall shape of this particular bone isn't described in some way when the others are. By the way, I think I got most relevant info from von Huene 1932 Die fossil Reptil-Ordnung Saurischia, ihren Entwicklung und Geschichte I (about classification and running ability), but it's possible I've overlooked something, it can be found on Google, but I don't know how to make a direct link... FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the body length estimate of Huene should really be included (even Paul's estimate is included although he didn't see the specimen in person).

Replaced GSP's, since it just repeats another one anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• You list the tibia and fibula, but Huene suggested that the latter could just be part of the badly crushed tibia. This disagreement should also be added, or at least we need a "possibly" in front of "fibula". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Stated. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• The frontmost gastralia had broadened ends, which is often the condition in these bones. – Huene said this is often the condition in sternal ribs; those are different elements. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, did dinosaurs have those? Or is he just making a general comparison? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

They had (they are connecting the sternum to the ribs), but sternal ribs in dinosaurs are usually cartilaginous. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, changed to sternal ribs. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here the full translation of Huene, 1932. The stuff about the jumping gait is quite amusing.

"The body proportions of coelurosaurs are very distinct from those of prosauropods and carnosaurs.

Comparing Saltopus with Thecodontosaurus antiquus and Palaeosaurus (?) diagnosticus, this difference isn't yet equally pronounced in all aspects. The slender built of the forelimb due to the long forearm is obvious, however. Also, the lower thigh is much longer than the upper thigh, while the upper thigh is still slightly longer in carnosaurs. This is probably due to the jumping gait of the smaller coelurosaurs, in contrast to the alternating limb motions of carnosaurs. In this respect, coelurosaurs are more primitive (?) then all pachypodosaurs. The metatarsus is much higher than in all pachypodosaurs despite the long lower thigh; this is why the hind limb as a whole is multiple times longer than the forelimb, while in primitive pachypodosaurs this relation is lower than one half. Thus, higher [derived] coelurosaurs show, although being primitive, a strong specialisation.

This specialisation is even more pronounced in Hallopus, Procompsognathus and Podokesaurus. Podokesaurus, with its large fourth trochanter, had probably abandoned the jumping gait and probably moved in rapid alternating steps as do ratites." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool stuff! I've tried to summarise it (I assume lower thigh means lower leg here?). And thanks a lot for the effort of translating all this! Tell me if you ever need a translation from Danish, haha (did that for Gevninge helmet fragment once)... FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Lower leg, yeah, my translation here was a bit to direct. By the way, "alternating limb motions" and "alternating steps" are too different translations of the same German word ("Wechseltritt"). "Alternating steps" is perhaps closer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, you're almost co-writer by this! FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Then a question, the only source that specifically states she was the first woman to describe a dinosaur[7] doesn't add "non-avian" or "non-bird", but only says "Professor Mignon Talbot (1869–1950) (Fig. 6a) was the first woman to find, serendipitously, and describe a dinosaur (Talbot 1911)." Looking around, it appears other women had named modern birds before that, which is why I added "non-bird" to this article, but it does diminish a bit of the impact. What is obviously meant by the source is fossil/extinct dinosaurs, so do you think it would be justified if I removed "non-bird"? FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No preference personally, I think it should be fine either way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.