Talk:Plagiolophus (mammal)/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, looks like the first part of the article has a good deal of unnecessary duplinks.

• I think it would be interesting to show this[1] old restoration in the article for this and the other taxa depicted, perhaps if we can find a higher res version.

I’ve updated it to the high res version and removed some of the first and creases of the image. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a lot of other nice, high res images in that source, if any are needed:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Fraasiolophus also be listed as a genus synonym?

• “P. minor dentition, Natural History Museum, London” Upper or lower?

• “recognized a third species Palaeotherium minus” needs comma before and after the name, or add “the” in front of “third species”.

• “originally found by the French naturalist Auguste Nicholas de Saint-Genis. According to Cuvier, the quarry workers previously thought the skeleton to be of a ram, and it was presented as such in public newspapers” Do we know when?

• “but that postcranial fossils” We know by here that they’re fossils, so perhaps say “elements”.

• “In 1812, Cuvier published published his drawing of a skeletal reconstruction” Double published, and do we know he drew them himself?

• “had stockier limb bone builds” Limbed?

• “as part of the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs sculptures of the Crystal Palace Park, 2009” instead of the year the photo was taken, I think the year the sculptures were unveiled is more relevant.

• For context, add publication dates in captions of other old illustrations?

• You’re inconsistent in whether you present the nationality/occupations of people mentioned as “the” or not.

For example you start out with “French naturalist Georges Cuvier”, and later you have just “by Alexander Pytts Falconer”. You should stick to one style throughout, present them or don’t. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Later 19th century research history” I think the naming of the new genus should be worked into the section title, as that’s probably the most significant event. See for example Cimolioipterus.

• “The genus name derives in Ancient Greek from πλαγιοϛ (“oblique”) and λοφος (“crest”) meaning “oblique crest”.” Do we know what this is in reference to? Could be mentioned there.

• “deciduous and permanent dental sets” link these.

• “and erected the species Paloplotherium annectens” Seems a bit odd to mention the naming of the genus at the beginning of the paragraph, but the species only at the end of it. Would logically go together.

• “παλαιός (“ancient”), ὅπλον (“arms”), and θήρ (“wild beast”) meaning “ancient armed beast”.” What does this refer to?

• “Horses and other equids are commonly defined as the closest relatives of palaeotheres and are typically grouped within the superfamily Equoidea” Wouldn’t it make sense to show a wild form instead of a domesticated one whose morphology has been altered by humans?
  • I don’t think it matters since an equid is an equid regardless of breeding. It’s not like it changed the genus, and even the species case for domesticated animals is considered a subjective matter in taxonomy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Fraas had studied fossils of palaeotheres from Frohnstetten” You only link palaeotheres as a group all the way down here, should be much earlier.

• “stating that its size based on fossil material would have” based on fossil material goes without saying?

• “Estimated Plagiolophus species size comparisons based on known fossil specimens” I’d either give all the names and their respective colour in the caption or enlarge the thumb so it can be read.

• “and restorations of Montmartre fossil mammals” Link life restoration.

• “Restoration of Lophiodon, which coexisted with Plagiolophus in the middle to late Eocene” Eocene is linked already in the caption of an image right above.

• “Restoration of Ronzotherium, a rhinocerotid genus that arrived in western Europe by the Grande Coupure” Link Grande Coupure.

• I see there are still a good deal of unused available images on Commons, and personally I’d try to work them into the huge empty stretches under classification/List of lineages and palaeobiology, perhaps you disagree. But I think it makes it more interesting to read than just a big wall of text.

I mean the for example the huge stretch of white space next to the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “The year after in 1902” You don’t need both “year after” and “1902”.

• “with official fossil descriptions to replace the previous species name” I’m not sure what this means. Official as opposed to what? And how could it just replace previous ones, unless they were invalidly published (in that case that needs to be specified)?

• “In 1917, Depéret]]” Looks like a half removed link.

• “annectens mut. Oweni” You need to explain what mut. means.

It’s crucial to explain any such uncommon terms. Will ask at Discord. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “(also recognizing it by the name” You never add the closing part of the parenthesis.

• “of the United Kingdom” I think you can abbreviate to UK throughout.

• “until more complete material assigned to the species was found.” Assignable. Not assigned already when it’s found, someone would have to do it.

• How do we know the features listed as male or female really reflect dimorphism? It’s just stated as fact here with no explanation.

Could we get some specifics on this under description? What features? FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “which was assigned a left maxilla with partial dentition from Robiac for a holotype specimen” That’s a pretty convoluted statement, could be “based on a left maxilla” etc. or similar.

• “(doubtful taxon names).” elaborate what this means, that they have no distinguishing features.

• “as defined subgenera” what is meant by “defined”?

• “a third subgenus Fraasiolophus” Comma before the name.

• “more closely related to other perissodactyl groups” Link you haven’t mentioned the group before this point, could also give their common name for context.

• Link endemic and radiation.

• Link Palaeogene at first mention.

• “List of lineages” kind of ambiguous title, I wouldn’t know what it meant just by reading it. Something more specific like “Plagiolophus taxa” or similar.

• I think the list of taxa would make more sense before the classification section, as it basically summarises the preceding text there.

• The Classification section seems to be as much about evolution, could perhaps be reflected in the title. Also, it seems to almost go more into other genera than the subject of the article, perhaps too far off topic.
  • Changed to “classification and evolution.” I think coverage of the evolution of palaeotheres as a whole is necessary, as audiences need to understand the background contexts behind them, and I cannot assume that they have any idea of the temporal ranges of palaeothere clades. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “(including three outgroups)” Most readers probably won’t know what that means.

• Paraphyletic also needs link and explanation.

• Derived needs link and explanation.

• There seems to be an unusually large number of subtaxa, are they all recognised today?

• The Palaeotheriidae is diagnosed”, “Plagiolophus is diagnosed” easier for the reader if you just say “is distinguished by”.

• “in the middle of the skull or in a slight frontal area of it.” less wordy if you just say “slightly in front of it”.

• “Plagiolophus is diagnosed in part as having skull lengths that vary by species”, that sounds like an extremely vague diagnosis, how can a genus be diagnosed just by its species having different skull lengths? What does the source say?

• “The maxilla, at the area with the canine” area of the canine.

• “the muzzle in comparison is thin” narrow? What does the source say?

• “and has its lower edges formed from those of the premaxilla and maxilla.” formed by? Not sure what “those of” refers to.

• “The mandibular symphysis, the middle of the mandible” rather where each half of the mandible join.

• “The skull of Plagiolophus appears slightly triangular in shape” From what view?

• “has a maximum width either above or in front of where the mandible articulates with other skull bones” either depending on what? Species? Individual variation?

• “The skull length of Plagiolophus generally increases over time as part of an evolutionary trend of species” kind of odd to have this in present tense.

• “P. annectens skull remains, held at the fossil collections of the Natural History Museum, London” State which elements are shown.

• “Plagiolophus sp. limb, State Museum of Natural History, Stuttgart” seems to be specifically the lower limb, and from the front or hind legs?

• There are a lot of technical terms under description that need in-text explanations and links, would benefit the article to carefully read through it and add accordingly.

• Likewise, there are a lot of cranial anatomy terms that could benefit from explaining where on the skull they are.

• “The body of the premaxilla is elongated but low height” low in height?

• “and hosts all the incisors.” is there anything unusual in this?

• “from other foramen” foramens or foramina.

• “the latter displaying stronger sexual dimorphism in males” this implies this is within males, should say something like that feature is sexually dimorphic and is stronger in males, or similar.

• “The optic foramen, located in the sphenoid bone” On?

• “but varies in such based on factors pertaining to species morphology and sexual dimorphism” very convoluted wording. Could just be “these features vary according to species and sex”.

• “The mandibular symphysis, the middle of the mandible, is elongated and contains projecting incisors. The horizontal ramus (or body) of the mandible is wide from front to back and has a prominent coronoid process.” why is this at the beginning of the skull section when you seem to place all the other mandible text at the end of it?

• Is there a way to display subgenera in the taxobox? If so, we probably should.

• “are generally diagnosed as having selenolophodont upper molars and selenodont lower molars that are mesodont” all these terms need explanation, and, if possible, links.

• “It differs from Leptolophus is appearing less lophodont and lesser degree of heterodonty in its cheek teeth.” More technical terms that need explanation. I’ll return when all these are done (also in the rest of the article) so as not to repeat myself.

• “It differs from Leptolophus is appearing” in appearing?

• “well-documented deciduous” Link and explain.

• “totaling at four in each of each first permanent molar” wording seems unclear. In?

• “argued that the demonstrated evidence did not prove Remy’s hypothesis, meaning that it requires further research for proof.” Very long-winded for no reason, just say they stated it requires further research.

• “whereas later species have evolutionarily lost” Have is unnecessary and confusing tense.

• “P. minor is known by a few incomplete skeletons, the first of which was studied originally by Georges Cuvier in 1804. According to Remy, the gypsum skeleton has been lost; he stated that the individual was a pregnant female. It was figured by Cuvier and later Blainville in 1839–1864, and the latter naturalist also figured skeletal elements from the French commune of Monthyon surrounding the skeleton whose whereabouts are also unclear.[31] P. minor is also known from another assembled skeleton that was originally documented by Fraas in the later 19th century,[12] although Stehlin referenced that Fraas paid little attention to studying the limb bones.[44]” most of detail doesn’t reallt velong under desacription, which is about morphology. All that section needs to say that the skeleton is incompleyely known, and the specifics should be moved to research history.

• “Remy in 2004 noted that the postcranial bones of palaeotheriids are not as well-studied, meaning that future studies would require studying traits of postcranial fossils of palaeotheres at the genus level” shouldn’t this just say “The postcranial anatomy of palaeotheriids is not well-studied and require further study” or such? Very wordy and repetitive now.

• “It tail, composed of caudal vertebrae” that’s like saying the tail is composed of tail vertebrae. You could maybe say “the caudal vertebrae of the tail”.

• “distinguished from those Palaeotherium”

• “suggesting that the digits are not well-supported anatomically.” Don’t know what this means.

• “was better-adapted to cursoriality” link and exlain cursorial at first mention in intro and article body.

• “adaptation in multiple Plagiolophus spp.” just say species, few readers would know what spp. means.

• “P. ministri has similarly tall and narrow astragali” explain astragalus.

• “and may originated from” originate.

• “which the sole species name Plagiolophustipus montfalcoensis derives from” – which the sole species Plagiolophustipus montfalcoensis derives its name from.

• “By extent, the ichnogenus Palaeotheriipus” don’t know what is meant by “by extent”.

• I’d say the footprint section should come last under description, size should definitely come first either way. Footprint attribution can also only be tentative, so it certainly holds less weight.

• “Plagiolophus is characterized by the inclusion of small to medium-sized species” how can difference in size characterize a genus? What does the source say?

• “Despite being a high, wide, and robust skull, P. minor is the smallest species*” despite having. Now the subject is both skull and P. minor.

• “is known only from a male juvenile mandible” again, how is sex determined?

• “With a potential adult skull length of about 400 mm (16 in), P. javali is the largest species of Plagiolophus.[31]” since this seems speculative, could say “P. javali is probably the largest species”.

• “weight estimates of different populations of Plagiolophus” this seems to be about different species, so populkatiuon is confusion, as this could include differences between populations oif the same species.

• “et al. estimated that P. mazateronensis has a weight estimate range of*” they estimated it had a weight estimate? Very repetitive sentence.

• “Restorations of P. annectens” specify life restorations and link the term.

• “Reconstruction of Diplobune” why reconstruction all of a sudden when you say restoration everywhere else?

• “Restoration of Ronzotherium, a rhinocerotid genus” link rhinocerotid.

• “in P. minor based on skull evidence” but what other evidence could it be based in? Seems redundant.

• “are also observed in a contemporary palaeothere Palaeotherium” the contemporary? Reads odd now.

• Link and explain gregarious.

• “Both Palaeotherium and Plagiolophus have dentitions that are both capable of” last both is unnecessary.

• “folivorous (leaf-eating) and did not have especially frugivorous (fruit-eating)” link these terms.

• “tooth wear of either of the genera” of either genus, less wordy.

• “and Palaeotherium having a high rate of efficiency in” being efficient at? Less wordy.

• “that the Plagiolophus species that they studied” the studied Plagiolophus species.

• “The hypsodonty trend in Plagiolophus was previously documented by Remy in 2004” Why are you presenting the information out of chronological order? It would make more sense to present this study first.

• “The change in dieting in P. minor” diet, dieting is something else.

• “to the extent that fruit is nearly absent from its diet.” Was.

• “could have been due to seasonal climates as well, in which the availability of certain plants by season varied.” Overly long. Could just say “seasonal availability of certain plants” and mean the same.

• The see also section seems pointless when Palaeotherium is already linked and covered extensively in the article.

• “(or the suborder Euprimates)” why is that necessary here?

• “along with the archaic “condylarths”.” many readers will have no idea this refers to a group of mammals and not, say, plants.

• You seem to use UK English, yet you use “paleo” instead of “palaeo” some places.

• Likewise you say both “behaviour” but then “favor”.

• ” (Choeropotamidae (possibly polyphyletic, however)” double parenthesis is more confusing than helpful, and I’m not sure we need this level of detail anyway.

• “the Geiseltal uMK” why abbreviated?

• “The Geiseltal Obere Mittelkhole locality” I assume this is the above? Should be spelled out at first mention.

• “exclusive to the faunal unit” clearer if you say “this faunal unit”. Replace a couple of places.

• “as a result at 33.9 Ma, although some estimate that the event began 33.6-33.4 Ma.” Unnecessarily wordy, just say estimated at 33.9-33.4 Ma.

• “The massive drop in temperatures stems from” why present tense?

• “to strong extents” by instead of to?

• “Alexis Licht et al. suggested” When?

• Instead of just illustrating similar herbivorous mammals under Palaeoecology, why not present different ecological niches, like predators etc.?

• “In the early Oligocene after MP21, Plagiolophus was the sole remaining palaeothere genus present in Europe.” so why do we think this genus went extinct too?

• “The type species P. minor was initially described” what does “initially” add?

• “The type species P. minor was initially described by the French naturalist Georges Cuvier in 1804 based on postcranial material including a now-lost skeleton originally from the Paris Basin. It was classified to Palaeotherium the same year” This is misleadingly worded, as the original description classified it as Palaeotherium. So you should specify from the get go: The type species was originally placed in the genus Palaeotherium as P. minor” or such.

• “but was reclassified to the subgenus Plagiolophus, named by Auguste Pomel in 1847.” Odd wording, just say “but was assigned to the new subgenus Plagiolophus Auguste Pomel in 1847” or such.

• “it is defined by three subgenera” it contains. Not sure what definition has to do with anything.

• “derived (or with traits evolved from ancestral forms)” that’s a very vague definition, rather it would be traits that differ from the ancestral form or some such. Everything is evolved from an ancestral form.

• “Plagiolophus, as a species-rich genus, has a wide body mass range extending from less than 10 kg (22 lb) in the smallest species P. minor to over 150 kg (330 lb) in the largest species P. javali.” Why present tense?

• “The postcranial builds of several species suggest that some had stockier body builds” No need to repeat “build”, just say “some were stockier”.

• “likely descended from the earlier subfamily Pachynolophinae in the middle Eocene” I’m not seeing this stated outright in the article body, and if it is, it is unclearly stated.

• “likely because some of its species were well-adapted towards major environmental trends as a result of their dietary changes and cursorial nature” Likewise, it might be stated in an implied way over vast paragraphs, but would help the reader to state it this explicitly in the article body as well.

• “where Plagiolophus was largely present” what does this mean? Mainly distributed?

• “would have allow it to niche partition” allowed.

• “with various other faunas” a fauna is a collective term for the assemblage of animals that live in a place, so I’m not sure “faunas” plural makes sense here.

• Since source spot checks have recently become required for GA reviews, I’ll return soon to do that, as I’m not very familiar with that procedure.

• “1804 sketch of a skeleton of Plagiolophus minor from the commune of Pantin” if this is the lost specimen, it’s important enough to state in the caption.

• As stated earlier, it is important to state already in the history section if the type specimen is lost, not all the way down in description, as it has huge taxonomic importance.

• A good deal of the citations lack page ranges for the cited parts, which makes them very hard to verify. You’ll have to fix this for them all before I can spot-check and finish the review.