Talk:Antarctopelta

Unamed Theropod

Where's the page for the unnamed (or recently named) theropod found in Antarctica? Thanks! AstroHurricane001 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it hasn't been named yet, there can't be an article. We can't very well call an article "unnamed Antarctic theropod", can we? Do you mean the Case/Martin find, or something else? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has been named or not. Most sources say that it hasn't been named, but then again, it could just be outdated and it also says that Antarctopelta hasn't been named either. I'm thinking it was probably found somewhere near the Antarctopelta discovery, probably near Vega Island and South America, but I'm not sure. I'm not looking for Cryolophosaurus, and I'm not sure which one is the Case/Martin find. A book says it's a theropod somewhat bigger than a human, and I think it's about 2-3 m (~10 ft) long and ~2 m (~7 ft) tall. Maybe a web search would help. AstroHurricane001 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Antarctic dinosaurs has just the two entries, Antarctopelta and Cryolophosaurus. The Case/Martin theropod discovery is discussed here, but is not yet named. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a short description of the "Naze" find back in 2004, but it ended up on the wrong page (Ross Island) and I only just moved it back to James Ross Island. Very little info. | Pat 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antarctopelta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading now.

• Antarctopelta is the only known ankylosaur from Antarctica, but is part of a larger group known as Parankylosauria – but Parankylosauria is not larger than Ankylosauria? Also, I don't understand the "but", because the second part does not really relativate the first?
• Its tail terminated in an arrangement of spiked osteoderms known as a macuahuitl, which resembled an Aztec weapon – the wikilink to macuahuitl is wrong (links to Aztec weapon and not to the osteoderms). Instead, I think that "Aztec weapon of the same name" should link to macuahuitl.
• Its tail terminated in an arrangement of spiked osteoderms known as a macuahuitl, – you present this as a fact, but it is only a suspicion.
• Osteoderms were present on other parts of the body and came in six different structures, – what does "structures" mean? Do you mean "shapes"?
• It was discovered in the Gamma Member strata of the Snow Hill Island Formation, – I suggest "It was discovered in rocks of the Gamma Member of the Snow Hill island Formation", to avoid an unnecessary technical term.
• The material all came from a single individual, but were spread – the material … was
• and was the first dinosaur ever found in Antarctica. – already mentioned.
• in situ – link or explain in situ.
• vertebrae (neck, back, hips and tail) – "hips" are not vertebrae. Maybe "of the neck, back, hips and tail"?
• some partial limb bones (scapula, ilium and femur), – scapula and ilium are not part of the limb.
• toe bones (five metapodials and two phalanges), – metapodials are not toe bones. Do you mean foot bones? Metapodials means of both manus and pes? But if so, why do you only link to "metatarsal bone"?
• Seven to eight mesial denticles – link or explain "mesial".
• Postcrania – the section heading is in plural (singular is postcranium), but I thought only one specimen is known?
• Two dorsal vertebrae from the synsacrum were unearthed, likely from the presacral rod. – but when they are from the synsacrum, doesn't that already imply that they are from the presacral rod? Maybe just remove "likely from the presacral rod"? The link to "presacral rod" does not help anyways because the term is not explained there.
• Two complete and one incomplete sacral vertebrae, the last of which contains parts of the sacrum. – not a complete sentence?
• "ankylosed", "appendicular skeleton", "phylogenetic bracketing" – link or explain terms?
• Thompson et al., 2011 – consider writing "Thompson and colleagues" to avoid the very technical "et al."
• creating a largely hollow space – was it actually hollow in life? This could be misleading.
• The floral composition, habitat, and climate are of one similar to modern volcanic arches. should it be: "The floral composition, habitat and climate are similar to modern volcanic arches."?
• and leaves have been found in concretions from the locale – what "locale", the Antarctopelta type locality?
• @Augustios Paleo: I am through now. Nice article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll get to these suggestions when I get home. Should be done by the end of today. AFH (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

All suggestions implemented. Thank you for the review! AFH (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you missed a few. There is still Cerda et al, should be consistent ("and colleagues"). What about the metapodials; are these metatarsals or metacarpals, or both? You write: Five metapodials and two phalanges from the manus were also found. Ankylosaurs like Antarctopelta and Stegouros had four digits with four metapodials, the hallux being the smallest. If you mean that the metapodials are from the manus, then write "metacarpals". However, the "hallux" you mention is from the pes, not the manus, so this does not make sense. Link/explain Phylogenetic bracketing? There is still a macuahuitl link in the image caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

From what the papers on this state, it is unknown whether the majority of the metapodials are from the manus or pes. This paper says that one is probably from the metatarsal IV. However, the caption of the image on the Stegouros description says "k, l, Antarctopelta oliveroi right metatarsal in dorsal and ventral views." Specifically, Mt2-4. I'm just going to put "with the pes having a hallux." or something like it. AFH (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, we are almost there now. Five metapodials and two phalanges from the manus were also found. Ankylosaurs like Antarctopelta and Stegouros had four digits with four metapodials on the manus and hand. – "manus" and "hand" are redundant, and the first sentence seems to imply that the five metapodials are from the manus, that should be reformulated to be less ambiguous. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

there we go. This should be better. AFH (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (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.