Talk:Apatosaurinae

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:Apatosaurinae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 03:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• If I observe correctly, the article mostly contains text copied from the Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus articles. While I am not sure if this is the best approach, I also don't know how to best write such articles about low-level clades, so maybe this is simply the most practical way to do it. On the other hand, maybe summary style should be applied more striclty here, since the scope of this article is broader than that of Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus.
  • Due to the history of Apatosaurus & Bronto being so intertwined and them possibly being the same genus, much of the information for one is the same as the other. I do not know how making it broader would be done when there's literally no other definitive genera. I could add more info for Amphicoelias but it is not a definite member.
    • I think we never really discussed the best approach for such articles at the WikiProject. Since a GA will serve as example for future articles, I will ask for opinion there; hope that is ok with you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Regarding the issue of missing information on Amhphicoelias and Atlantosaurus: It doesn't need to be a lot I think, but I would at least expect to read who proposed that these were apatosarines and when, and what the current opinion about this issue is. Is the majority of studies considering them apatosaurines? You could check the paleobiological database if you need a citation for such a thing, too. The current text is just very general and non-specific, so after reading it, I don't really know what is going on with these. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
        • See discussion here: [1]. But no worries, should they decide that the article needs changes, I will try to help out. Please feel free to leave your opinion there, too. But note that the main purpose of that discussion is not this article in particular, but the general direction for future articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Cut down on the size of the History section
    • Is this better?
• The original text in this article contains a lot of typos. I will try to get some examples below (I only read it over quickly yesterday).
• My main concern is that the information about the clade itself is quite sparse, and some information is missing.
  • I think this might be better
  • How is the clade defined (node-based, stem based)?
  • fixed
  • Is it ranked or unranked? You name it a "subfamily", but Tschopp et al. seem to suggest it is unranked?
  • I can't find a definitive answer, but it seems like Taylor & Naissh (2005), who defined the clade, have it ranked. http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/TaylorNaish2005-diplodocoid-taxonomy.pdf
    • Why do you think they have it ranked? I don't see it. The paleobiological database says "unranked" btw. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

      Well it seems to me that due to having the suffix -inae and being within Diplodocidae it would be ranked as a subfamily. However, if you think I should just follow the PBDB I will do so. AFH (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  • What about Amphicoelias as a possible member of the group? Who proposed that and why? There isn't really much information here, also not on this Atlantosaurus species. And why is that Atlantosaurus species not listed in the taxonbox?
    • Atlantosaurus' type species is A. montanus and is an indeterminate sauropod, but the referred species, A. immanis is an apatosaurine. Therefore, the genus is not listed. Should I list the species specifically?
      • Depends, I am not sure who considered A. immanis as what (you don't really cover it in the article). If it is considered a possible separate genus ("Atlantosaurus" immanis) it should be listed there (I guess), or would it be a species of either Apatosaurus or Brontosaurus?
      • I go over it in the article "Later studies of the A. immanis holotype have determined that they are from an apatosaurine, potentially Apatosaurus itself,[10] though Tschopp et al stated it was a dubious apatosaurine.[1]"
        • OK, but a bit more detail would be good, especially author names. You always give author names, instead here, although this bit of information is actually specific for the Apatosaurinae article. I think that such information is more important than everything that is also stated in Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus anyways, but such things get a bit lost in this article unfortunately. Do I understand correctly that there are only two studies who comment on the possible attribution of A. immanis to Apatosaurinae? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

    I found two more studies that consider A. immanis a synonym of Apatosaurus, which I'll include as citations. AFH (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

More specific comments:

• Apatosaurinae (the name deriving from the type genus Apatosaurus, meaning "deceptive lizard") is a subfamily of diplodocid sauropods, an extinct group of large, quadrupedal dinosaurs. Apatosaurinae is classified within the family Diplodocidae, – you are mentioning "Diplodocidae" twice.
  • Fixed
• The lead has a paragraph on paleoecology but nothing on paleobiology, although that is a much longer section in the article.
  • Fixed
• An article that appeared in the November 1997 issue of Discover magazine reported research into the mechanics of diplodocid tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft. Myhrvold carried out a computer simulation of the tail, – Very wordy for this kind of overview article. We do not need so much detail on this study I think.
  • Fixed
• parapophyses is a red link although you could link to the glossary.
  • Fixed
• Rega (2012), and elsewhere, use consistent style to cite articles. And if you give full names ones, you should ideally be consistent with that, too.
  • Fixed
• replace "at al." with "and colleagues". It is too technical.
  • Fixed
• Wedel's preprint that you mention seems to be by Taylor et al. not Wedel et al.
  • Fixed
• with the entire tooth row being replaced at once and up to 60% more often than Diplodocus – this is not at all what the source says!
  • Fixed

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• He considered Apatosauridae, Diplodocidae, Dicraeosauridae, Morosauridae, Cardiodontidae, and Brachiosauridae to be part of Sauropoda.[71] However, its first explicit use was in a 1929 paper by Werner Janensch, who classified it, including only Apatosaurus, within the invalid grouping Homalosauropodidae. – I don't quite follow here; how could von Huene name the clade while not explicitly using it? What does this mean? Also, Homalosauropodidae was not invalid when Janensch used it, or was it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Here's what Taylor & Naish (2005) stated The name Apatosaurinae is attributed both to Huene 1927 (due to the Principle of Coordination) and to Janensch 1929 (due to the fi rst explicit use). AFH (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I know. But this needs to be explained. No reader will understand it. What is the Principle of Coordination? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Incidentally, as the principle of coordination is specifically a concept within the ICZN, it is only relevant if Apatosaurinae is considered as a subfamily and not an unranked clade. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  It was certainly considered a subfamily at the time of Huene and Janensch, when the clade was named; that it is considered a unranked clade now should not matter. Or does it? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Fixed
• I will try to complete my review as soon as possible, there is some more comming. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved this time, but I'd like to point out that Conti et al. (2022)[2] argued strongly against the "whip-cracking" interpretation of the diplodocoid tail; this study should definitely be mentioned in the relevant section. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• • Fixed

Another thing that comes to mind is that Lovelace et al. (2007)'s hypothesis that Suuwassea and Supersaurus represent apatosaurines should be mentioned; even though their interpretation is no longer accepted, it is nonetheless relevant to the history of Apatosaurinae as a concept. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• • Fixed

Two more thoughts—I know I said I was trying not to get too involved, but I keep noticing things I want to comment on:

• Those teeth that have the enamel surface exposed do not show any scratches on the surface; instead, they display a sugary texture and little wear. In context, the "sugary" texture and lack of wear are referring to taphonomic features of the specimens observed by that study, not anatomical features of apatosaur teeth.

• • Fixed

• Related to the discussion going on at WP:DINO, I think that the "paleoecology" section should possibly be replaced by something more like an "evolutionary history and biogeography" section. Most of the information currently given in the paleoecology section is about the Morrison Formation, not Apatosaurinae, and so can probably be cut from the article.

Ornithopsis (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And another thing:

• Juvenile Brontosaurus material is known based on the type specimen of B. parvus. The material of this specimen, CM 566, includes vertebrae from various regions, one pelvic bone, and some bones of the hindlimb. When describing B. parvus, Peterson and Gilmore noted that the neural spines were sutured, the sacral vertebrae were unfused, and the coracoid was missing. All of these features are signs of immaturity in other archosaurs, showing that sauropods had these traits too. Peterson and Gilmore also theorized that sauropods never stopped growing, which supposedly helped in attaining their massive size, a concept unsupported by fossils. I think this whole section is a bit too much detail about a specific specimen to be appropriate at a clade-wide article, and Peterson and Gilmore's hypothesis that sauropods had indeterminate growth is perhaps a bit too outdated to be worth mentioning. Furthermore, the fact that the coracoid wasn't preserved is obviously not an ontogenetic feature, but a taphonomic one.

Ornithopsis (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What would you include in this "evolutionary history and biogeography" section? I have made changes and additions, but I'm unsure if this is enough. AFH (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, if there is "biogeography" in the title, it should contain at least a sentence stating where the Morrison region was located during the Jurassic, which acient continent, bordering which sea, etc. I don't see any biogeography in there at the moment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Neck combat section needs some work. Details:
  • The cervical vertebrae of Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are robust, which has led to speculation on the use of these structures. These structures had expensive energy requirements – "These structures" refer to the neck as a whole, and the neck surely had other, more important functions. You need to relate this to the robustness specifically I think.
    • Fixed
  • Make sure the text preceeding reference 99 is actually supported by that source. I have my doubts here. (And we need to be very careful with proper sourcing)
  • notable features include – typo
    • Fixed, I think, I'm confused what the typo is
  • downward motion of the neck. Stronger muscles for ventral motions – why using "downward" and then switch to the synonym "ventral" in the next sentence? Keep it simple.
    • Fixed
  • Stronger muscles for ventral motions allowed more force to be exerted downward. – So stronger muscles mean more force? I don't think that has to be mentioned.
    • Fixed
  • The cervical ribs formed a "V"-shape, – Not sure what this means, V-shape in which view? Lateral or anterior/posterior?
    • Fixed
  • Ventral sides of the cervical ribs were capped by round, protruding processes. – the entire ventral side, or just the anteroventral corner? This can, and should, be described in a way that a normal reader will understand!
    • Fixed
  • These have been suggested to have been attachment points for bosses or keratinous spikes – by whom?
    • It's in Taylor (2015)
  • through the use of striking necks – "by striking each other with their necks" or something similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed the last point. AFH (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• A possible bipedal trackway of a juvenile Apatosaurus is known, but it is disputed if it was possible for the sauropod.[78] – Since this is sourced with a news article only, I suggest to remove it. It is not an idea that has gained much support among paleontologist anyway. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed
• In Othniel Marsh's publication The Dinosaurs of North America, he described B. excelsus as "more or less amphibious, and its food was probably aquatic plants or other succulent vegetation" – Quotations need to be followed by a page number.
  • Fixed
• Recent research has found signs of intelligence in dinosaurs, akin to modern birds, though sauropods had relatively small brains.[75] – This is so general that it does not really say anything at all. You cite a pretty old source here (1997), which is very old considering the topic, and certainly is not "recent research".
  • Linked a source on Brachiosaurus intelligence, as its the only source I could find on sauropod intellect.
• Various uses for the single claw on the forelimb of sauropods have been proposed. One suggestion is that they were – "single claw" is singluar, yet you continue with plural.
  • Fixed
• It was also possible they were for foraging, but the most probable use for the claw was grasping objects such as tree trunks when rearing.[65] – Definitely needs author attribution because this is certainly not consensus, also note that the source is quite old (1994). No other study had a say on pollex claw function? There certainly are newer opinions, too. Maybe this paragraph is a candidate for removal, since it is not specifically about Apatosaurinae (although it is general).
  • Removed
• Trackways of sauropods show that the average range for them was around 20–40 km (10–25 mi) per day – No, trackways cannot possibly show the avarage range per day (we don't know how much of the day they spend walking). Trackways may allow for (very) rough estimates of locomotion speed. I suggest to either just remove this (since it is not specific for Apatosaurinae), or use the review paper of Sander et al. (2010) on gigantism, which has a section on speed in sauropods.
  • fixed
• The slow locomotion of sauropods may be due to the minimal muscling or recoil after strides. – A somewhat strange statement, could you check the source to make sure it is not cited out of context? One might assume that the slow speed was, much more generally, due to giganstism and graviportal limb postures.
  • I linked a source on the posture. The source "March of the Titans" states, "The gaits generated are also somewhat slow but this may be a function of the relatively minimal muscle availability, or perhaps also due to the lack of elastic support structures which would stiffen the limbs and increase elastic recoil. It is clear that such passive structures, such as the stay apparatus in the horse [89], are essential for effective quadrupedal locomotion and we would predict that such would be found in sauropod dinosaurs."

• eating at ground height – you give this as fact, without author attribution, but it is not a fact at all, it is an opinion that has since been questioned (you contradict this in the "posture" section already.
• Fixed
• The replacement method and physiology of Apatosaurus' teeth is unique, – "method" is not the right term I think. I suggest to just write "Unlike in diplodocines, the entire tooth row was replaced at once" or similar.
• Fixed
• Diplodocids in general also have shorter necks than the long-necked, vertically inclined macronarians – Really? Where is this stated in the source?
• Fixed
• Hypotheses of the food requirements of Brontosaurus have been made, though predicting this is difficult due to the lack of modern analogues.[79] – The source is not about dinosaurs at all, though? Later in the paragraph, you have a much more specific sentence starting with "Estimations of the dietary necessities", so I suggest to just remove the first.
• Fixed
• with a guess of 2•10^4 to 50•10^4 kilojoules needed daily. – "Estimate", not guess.
• Fixed
• This led to hypotheses on the distributions of Brontosaurus to meet this requirement, though they varied on whether it was an ectotherm or endotherm. – I do not understand this sentence.
• Fixed
• 5.7 t (5.6 long tons; 6.3 short tons) of fermentation contents – You don't mention "fermentation" before. It could be mentioned in a new sentence since it is an important aspect of general sauropod ecology, but if you don't, just use "gut contents" instead to make it comprehensible.
• Fixed
• Frank Paladino et al. (1997) – here and elsewhere, we need consistent style (and colleagues, no brackets).
• Fixed
• In general, I begin to worry about the quality of sourcing; I found multiple instances where the text is apparently not supported by the cited source. I will have to do some more spot-checking, since it is absolutely crucial to make sure the sourcing is reliable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Expanded excavations within the sacrum are present making it into a hollow cylinder-shape. – Awkward formulation. Maybe: "There are widened excavations within the sacrum, giving it a hollow cylindrical shape."
• A 2008 paper on a specimen of Supersaurus found it and Suuwassea to be within Apatosaurinae and sister to Apatosaurus,[62] though this has seen little support from recent studies.[70][71][1] – These Amphicoelias/Atlantosaurus information is still too vague in my opinion. And the above sentence is ambiguous: What is "it" referring to, "Supersaurus" or "Amphicoelias" from the previous sentences? And why don't you elaborate on all of this a bit more, I think in the WikiProject discussion, everybody agreed that these things, specific for Apatosaurinae, should take priority.
• Diplodocids have been found in Africa, Europe, and North America, the group originating in the Middle Jurassic and going extinct in the Early Cretaceous.[66][67] – I think this should be re-organised so that the Classification section starts with Apatosaurine, not Diplodocidae.
• Explain "Principle of coordination"?
• Look for more "et al." and publication dates in brackets.
• Baron's conclusions were supported by a 2022 article by Simone Conti and colleagues which proved that the whip-like cracking would not be possible through the use of 3D models and mathematical data, disproving Myhrvold's hypothesis, but did go into detail its function – I don't fully understand this sentence, especially the last part. Seems to have grammar issues too.
• Note my comment on biogeography above. Looks like we are getting closer now to finish this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  All suggestions implemented AFH (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Will have a closer look soon. Regarding the classification section, this is not what I meant; I think that the general stuff about Diplodocidae should come at the beginning, however preceeded by a sentence like "Apatosaurinae forms, together with Diplodocinae, the clade Diplodocidae". Or similar. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Like this? AFH (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any more notes? AFH (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay. No, I think it looks good now. Congrats! Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 27 September 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.