Talk:Emydops

Taxobox image potentially confusing or misleading

The image in the taxobox shows a large skull of Endothiodon with a skull of Emydops in the corner, where it is small enough as to not provide very much meaningful information. Perhaps the current image is inappropriate for the page?Ornithopsis (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you agree it's better than nothing. We don't have a replacement image. The other images we had before showed species that have now been moved to other genera. If anything, the caption could be made clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

An illustration of a partial skull in dorsal view is available in Broom's original description (labelled as 20). I am not sure that it represents AMNH 5525 due to the difference in perspective, but it at least appears similar. Could this be used as an alternative? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we assume Broom himself was the artist (as the text seems to imply?), the image is not PD yet, because he only died in 1951 (it will be PD 70 years after his death~, according to UK law). FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I modified the caption to make it a little clearer, and while I agree an image is better than none, the skull is almost un-noticable. In addition, the skull in Broom's plate is fig. 20, which only shows the top of the skull, and is not very useful either (albeit better). Also, I added a drawing of the skull by Ghedoghedo. IJReid ^discuss 23:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that drawing shows the species that have been moved to Pristerodon. In any case, it's a close derivative of the image found here (which does show Pristerodon):[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that that image is of Pristerodon, it looks nothing like the skull of Emydops oweni (which is far more complete than E. arctatus. But the photograph, while being stated to be E. arctatus, also does not look like it, as the orbit doesn't look like the right shape and the jaw seems too thin. IJReid ^discuss 14:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the original AMNH caption labels it Emydops minor, whatever that is... FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a great image, from the original description of the species as Cistecephalus arctatus (Owen, 1876). https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=BWJYAAAAYAAJ&q=arctatus#v=onepage&q=Cistecephalus&f=false Page 232. Figs 1-6 are the holotype specimen. IJReid ^discuss 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't access it, do you have an account there? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I just googled the name of the paper. However, it may be because its google books.CA, and your not in Canada, but other than that I have no clue. How do you get the full images off of a document without just screenshotting? IJReid ^discuss 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a PDF, you can select it and copy it into an image editor, but I'm not sure what to do on Google Books... If you use Firefox, there's some place in settings where you can go through all images on a given site individually... FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)