Talk:Orcinus meyeri

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. ceranthor 18:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

bear in mind, even though this species was first described in 1873, hardly anything has been written about it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

whenever you're ready   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dunkleosteus77 Has anybody disputed the status of this name since 1904? The placement with Delphinus does not seem to be mentioned outside of this article. The lede might be reworded, to avoid it sounding like it was swimming around in Germany. Say what it is, a fossil, and write about the concepts attached to it, if you see what I mean. [another reviewer, cygnis insignis]

hardly anyone had said anything after Brandt. The placement into Delphinus was made in Die Säugetierfauna von Bruttelen and there’s no online record of it so you’re not gonna find it in a google search. I have looked hard, there’s nothing else out there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The material described as "Delphinus acutidens n. sp." von Meyer (1859) was synonymised with Physeterula dubusi Van Beneden 1877. Odontoceti - Physeteridae "Delphinus acutidens n. sp." = Physeterula dubusi There is an article Physeterula, which states the genus is monotypic, and other material, from Europe and South Carolina is attributed to the same taxon. cygnis insignis 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Abel 1905 said they're possibly synonyms :/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We should get someone to confirm what we found, but it seems that merging to that article might get this in order. Is that the way you read it? cygnis insignis 18:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It said "O. meyeri?" with a question mark which is shorthand for "maybe but maybe not"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, I'm lost, who said that? cygnis insignis 04:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Abel 1905, in the list of synonyms he gives for Physeterula dubusi, he writes "Orca Meyeri? — J. F. Brandt" so he's not entirely sure if O. meyeri is a synonym of Physeterula, I assume because he's unsure if O. meyeri is a synonym of D. acutidens   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• †Physeterula dubusi Van Beneden 1877 (sperm whale) paleobiodb.org

Full reference: P. J. Van Beneden. 1877. Note sur un Cachalot nain du crag d'Anvers, Physeterula dubussi. Bulletins de L'académie Royal des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts 64:851-856

Belongs to Physeterula according to J. Velez-Juarbe et al. 2015

Synonyms: Beluga acutidens von Meyer 1859, Delphinus acutidens von Meyer 1859, Orcopsis acutidens von Meyer 1859

See also: Abel 1905, Brandt 1873, Cope 1890, Kazár 2002, […,] Uhen et al. 2008, […] and von Meyer 1859

@Dunkleosteus77: Please ask someone to have a look and see if they agree, this content is in the wrong place. cygnis insignis 08:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay here. I will post comments ASAP! ceranthor 03:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Taxonomy

• "The whale was first described in 1859" - probably a nitpick since it makes sense in context, but is there a way to clarify that you're talking about orcinus meyeri and not just "the whale" in a nonspecific sense?
• "and there is room for debate on the matter." - probably better to avoid idioms like "room for debate" unless they're in a quote

Description

• " around 8 cm (3.1 in) in height" - Not a fan of "around" when it's substituted for "about"; why not just use "about" here?
• Killer whale is linked here, though it's already linked in taxonomy

Paleoecology

• What does lineage mean here exactly?
• "may have fished up the food chain" - "fished up?" What does this mean?
• "around 17 million years ago (mya)" - same note with "around" vs. "about"

@Dunkleosteus77: Not sure you saw this, so giving you a ping. ceranthor 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Want to give you another chance to reply before I have to fail this for lack of activity. ceranthor 17:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Are refs 4 and 5 in different languages? If so, they aren't labeled as such
• What makes Killer-Whale.org a reliable source?

Otherwise, this is in decent shape. I also agree with Cygnis's comments above. ceranthor 03:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Failing this for inactivity. Encourage Dunkleostus to renominate once they become active once more. ceranthor 00:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nominator blocked by a CheckUser. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Orcinus meyeri → Orcopsis – Brandt (1873) intended Orca meyeri as a replacement name for Delphinus acutidens because he found the species epithet acutidens inappropriate (https://books.google.com/books?id=wbpeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=orca+meyeri&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm5-ujx9PgAhX_IDQIHe7nBRUQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=orca%20meyeri&f=false). Also, Delphinus acutidens was made the type species of the new genus Orcopsis by van Beneden in 1876 (https://books.google.com/books?id=IBS1oGpcJ58C&pg=RA1-PA478&dq=orcopsis&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSzdqqx9PgAhUpHzQIHYNuBdcQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=orcopsis&f=false). Hence, Orca semseyi is a junior objective synonym of Delphinus acutidens, and Orcopsis is the technically correct genus name for D. acutidens. 68.4.252.105 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 {talk} 06:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orcinus meyeri/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one that has been languishing in the queue for a while. Enwebb (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about this nomination, it's been so long   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: You still here or are you gone on holiday?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, things have gotten fairly busy for me, but I haven't forgotten this review and hope to come back to it by the end of the week. Happy holidays to you if you're celebrating anything! Enwebb (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why did von Meyer propose two different subgenera in the same publication? This seems somewhat unusual

He was unsure, which makes sense considering all he had was a partial mandible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't authority be in parentheses, given that the current combination is not the first combination? This goes for all the synonyms too except Orca meyeri

I'm confused, but I put parentheses on all the authorities in the taxobox   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

For zoological author citation, parentheses go around all author citations that are not the original combination. Since the authority is given as Brandt 1873 where he described it as Orca meyeri, all other combinations should have parentheses.

• Gloss explanation of "subjective synonym"

That was kinda the point of "and there is room for debate on the question of its validity"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• "...and there is room for debate on the question of its validity" unclear "its" here in light of the next sentence. The taxon's, O. meyeri, or D. acutidens?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like I was following along in the taxonomy section okay until the last sentence. How could Abel consider one name to be synonymous with Physeterula dubusi but not the other? He considered them different taxa?

He doesn't actually explain, he makes a bulleted list of synonyms, writing "Delphinus acutidens" and "?Orcinus Meyeri"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• For the description section, perhaps a table would be nice to better compare O. meyeri with modern killer whales. It's a bit hard to keep it straight in the prose.

It's known from only a partial mandible, there are total of 3 comparable things   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Enwebb (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• The lead is pretty short. I think having at least a sentence for each section of the article is a good rule of thumb.

The article's less than 9,000 characters so the lead seems like the right size. All sections are mentioned   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure how good your German is, but there's a source you haven't cited Palaeontographica Volume 7, 1869 and it has some plates! Plate 13, figures 1-10.

I think all he's doing is listing other cetacean teeth from the same area, and redescribing the D. acutidens specimen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Humor me and add some images. Enwebb (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What page are the images on? I see references to Fig. 3 to Fig 10 in-text but I don't know where they are.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay I found it, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can you be more descriptive with "fishing up the food chain"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...like many other predatory marine lineages" are you talking about all predatory marine life or just Cetacea?

all predatory marine life   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...which was a coastal area with strong tidal currents" was or is?

you mean the Alps?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, Alpine was a key word to miss. Enwebb (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the general scarcity of information about this taxon, I think this article is broad in its coverage. Well written, free of copyvio, illustrated, neutral, and stable. Well done. Enwebb (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

species status

Nice to find this was expanded. I removed the term contentious from the lead, it is not clear who says that. FWIW, fossilworks lists the species as accepted. or not invalid, pardon if I missed where it is established the taxonomy is uncertain ~ cygnis insignis 07:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the fossilworks entry at Physeterula dubusi Van Beneden 1877 (sperm whale) refers to two type specimens, one in Belgium and the material here, "Delphinus acutidens: Its type locality is Stockach, which is in a Miocene marine horizon in Germany." The authority is "Belongs to Physeterula according to J. Velez-Juarbe et al. 2015", which I will look at. ~ cygnis insignis 07:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)