This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I do not think you need to delve into why Adelophthalmus was named Adelophthalmus in the lead (for instance Pterygotioidea doesn't do this for Pterygotus in the lead).
Changed to as it is in Pterygotioidea.
You state that "the Adelophthalmidae is the longest lasting single family of eurypterids". While this is true, this is not sourced in the lead and not brought up in the rest of the article. I'd recommend stating it somewhere else and sourcing it there.
Done in the last paragraph of the Evolutionary history section.
Description
"Oscillated" is an odd choice of words.
I would like to know why.
It's a bit needlessly advanced since there are more simple ways to say it, for instance "ranged from" instead of "oscillated between".
Alright then, changed.
Overall, the structure of the first sentence could be changed. It might be better to first state the size range (e.g. "... 4 to 22 cm...") and then mention which was the smallest and which was the largest.
Done.
"such as the gigantic pterygotid Jaekelopterus rhenaniae, which easily exceeded 2 metres (6.5 feet), becoming the largest arthropod ever discovered", "and was" would probably work better than ", becoming" here.
Done.
Since Unionipterus might not be an adelophtlamid at all, should it be mentioned in the description at all (especially since it apparently doesn't fit with the regular traits of the group?)
It is already said that Unionopterus represents an exception with respect to the parabolic carapace, I do not think I have seen anything else useful for this point in another document.
I meant that you might not need to mention that it might be an exception since it might not even be an adelopthalmid but it's your choice.
Oh, okay. I think that by the very fact of possibly not representing an adelophthalmid it would be nice to mention how it lacks highly diagnostic features of the group like the carapace.
"The morphology of the group can change depending", "varied" would probably be better than "can change".
Replaced by "varies".
"being spinous" isn't a very explanatory explanation for "spinosity". Maybe "possessing spines" or something to that effect?
Changed.
History of discovery
You say that Adelophthalmlus is the most diverse eurypterid genus as of now, which is true, but it might also be good to mention that many of the species are fragmentary and some have suggested that it might be possible to split the genus into several smaller genera.
Done.
"which tentatively classified...", "and" would be more grammatically correct than "which" in this case since you're essentially continuing the sentence from before the parentheses.
Changed.
You explain what the genital operculum is but not what the supplementary lobes, the feature that supposedly defines the genus, are.
Done, I can rewrite the sentence in parentheses if you think it can be better.
"in a swimming leg of Adelophthalmus-type and in the presence of an epimera (lateral "extensions" of the segment) in the seventh segment" don't think you need the "in" before listing a characteristic. Also, "swimming legs similar to Adelophthalmus" would probably be more understandable to regular readers than "swimming leg of Adelophthalmus-type", though the latter is what is used in papers.
Done.
Evolutionary history
The first paragraph rattles on about the appearance of basal adelophthalmids but does not give any sense of the time scale, might be good to specify when these basal genera appeared.
Added age for Eysyslopterus.
"This is supported by the appearance of the basal pterygotioids in the Llandovery" how does the appearance of another group support the appearance of this one? I get that it is because they are sister-taxa and one appearing means the other likely also has appeared but this should also be explained. Something as simple as "This is supported by the appearance of the basal pterygotioids, the sister group of the adelophthalmoids, in the Llandovery" should suffice.
Done.
"most oldest" no need to put "most" before "oldest", "oldest" already designates the very oldest.
Sometimes I don't even know what I write :P
I don't think most people are familiar with the names of specific epochs of the Late Paleozoic, it might be helpful to put in some specific dates after you first mention an epoch.
Is this what you wanted?
Yeah, might be a bit excessive when I look at it now but this is what I meant.
The last two paragraphs of this section (nearly half of the entire section) are entirely devoted to just Adelophthalmus and while Adelophthalmoidea post-Devonian only contains Adelophthalmus it might be possible to cut this part down a bit, maybe reducing it to a single paragraph? People looking for a more extensive evolutionary history of Adelophthalmus will look in the Adelophthalmus article anyway. There isn't really any information in particular that I find unnecessary here so it's up to you.
Maybe I'll try to shorten some sentences tomorrow but I doubt I can reduce it to a single paragraph.
Either way, Adelophthalmus taking up a lot of space is perfectly understandable so it's your choice whether to shorten or not.
I think only some words could be omitted, probably prejudicing the expressiveness of the text, so I think it's better to leave it as it is now.
Classification
Might want to link "Type A genital appendage" in the image description to the relevant section of the main Eurypterid article as the term is never explained in this article.
You could link to Eysyslopterus in the description of the image of its carapace (and link "carapace" too). I also think the image would look better if aligned to the right rather than the left (as it is now).
Done.
"This has led to doubt whether Eysyslopterus actually represented an adelophthalmid, but until more fossils are discovered, this can not be proven" It can't be proven that it isn't an adelopthalmid? Might want to rephrase this to make it clearer, I assume you mean that its identity as an adelophthalmid is a little bit uncertain, so maybe something like "The position of its eyes has led some researchers to question whether Eysyslopterus is an adelophthalmid at all but more fossils are required to either prove or disprove its position in the adelophthalmid family tree" or something to that effect?
Yes, I had problems writing this sentence. I rewrote it. Looks good now?
Yes, this looks good.
Paleoecology
Not sure that "sections of the location" is an accurate description of "horizon", it refers to a section specifically of a fossil locality, so maybe replace "location" with "fossil site".
Done.
"as for example", "as" is unnecessary here
Removed.
Might want to explain "paralic"
Done.
Don't think you need the "therefore" at the beginning of the last paragraph.
HiIchthyovenator. I think including Wiedopterus within Adelophthalmidae is somewhat excessive. Poschmann suggested that the genus could belong to Adelophthalmoidea, but researchers do these suggestions all the time, yet we shouldn't make them formal. Poschmann did not include Wiedopterus within the superfamily or the family, not even with a question mark, so doing so here seems original research to me. I think it's best to keep it as Eurypterina incertae sedis, of course mentioning its most likely relation with Adelophthalmoidea/idae but keeping this away from infoboxes. What do you think? SuperΨDro12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's excessive if we have the question mark. Poschmann did not include it, no, but he said it "probably" belonged to the family and even suggested that it was a derived member close to Adelophthalmus. Like with UnionopterusorHolmipterus (both of whom the Dunlop-Penney-Jekel list put as Eurypterida incertae sedis), we're not making a formal taxonomical statement, just noting that Wiedopterus has an uncertain classification and possibly belongs to the given family. In other groups of animals (such as the megaraptoran dinosaurs, with very uncertain relationships) this seems to be okay. We could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology if you want. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with Unionopterus is that it has been often included in Adelophthalmidae in several papers (some of which didn't even put a question mark next to the name). In the other hand, Wiedopterus has only been discussed once in a paper which didn't include it within Adelophthalmidae, formally or tentatively. I don't know much about Holmipterus but I remember it had a similar situation, I was somewhat opposed to your removal of Holmipterus from Carcinosomatoidea but I didn't say anything because I barely remembered anything about the genus and the superfamily is far from being my area of expertise. I don't want to sound too stubborn in this situation but yes, I think it's best to ask at the WikiProject to see what do they say. SuperΨDro12:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put Holmipterus in the Carcinosomatidae (with the question mark) because it was recovered there in a phylogenetic analysis (which is pretty formal) - in all likelihood the Holmipterus fossils represent two genera (one carcinosomatid and one megalograptid) but unless that's made formal it's best to keep it at its last recovered position (Carcinosomatidae).
Looks like it's weighing towards going with incertae sedis in the taxobox so I've changed it back to that and removed Wiedopterus from the Adelophthalmidae taxobox. I may have misinterpreted those other cases I mentioned so you're probably right that it was premature. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
