Euchambersia is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal 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
First observation, last paragraph under Paleoecology needs a citation.
Meant to be the same ref as the previous paragraph. Done.
I'd nuke the popular culture section, perhaps merge the info into the history section if we really want it. Not relevant enough to warrant an entire section consisting of a single sentence.
"The second skull belongs to a smaller individual" I'd add "second known", to make clear this early there are only two skulls.
Done.
"crushing and deformation of the fossil was reconstructed" Is this the right way to put it? Do you reconstruct deforming and crushing? Or "account for it", etc.?
Reworded.
No estimates for how long a complete individual would have been?
None in the literature that I have seen. I'll take another look.
"The smaller specimen has an incisor preserved within its nasal cavity" Perhaps make clear this is misplaced?
Done.
"The type specimen prominently preserves" What does this mean? That much of the tooth is preserved?
Referring to the size of the tooth. Reworded.
"which may have been interpreted as a groove by some authors" May have been interpreted? Either it has, or it has not?
Referring to it possibly being the same thing as the groove, which is the point of uncertainty.
" and described by Robert Broom" Was?
Reworded.
"was later found in 1966" Later seems redundant when you already say second and a later date?
Deleted.
"described by Kitching" Full name? You give it for Broom. Same for other names you mention under classification and venom.
Done.
Did a few more.
What does the genus and species name mean?
Also had trouble with the etymology. Taking another look.
"in side of the maxilla." Inside?
On the side. Corrected.
"The water level in these streams appeared to have been seasonally dependent." Appear to?
Reworded.
Anything about the vegetation and climate in its environment?
Given that it's the Karoo, I'm not optimistic that there's info on this. Taking a look.
Looking again, I think it would better to lump the descriptive info together with the tooth info in the second paragraph of the intro; articles usually never start by describing the animal, like here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done.
There is quite a bit of duplicate linking under venom and palaeoecology.
Is this with respect to links present already in other sections?
Ok, I've cleaned the links up. Please let me know if I missed anything.
Any interesting images in the original description? Appears they would be in the public domain in South Africa.[1] Perhaps "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" could be shown at the beginning of the venom section.
When claims are made, it would be nice with in-text attribution, so it does not look like an established fact ("Thus, the venom hypothesis is more plausible" according to...).
Added to several claims made under "Venom".
"while snakes have specialized ducts)" Why a half parenthesis here?
The cladogram labels it a member of Moschorhininae (which currently redirects to Moschorhinus), and Fossilworks[2] labels it as part of Moschorhinidae (which redirects to Akidnognathidae), yet neither are mentioned under classification?
Expanded. The latter is synonymous with Akidnognathidae.
Considering the taxonomic histories of many other stem-mammals, it is almost strange there are no synonyms or formerly referred species? Is there really nothing else for the history section?
Changes look good, let's see if the Broom paper yields any new info, then I'll pass. Adding info from the original description will also satisfy the comprehensiveness criterion (though that may be more of a FAC thing, but you may want to go that route down the line?). FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, almost as if it was based on another animal... But it should be easy to fix, I'll give it a go... Perhaps also get rid of most of the hair? FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the source publication is, but since the caption mentions 1986, it's probably not old enough to be in the public domain. On the other hand, if it is just a reproduction of Broom's original illustration... But we can only know once you get the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since we don't know when you will get the paper, and since I already think the article meets the GA criteria, I'll just pass it now. But ping me here once the new info is incorporated! FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer, I wonder what "Broom's overly reconstructed diagram of the skull" refers to then... Does the source cite a paper? Sometimes all figures from all articles in a volume are featured in the end of it... Does it refer to any plates or figures? Is there any other Broom paper it could be in? --FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... Maybe something to get if you want to do something extra for potential FAC one day... I've gotten book pages from the resource request before (even an entire book PDF)... FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning or good evening. I am, at the moment when I make this request, in the process of formatting the French article based on Euchambersia in order to obtain a labeling in the same way as this article in English. While doing my translations, I noticed an ambiguity, even a possible contradiction, which I will put below (Chapter "Teeth"):
- Its fourth incisor also has a replacement tooth growing behind it, accompanied by resorption of the root.
-But further down they say this : both skulls of Euchambersia show no sign of any replacement teeth developing, suggesting that Euchambersia was reliant on having both canines present and functional simultaneously.
Knowing that these two statements are confirmed by the same sources, it only makes these contradictions even more incomprehensible, I hope to get explanatory answers.Amirani1746 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction, that was poorly-written prose on my part. In the latter case, what is meant that the canine had no replacement tooth for it, as in the source: "The mesial surface of the left canine is eroded, resembling the type of etching that occurs during resorption of a functional tooth by a developing replacement tooth; however, no replacement tooth is preserved in association with the functional canine." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that there are currently two recognized species in Euchambersia, I would now like to know the origin of these two specific epithets and the meaning of theses. I thank in advance anyone who has the audacity to do so, as I have doubts about the origin and meaning of the word mirabilis for example. Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_De_Villiers_Graaff.jpg){kind=link}