Talk:Andrewsarchus

Two species – do we know?

"It contains two species, A. mongoliensis and A. crassum. It was formerly placed in the families Mesonychidae or Arctocyonidae,"

Do we really know there were only two species, or do the authors mean that two species are known? Usually, only a tiny fraction of the animals are fossilised (though relatively more large mammals than e.g. insects, of course), and far from all fossils are discovered.
Pål Jensen (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Second species name

The second species may originally have been named as A. “crassum,” but ICZN rules prescribe that the correct name is A. crassus, matching the masculine gender of the genus name Andrewsarchus. N. Pharris (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Nominator: Borophagus (talk · contribs) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 15:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I will comment later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The lede should be expanded a bit more to summarize especially the description and palaeoecology sections. Perhaps also reference where the first known fossils were found and who first erected the genus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Try shrinking the image in the dentition subsection a bit, it's disrupting the diet subheading. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• The faunal list, dating back to 1959, seems a bit old, so see if there are additional recent sources confirming contemporary faunas from the listed formations. I found an appendix from this source by S. K. Vasiliev et al. that should solve this problem. Some additional faunas present within at least one of the formations that you listed that you could consider listing are lagomorphs (Lushilagus), helohyids (Gobiohyus), ctenodactylids (Tsinlingomys), and coryphodontids (Eudinoceras). PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Reference briefly the age of the Dongjun Formation. List middle Eocene if you can't find one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Give mention to the name of the museum that has the fossil in the taxobox. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Remove citations from the lede, most articles do not need them there since ledes are intended to be summaries of what's already in the article bodies. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Remove “even-toed ungulate,” it’s been long a misnomer with cetaceans included in the order (and I suppose anoplotheres, but that’s beside the point). PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done (along with all the others thus far). Borophagus (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Correcting a mistake I made regarding the appendix source, Google Scholar's listing of the source (where it stemmed from) is incorrect, and according to other sources, it's by John Alroy in 2005. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Changed. Thanks for the heads-up. Borophagus (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Known from a largely complete cranium as well most of a mandible and isolated teeth, – Sounds as if this is one specimen that includes the cranium and the mandible; needs clarification

• Done.

• Andrewsarchus has historically been reputed as the largest terrestrial, carnivorous mammal – I suggest to include skull size to give an idea about size.

• Done.

• due to outdated methods – not what the main text says? What outdated method do you mean?

• Corrected - I was referring to the inaccurate use of mesonychids for comparison, but it slipped my mind to actually mention them for some reason.

• Lot of terms in the lead to link (incisor, premolar, canine, crown, omnivorous,

• Done.

• The premolars are again similar to entelodonts. – that does not really help; better say in which way they are similar, OR remove this mention.

• Done.

• suggesting omnivorous or scavenging habits. – that's ecology, not behaviour (habits). Maybe "suggesting that it was omnivorous or a scavenger"?

• Done.

• Middle Eocene – informal name, so it should be "middle Eocene".

• Done.

• I still see a couple of those. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The specimen itself arrived at the museum and was described by Osborn. – This sentence needs years.

• Done.

• Create missing redirects to this page (Paratriisodon, Paratriisodon henanensis, Paratriisodon gigas, Andrewsarchus crassum).

• Will have to do this in the morning.

• The former became the sole member of its own subfamily, Andrewsarchinae, within Mesonychia. – needs a year

• Done.

• link basal

• Done.

• In 2023, Yu and colleagues conducted a phylogenetic analysis of Ferae, – could add an explanation what Ferae are here; I never heard of that group.

• Done - it was meant to be ungulates. Not sure where I got Ferae from.

• The skull has often been cited as the largest of any terrestrial carnivorous mammal, independent of the body size. Is this still the case? Could be added to the article.

• Will have to do this in the morning. Daeodon shoshonensis appears to have a slightly larger skull, but it's a matter of finding a source directly comparing the two, I imagine.

• and the portion of the snout anterior to the canines resembles that of entelodonts. – need to say in which way it resembled entelodonts. Also, replace "anterior" with "in front of", or at least link it.

• The original source doesn't specify. Left it for now but may delete it in the morning.

• postorbital bar – link, and, ideally, also explain what "incomplete" means here

• Done.

• preglenoid and postglenoid processes. – again, need some link or explanation

• Removed the mention for now, as I cannot think of a way to explain it at this point.

• laterally and ventrally; Symphyseal – same

• Done. Borophagus (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• Andrewsarchus' upper jaw demonstrates the typical placental tooth formula,[2] though it is not clear whether the same applies to the mandible. – Provide the tooth formula you are talking about?
• I2, P4 – I think that these are better spelled out, per MOS:ABBR. Makes it much easier for general readers to follow.
• I2 is enlarged, and is almost the size of the canines.[2] This is partly because, while described by Osborn as being "of enormous size",[1] the canines themselves are relatively small in proportion to the rest of the dentition. – Unclear; which tooth was described by Osborn? I2 or the canines? Maybe just remove the Osborn part here, it confuses a lot.
• unicuspid – you could say "consist of a single cusp" and link "single cusp" to unicuspid.
• The premolars' roots are not confluent – I think this can be described in plainer language?
• M2 is the widest, though has been heavily worn. – You are talking specifically about the holotype now, right? You didn't mention that though. Maybe just remove the part with "heavily worn", or specify "in the holotype".
• M3 is relatively unworn, and more information can be gleaned from it. The crown is wrinkled, – "more information can be gleaned from it" is unspecific and does not really add anything; say which information can be gleaned from it. "The crown is wrinkled", does that refer to the same tooth? If so, "It's crown is wrinkled"?
• with talonids that essentially have two cusps.[4] – What does "essentially" mean here?
• crowns of the cheek teeth – here you use "cheek teeth", but above you used technical terms like molars and premolars?
• That's it! In general, try to make the description more accessible to the general reader, explain the most crucial terms. I also checked some sources, no issues there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Done
  • Done. The formatting was based on the Mixtotherium article, which I seem to have referenced a bit too heavily.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I can't think of a way to simplify it without including more jargon, so I've left it as is.
  • Done (hopefully).
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Made a few other miscellaneous changes (linking to omnivory at another point for example).

  It is early in the morning, so I don't expect everything to be perfect, but hopefully the main issues are all resolved. Thanks! Borophagus (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Replying to add that I've created the redirect pages. Borophagus (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Cool. Let me know when you addressed all comments (a few are still outstanding; see also my reply above regarding "Middle Eocene"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  The "Middle Eocenes" should already be corrected, unless something's gone wrong on my end. Borophagus (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, only the one in the taxonbox remaining. Also, I still see one "P4", and you still talk about worn teeth in the description section without specifying that this specifically applies to the holotype specimen, not to the genus in general. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I might have made a mistake. "Middle Eocene" appears to be a formally named subepoch [1], which means it should be capitalized. We should, then, also briefly explain what "Middle Eocene" is (the stages it consists of), as we don't even have an article on subepochs. In the taxonbox, "Middle Eocene" links to Lutetian, which seems incorrect, as the subepoch encompasses both Lutetian and Bartonian. Another thing: we usually include mya numbers in the taxonbox and the text, for people unfamiliar with chronostratigraphy. The link says that the Middle Eocene is 47.8–37.71 mya. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good catches. I've updated the taxobox, reworded the dentition section to hopefully be clearer, and switched out the P4. I've reinstated mentions of the Middle Eocene, but in the absence of a dedicated article I've linked to the main Eocene one. Not sure why it linked to the Lutetian at first — it was that way when I started, and for whatever reason I never really questioned it. Borophagus (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  One last thing: You made a rounding error in (Lutetian–Bartonian, 47–37 Ma). If you want to round, it has to be 48–38 of course, but you could also give the precise number. Same with Priabonian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, my bad. Corrected. Borophagus (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2024 (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.