Talk:Glyptotherium/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will begin implementing these suggestions later today. AFH (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not quite as much of an expert on the Neogene and Quaternary of the New World continents as the Old World continents, I think I can help out with reviewing the article. Note that this is my first time conducting a good article review, so if I make mistakes, let me know. Based on skimming the article, it seems the article fits the criteria well, it seems well-written, broad, neutral, and stable. Here's my review so far (mainly addressing the lead section). PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section:

  • Let's start with the caption of the lead image. According to the Flickr link where the image originated, it's from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, so make sure to mention it ("G. texanum, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History"). PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptotherium (from Greek for 'grooved or carved beast') is a genus of glyptodont (an extinct group of large, herbivorous armadillos) that lived from the Early Pliocene, about 4.9 million years ago, to the Early Holocene, around 7,000 years ago, in the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil."
    • Mention that they belong to the family Chlamyphoridae, it can be confusing for those with no prior knowledge in the subject of taxonomy. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus was first described in 1903 by American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn with the type species being, G. texanum, based on fossils that had been found in the Pliocene Blancan Beds in Llano Estacado, Texas, USA. Glyptotherium fossils have since been unearthed from many more fossil sites, from Florida to Colombia. Another species, G. cylindricum, was named in 1912 by fossil hunter Barnum Brown on the basis of a partial skeleton that had been unearthed from the Pleistocene deposits in Jalisco, Mexico."
    • It's not exactly clear whether the two species overlapped long-term or were the direct result of anagenesis, try defining their geological period ranges to make clear the first occurrences and last occurrences of the two species if possible. The last sentence of the distribution section seems to hint towards anagenesis and mentions their first and last appearances, so make sure to reference that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also make sure to link the first mention of "Pleistocene" in the introductory text. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptodonts were typically large, quadrapedral (four-legged), herbivorous armadillos with armored carapaces (top shell) that were made of hundreds of interconnected osteoderms (structures in dermis composed of bone)."
    • I'm assuming that Glyptotherium fits these "typical" characteristics, but make sure that you indicate such since just referencing the Glyptodontinae subfamily instead of also Glyptotherium individually can make this unclear. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology:

  • I don't think this needs to be a separate section, I haven't seen any other article that does this. I would suggest that you merge the information with the taxonomy section, it appears to be using the original sources written by those who erected the genus and/or species anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History and taxonomy:

  • "Fossils attributable to Glyptotherium have been found as early as the 1870s, when civil engineers J. N. Cuatáparo and Santiago Ramírez collected a skull, nearly complete carapace, and associated postcranial skeleton of a glyptodont from a drainage canal near Tequixquiac, Mexico, the fossils coming from the Rancholabrean Pleistocene."
    • Link "carapace" since it's the first mention of the word outside the lead section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reword the last past to "the Rancholabrean age of the Pleistocene." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another species of Mexican Glyptodon was described in 1889, G. nathoristi, by German paleontologists based on carapace remains from Pleistocene localities in Ejutla, Oaxaca."
    • Reword the first part of the sentence to either "Another Mexican species of Glyptodon..." or "Another species of Glyptodon from Mexico." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first Glyptotherium fossils to be described from the United States were described in 1888 by paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope and consisted only of a single carapace osteoderm that had been collected from the Lower Pleistocene “Equus Beds” of Nueces County, Texas."
  • Sentences regarding synonyms:
    • "but Cope did not give the species a proper description that followed ICZN rules, making it a nomen nudum and it has since been synonymized with G. cylindricum."
    • "This species is now seen as a nomen vanum and synonymous with Glyptotherium cylindricum."
      • The species names were considered synonymized by who exactly? I know this requires too much digging, so I'll let this slide somewhat if you can mention at least early authors who considered them synonyms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skeleton was put on display in the exhibit hall of the AMNH where it remains today."
    • I'm not seeing any second source that mentions it being in an exhibit today as likely as I'd assume it'd be there still, so either find a source directly suggesting its continued presence or reword it in a way that may vaguely reference its continued presence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Simpson didn't designate a new genus or species for Glyptodon peltaliferus, but he still believed that they were from a separate form of glyptodont."
    • I'm seeing several uses of contractions in this article, make sure to remove them since formal article formats would suggest not using them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1927, many Early Pleistocene age fossils were collected by the University of Oklahoma from a locality in Frederick, Oklahoma, including several fragmentary fossils of glyptodonts, horses, gomphotheres, and camels."
    • This is optional, but since this is the taxonomy section, I would suggest replacing "horses" and "camels" with the taxonomic terms "equids" and "camelids." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the "taxonomy" subsection to "phylogeny." PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptotherium is a genus in the subfamily Glyptodontinae, an extinct subfamily of large, heavily armored armadillos that first evolved in the Late Eocene (ca. 33.5 mya) and went extinct in the Early Holocene during the Quaternary extinction event (ca. 7,000 years ago)."
    • Ok, this is more the problem of the name of the Late Pleistocene extinctions article, something I'll address by suggesting a rename someday, but "Quaternary extinction event" is fairly misleading for various reasons already mentioned in its talk page and I would recommend against using that name and instead suggest using a redirect name like "Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene extinctions." This is also optional. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, link "subfamily." Additionally, you repeat "subfamily" in the same sentence twice, use synonyms. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is usually considered its own family, but DNA analyses have reduced it to a subfamily with tribes instead of its own subfamilies."

The taxonomy section looks good, appears to comply with the good article criteria outside of a few specific issues relating to prose and grammar.

More to come soon (probably within a week or two), will review the other sections. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented all suggestions, thank you. I will see if I can also make some grammatical improvements AFH (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 of the GA Review:[edit]

History and phylogeny:

  • "This species is now seen as a nomen vanum and considered a junior synonym of Glyptotherium cylindricum by Gillette and Ray (1981)."
    • Since this is the first mention of the two names in the article, make sure to mention their full names and link their articles. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • "However, unlike the carapace of a turtle, the Glyptotherium shell was made up of hundreds of small hexagonal scales, with Glyptotherium preserving up to 1800 osteoderms or more in each individual. The axial skeleton of glyptodonts show extensive fusion in the vertebral column and the pelvis is fused to the carapace, making the pelvis entirely immobile."
  • "During the Pleistocene, the diversity of glyptodonts diminished but increased in size, with the largest known glyptodont, Doedicurus, evolving in the Pleistocene."
    • Reword the first half of the sentence to "During the Pleistocene, the glyptodonts diminished in phylogenetic diversity but increased in size." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptodont dentition lacks caniniforms or incisiforms and instead have all hypsodont (high crowned teeth adapted for grazing) molariforms, the cheek teeth are some of the most hypsodont and homodont known from terrestrial mammals."
  • "In Glyptotherium, the occlusal lateral profile is slightly curved, whereas it is strongly curved in Glyptodon. In Glyptodon, the Mm1 is distinctly trilobate both lingually and labially, nearly as trilobate as the mf2; on the contrary, Glyptotherium shows a very low trilobation of mf1, which is elliptical in cross section, the mf2 is weakly trilobate, and the mf3 is trilobate. In both genera, the mf4 to mf8 are fully trilobate and serially identical."
    • I don't understand what these "mf/mm" abbreviations are supposed to stand for, and Google search won't help with that, so I doubt the majority of other people will understand them either. Address what these abbreviations mean. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The central and radial sulci are deeper and broader in Glyptodon (ca. 4–6 mm) than in Glyptotherium (ca. 1–2.4 mm)."
  • "Glyptotherium, and all other glyptodonts, had a large dorsal carapace covering much of the dorsum that was made up of interconnected osteoderms."

Paleobiology:

  • "Several interpretations of glyptodont posture have been made, initially by British paleontologist Richard Owen in 1841 using comparative anatomy. Owen theorized that the phalanges were weight-bearing due to their short and broad physiology, in addition to the evidence provided in the postcranial skeleton."
    • Ok, apparently someone added some "citation needed" citations, so I guess find relevant sources from Richard Owen (presumably a source from 1841 at least). PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cedral specifically was an area with hot springs and open grasslands next to them, suggesting that Glyptotherium’s fed in grasslands nearby water sources, like the feeding habits of modern Capybaras."
    • Why is a possessive being used for "Glyptotherium?" Remove that since it appears unnecessary for the sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lowercase "capybara." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional isotopic analysis of Glyptotherium and the giant ground sloth Eremotherium found the two to have similar isotopic levels to the extant amphibious Hippopotamus, indicating that they were semi-aquatic herbivores that fed on aquatic plants.
  • "Additional isotopic evidence from Brazil suggests that fruits were also part of Glyptotherium’s diets, though only around 20%."
  • "Owen (1841) opposed this idea, though pushback came from Nodot (1856) and Sénéchal (1865) who believed digging was possible for the genus."
    • Similar to my earlier suggestion, address the lack of an 1841 cited source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immature individuals of Glyptotherium texanum from juveniles to adults found in Blancan localities in Arizona preserve a nearly complete growth series, one of the few known in glyptodonts."
    • This first half of the sentence has awkward and contradictory phrasing. By "immature individuals," do you mean just juveniles? PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In G. cylindricum however, the osteoderms grow much faster and the sulci are much smaller. The osteoderms are also relatively thicker in juvenile Glyptotherium individuals compared to adults."

Paleoecology:

  • "Glyptotherium was primarily a grazer in forested grasslands and arboreal savannahs, though they may have preferred grasslands near water sources based on fossils from Mexico."
  • "During the Blancan, Glyptotherium texanum coexisted with many native genera from North America, as Beringia had not yet formed."
    • North America lacking much immigrant faunas prior to the Pleistocene because of a lack of a Beringia strait is a common misconception. It was certainly more difficult for Asian faunas to cross from Asia to North America than to Europe or Africa, but Asian fauna dispersals to North America and vice versa still occurred quite semi-frequently in the paleontological record. This is definitely provable since the mammutids, gomphotheres, bovids, ursids, machairodontines, and Chasmaporthetes of North America were either recent immigrants or descendants of Miocene immigrants that were of Eurasian or African origin, so they're not exactly "native." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally since the Great American Biotic Interchange (GABI) already occurred, it wasn't exactly cooccurring with just endemic North American faunas in North America anyways, and glyptodintines were technically from South America. I would also recommend discuss more about glyptodontines in the context of the GABI since that's really important for it and associated faunas, especially in discussing the origins of Glyptotherium. I believe the source you're already using, "A tale of two clades: Comparative study of Glyptodon Owen and Glyptotherium Osborn (Xenarthra, Cingulata, Glyptodontidae)," will help you out. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also as such, I discourage the usage of the word "native" in the general paleontological record since it's a tricky term in such contexts when continents like North America were subject to dispersal events even if not as severe in faunal turnovers compared to Eurasia and Africa. The alternate term for faunas that were always exclusive to one continent would be "endemic." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some isolated bird fossils have also been found of vultures, falcons, and possibly corvids.
  • "In the Brazilian Intertropical Region in eastern Brazil, Glyptotherium was a mixed grazer in arboreal savannahs, tropical grasslands, and other grassy areas near water sources."
    • Since you're using the abbreviation "BIR" in later sentences, make sure to say "(BIR)" after the first mention of "Brazilian Intertropical Region." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Restoration of the grassland ecosystem present in the BIR."
    • I would suggest using the full name instead of the abbreviation for the image caption. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The environment of the BIR is unclear, as there were both several species that were grazers, but the precede of the arboreal fossil monkeys Protopithecus and Caipora in the area causes confusion over the area's paleoenvironment."
    • The Caipora link leads to the article of the mythological creature, so make sure the link is directed towards the fossil taxon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans:

  • "The first report of possible human consumption or interaction with Glyptotherium or its fossils came in 1958, where several osteoderms that were possibly consumed by humans were described from the Clovis site in Lewisville, Texas, though there is little evidence to back up this assessment."
    • This is more a side note than a correction, but I'm honestly not sure what to make out of what happened to Glyptotherium in North America. We don't seem to have much of a confirmed latest radiocarbon date of a Glyptotherium fossil in North America, and the 1958 source "A Pleistocene Campsite near Lewisville, Texas" seems to suggest that the camp site apparently dates to 37,000 years B.P. (I think you should mention that by the way), so I guess we'll never really know how long it lived in North America or if it encountered humans on that continent like South America unless further research is conducted. This is honestly the problem with half the Rancholabrean faunas since they in paleoecological contexts of North America are so poorly researched that we have little indications of their paleoecologies and how they were affected by climatic and human dispersal patterns if several even encountered them at the time. North America Pleistocene is... amongst the most confusing and inconsistent in research, there's so much context missing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The jaws may have been removed for "hunters" to access and consumed masticatory muscles and tongue."

Distribution:

  • This is one of the more major suggestions, but as I said earlier, I highly recommend discussing more in detail the Great American Biotic Interchange and how Glyptotherium relates to the event as well as its apparent migration back down to South America. I believe sources such as "North American Glyptodontines (Xenarthra, Mammalia) in the Upper Pleistocene of northern South America" and "An introduction to cingulate evolution and theirev olutionary history during the great American biotic interchange: Biogeographical clues from Venezuela" will help you out. [1] [2] PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although commonly regarded as an exclusively North American genus, fossils of Glyptotherium from northern South America in areas like Brazil and Venezuela have been discovered."
    • Hmm, was it "commonly mistaken" as exclusively North American in recent time? I'd specify slightly here, especially who did. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This referral is also based on the age of the fossils, as fossils from the Pliocene and early Pleistocene are from G. texanum while G. cylindricum is from the late Pleistocene."
    • I'd reword the second half the sentence to "as the age of G. texanum fossils are measured to range from the Pliocene to early Pleistocene while the age of G. cylindricum fossils are confined to the late Pleistocene." PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Summary: Looks to be a well-written article! What I'd like to see incorporated is how Glyptotherium is related to the Great American Biotic Interchange and that it apparently migrated back down south during the Pleistocene (maybe that's part of why there's a scarcity of recent Glyptotherium fossils in North America compared to South America? I'm not sure), but other that, no major changes required. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns! PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the suggestions have been put in; will add section for GABI tomororw. Thank you AFH (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be good, if you have any more notes on the added section please let me know. Thank you. AFH (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 (Likely Final) of the GA Review:[edit]

Since the Great American Interchange subsection of the paleoecology section was recently written, I'll be checking just that subsection since everything else is done. Also I checked all the article image permissions, and they should be good under Creative Commons permissions.

Paleoecology:

  • "South America, where glyptodonts originate, was isolated after the breakup of Gondwana at the end of the Mesozoic era."
  • "Marsupials likely got to South America prior to its separation from the rest of Gondwana in the Late Cretaceous or Early Tertiary, though groups like Xenarthra and Notoungulata ended up on the continent is a mystery."
    • I would not recommend using "Tertiary"/"Early Tertiary" instead of Paleogene, it's been an obsolete term for a long time per the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and "Tertiary" has already seen decreasing usage in North America compared to "Paleogene" and "Neogene." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replace "though groups" with "although the origins of mammalian orders" and the last "is" in the sentence "remains." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "North America during this period bore its own unique fauna that was related to Eurasian fauna, such as gomphotheres, horse relatives, and bear-dogs, though many of these groups went extinct after the arrival of Eurasian groups like ursids, canids, and felids."
    • The phrasing's kind of awkward for those aware of the paleontological prehistory of mammalian dispersals since North America basically had a mix of faunas of North American origin that eventually left the continent by the Neogene (canids, camelids, equids, daphoenine amphicyonids), North American endemic faunas that never dispersed towards Eurasia (oreodonts, antilopcaprids), and faunas of African or Eurasian origin (amphicyonine/thaumastocyonine amphicyonids, nimravids, ursids, felids, gomphotheres, mammutids, etc). I recommend reworking this sentence a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use "equids" instead of "horse relatives," people are familiar with that term anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also canids were always endemic to North America from the Eocene up until the very late Miocene when Eucyon dispersed from North America to Eurasia and Africa, so they're definitely not a "Eurasian" origin group and therefore did not "arrive" to North America. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This period witnessed the extinction or extirpation of many groups, such as the loss of many endemic South American groups.
    • The second half of the sentence is a bit redundant, remove "the loss of." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If possible, may you list examples of endemic South American families that went extinct? PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glyptotherium itself was part of this interchange, evolving in the Blancan of the USA after the formation of the Isthmus and its immigration."
    • Starting from this sentence, I think the rest of the subsection should be a separate paragraph since it's the one that touches on Glyptotherium in more detail. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it evolved in North America, specifically in the Blancan, an emigration southwards to Central and parts of northern South America occurred after the evolution of G. cylindricum in the Rancholabrean."
    • I'd reword this sentence to "Though it evolved in North American into G. cylindricum in the Rancholabrean, it emigrated southwards to Central and parts of northern South America" for a more active and less redundant sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is also connected to ecological segregation, with Glyptodon living primarily in Andean and coastal sites whereas Glyptotherium known from grassland and lightly forested deposits near aquatic areas, motivating its dispersal to the tropical regions of eastern Brazil and Venezuela."
    • Since "whereas" is used to connect two phrases that could be complete sentences, that should be replaced with "and." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add "being" between "Glyptotherium" and "known." PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The re-entrance of a group to South America from North America has also been observed in the related cingulate family pampatheriidae, possibly aided by low land routes formed from Florida to Mexico, Central America, and/or northern South America that would allow transport across the Caribbean."

That's all that's left! When you complete the rest of the recommendations, this article should be good for a Good Article promotion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with these final suggestions, thank you! AFH (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the last suggestions implemented, I am pleased to promote this article to GA status! Good job! PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glyptotherium/GA2&oldid=1154075532"