This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Archelon is part of WikiProject Turtles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
turtle resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information
.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject Turtlesturtle articles
{{
Extinct turtles}} and fossil forms of both living and extinct turtles requires attention:many extinct articles require either expansion or creation and sources seems hard to come by. A list
of fossil forms is being compiled so progress can be charted.
Patrol: recent changes to turtle articles and check for improvements or errors.
This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on
marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life 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
Archelon is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for
amphibians and
reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
The reference section would require to reformatted so to become clearer and following the guidelines layed in Wikipedia. --
Francisco Valverde 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Opening
The previous version stated that Archelon is the largest sea turtle that ever lived. This is indeed possible, but impossible to prove. It is simply the largest yet discovered and disclosed. I have changed the wording to indicate that it is the largest currently documented.
209.202.3.94 (
talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Archelon ischyodus
I took a picture at the
ROM of a cast of the extinct sea turtle and it's
label. I was going to include the pictures but I didn't because I was concerned of licensing issues. Here is a summary of what is read on the label:
The specimen was donated by the Louise Hawley Stone Charitable Trust
The specimen, on observation, does look like Archelon ischyros. I might be describing the vary same individual sea turtle, anyone know if it's still hanging out in the Wallace Building on the
University of Manitoba campus?
Also, can someone help me figure out if my image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? --
Canadafreakazoid (
talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, skeletons are not copyrighted by the museum, because they are not art. So you can do what you want with the photos.
FunkMonk (
talk) 01:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Here are the images I was talking about. --
Canadafreakazoid (
talk) 23:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
This guy always seemed strange to me. Some preliminary comments first.
FunkMonk (
talk) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the size comparison image should be first in the description section, and the skull moved a few paragraphs down? To reflect the adjacent text better.
There are a bunch of duplinks, you can detect them with this script:
[1]
It only detected 1. Remember the tool doesn't know that you wikilink something in both the main article and the lead User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It specifically distinguishes between the intro and the article body ("In addition, it highlights duplicate links within the lead and within the body of the article separately"), maybe you have another version. I still see two duplinks under palaeoecology (Xiphactinus and bivalves).
FunkMonk (
talk) 05:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
This
[2] would seem like a better taxobox photo, if the background wasn't so busy, sadly...
You show the species Inoceramus steenstrupi (misspelled "steenstrup"), but did this exact species live with Archelon, or another species of the genus?
The source specifically said I. steenstrup from the Pierre Shale (which is probably why it's misspelled, fixed it) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Two of the external links seem dubious. One doesn't work, the other is commercial.
"from the Greek ἀρχε- arkhe- "chief," χελώνη chelone "turtle," and ἰσχυρός ischyros "strong"" Does the original description really give etymology? Wasn't common at the time.
It doesn't and all internet ancient greek translators are the least user-friendly systems ever devised, what do I do because that is the correct translation User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 04:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps
Casliber knows of a dictionary book we can cite?
FunkMonk (
talk) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I definitely think one could be added, can be requested at
WP:TREEREQ. If there are conflicting views, you can show two cladograms, as in
Elasmosaurus.
FunkMonk (
talk) 06:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Would be interesting to note what further specimens that have been assigned to the genus.
fossilworks says there's only 3 but then it also says it's only found in the Dakotas so I don't think anyone's really kept track. I think it means 3 that have been described in a study. The best I could find is, "Fossils of this turtle have also been found in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Likewise, you could state what parts of the holotype were preserved, seems at least the skull was not known at the time (which would explain why the "head" of the holotype looks so different).
[7]
Is, "mostly complete skeleton," good enough or should I say "radius, ulna, humerus, etc."?
Should be enough. But that source could also be used to state a skull was later found, etc.
FunkMonk (
talk) 23:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
We have photos of the Vienna specimen
[8][9], supposedly the largest turtle known, a shame not to show somewhere. Perhaps the cladogram can make some usable white space to fill up.
Now that there is so much white space next to the cladogram, perhaps move it there, since the description section is so image heavy?
FunkMonk (
talk) 23:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
That would move the cladogram down and leave a big gap between the text and the cladogram User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Hmmm that's because of the clear parameter at the bottom. Maybe
IJReid knows how to fix it so that it doesn't break anything to place images next to the cladogram.
FunkMonk (
talk) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Perhaps
Jts1882 knows too, now that Reid seems to be away.
FunkMonk (
talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I can't work out exactly what the problem is. Can you point me to the edit that is causing the problem? It should be possible to put images next the the cladogram (which could be reduced in width and/or might need floating left). Jts1882 |
talk 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I'll be fiddling around with it now, so I apologize for any edit conflicts I may cause. I'm sure I'll figure out why the wiki html is breaking it here. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}} 00:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I've got it, and basically, because the cladogram box template is treated as an image here, the bug was caused by the weird left-right image alignment. If an images on the right side is bumped down by another image, it will cause all images on both sides, if written into the article code on a later line, to be bumped down to beneath them, regardless of whether the following images are on the same or opposite side. This causes issues with stuff like cladograms and taxoboxes, which are treated as images, and I don't know why it exists but it does. IJReid{{
T -
C -
D -
R}} 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Looks great! I'll be passing shortly.
FunkMonk (
talk) 07:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You jump between tenses a lot in the description section, should be consistent.
done. Past tense I had to use when they were making assumptions on how it was in life (like the live weight isn't the weight it is now so past tense is used) User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
"The leatherback sea turtle" I think the caption could state the relevance, such as "the closest living relative" or some such.
It seems a bit inconsistent that only the Desmatochelys species have full binomials in the cladogram, could give it to all.
some genera have multiple species, I think that would make things overly complex for the sake of consistency User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"and the reconstruction of the holotype with the tail bending almost completely horizontally is thought to be anatomically correct." Which reconstruction is that? You haven't mentioned it previously.
"hap·haz·ard /ˌhapˈhazərd/ adjective lacking any obvious principle of organization" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Seems a strange context though, what does the source say?
FunkMonk (
talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"...[neuralia] are joined...to the pleuralia by strongly marked, more or less imperfectly interlocking, sutural digitations" User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You should be more specific then, the term haphazard is never used in such a context in anatomical descriptions (also means "random, disorganized, slipshod, or hit-or-miss"), and we can't make our own very atypical interpretation of what the source says.
FunkMonk (
talk) 05:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
What would you have me say? I very well can't say "imperfectly interlocking, sutural digitations" because those words mean absolutely nothing User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Be closer to the source, even something like "irregular" and "finger-like sutures" for digitations would be closer to the mark.
FunkMonk (
talk) 06:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Archelon was an obligate carnivore." How is this known? Seems a bit of a bald statement.
"Therefore, while there can be no doubt that Archelon was strictly carnivorous in habit..." and before that it goes off on how it definitely wasn't slow User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"Archelon probably had weaker arms" How is this known?
They took the humerus/arm and hand/arm ratios of 5 turtles and plotted them on a graph and Archelon got close to Toxochelys and Toxochelidae are the sister group of Chelonioidea and they are known to have a poor development of the limbs into flippers and a preference for shallow water
You could state this then.
FunkMonk (
talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If the source does, you could mention which specific species it could have fed on.
It doesn't say Inoceramus but it describes a bivalve that exceeds 4 ft, and it specifically mentions a nautilus species which I added User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"are found without a flipper" Could be read as no flippers at all, you could say "a missing flipper".
"The right lower flipper of the holotype is missing, and was probably bit off by some large predator such as a mosasaur or a Xiphactinus" You give entirelæy different reasons for missing flippers in the preceding sentence, why should this one be missed in another way?
didn't say. Do you trust the source I might ask? It seems legit but it isn't a journal or anything User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 00:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Should be ok for GA, but might become a problem during FAC.
FunkMonk (
talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Seems this is one of the last remaining issues (if you still plan on replacing it).
FunkMonk (
talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
All I can find is an abstract from 1993 which seems to be the first mention of it, but it doesn’t mention live weight. The full article doesn’t seem to exist anywhere on the internet, and the abstract is found on a series of abstracts from Vertebrate Paleontology. Should I remove the part about the live weight? User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"The Late Cretaceous Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska were all submerged" Oddly worded, how about "Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska were submerged in the Late Cretaceous" or some such?
But are the others of different ages? In that case, even more reason to go further into this in the palaeoecology, as it would be a pretty big oversight.
FunkMonk (
talk) 15:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Well I assume there are specimens found in Santonian and Maastrichtian sediment since fossilworks give a range of 84.9 to 70.6 Ma, but it only gives record of 3 specimens all from the Campanian Pierre Shale. I assume there's more than 3 because the former and because fossilworks only gives specimens from the Dakotas when another source says they've also been found in Kansas and Nebraska. No one seems to have published anything on Kansas nor Nebraska, so I don't know where exactly it's talking about, so the best I can do is talk about the latest Cretaceous seaway in a very generalist way User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I doubt more recent sources ignore this completely, there must be some that state its age. Also, Fossilworks is not always reliable, so if a journal article states only the Campanian, you should go wit that.
FunkMonk (
talk) 05:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The best I can find is a newsletter saying "Cretaceous Period about 75 million years ago" so I guess we'll stick to Campanian. There's another that says it lived 144-65 million years ago but that's blatantly incorrect; they probably just meant to say Cretaceous instead of the actual years User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The intro could state when it was named, and that other species were once assigned to the genus.
74.9 to 70.6 was an example, it is unlikely to be correct. Regards,
Sun Creator(
talk) 04:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Why are
Stupendemys,
Psephophorus and
Atlantochelys in the see also. Wikipedia has over a hundred extinct turtle articles. Selecting these three seems random.
The whole long article doesn't tell when these animals lived.
The German Wikipedia says during the Campanium, about 72 million years ago. It offers no source directly, but mentions a 1997 article
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelon