Talk:Pterodactylus

Untitled

Pterodactylus is a specific genus of pterosaur. It is a different term to pterodactyl which is a common term for pterosaurs as a whole. Any information on pop culture etc. should be palced at the pterodactyl article. Martyman 03:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pterodactylus elegans

Jouve (2004) demonstrated that Pterodactylus elegans is probably a species of Ctenochasma, resulting in the new combination Ctenochasma elegans (Wagner, 1861) comb. nov. For this reason, remove elegans from the Pterodactylus species list and transfer it to Ctenochasma.

Stéphane, J., 2004. Description of the skull of a *Ctenochasma* (Pterosauria) from the latest Jurassic of eastern France, with a taxonomic revision of European Tithonian Pterodactyloidea, JVP 24(3):542-554.

Status of German Pterodactylus

A study by Mateer (1976) recognizes two species of Pterodactylus from Germany: Pterodactylus antiquus (P. kochi is a junior synonym) and P. micronyx.

Mateer, N. J. 1976 A statistical study of the genus Pterodactylus. Bull. geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala 6, 97-105.

Pterodactylus grandipelvis and P. grandis may also be synonyms of P. antiquus, because they are nomina dubia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

French, British, and Tanzanian Pterodactylus

Pterodactylus is represented in Britain, France, and Tanzania each by two species. The British species are Pterodactylus manseli and Pterodactylus pleydelli, the French species are Pterodactylus cerinensis and Pterodactylus suprajurensis, and Tanzanian species are Pterodactylus arningi and Pterodactylus maximus. Add these species to this page. In all, there are 8 species of Pterodactylus (2 in Britain, 2 in France, 2 in Germany [P. kochi is synonymous with P. antiquus, according to Mateer, 1976], and 2 in Tanzania). This number of Pterodactylus species suggests that Pterodactylus is widespread.

Mateer, N. J. 1976 A statistical study of the genus Pterodactylus. Bull. geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala 6, 97-105. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Most of those species are too dubious to assign definately to P.. I'll dig up cites if I can, but I haven't seen a survey in years that lists more than 3 valid species of P. They can certainly be discussed in the text, but I wouldn't list them in the taxobox. Dinoguy2 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Length?

it doesnt say how long they were so cant really get the proportions.....

A specimen with a wingspan of 1.5 metres would have measured about 55 centimetres from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail.--MWAK (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision of the genus Pterodactylus

Bennett (1996, 2003) provided evidence that Pterodactylus kochi is conspecific with P. antiquus. Bennett (1996) demonstrated P. micronyx to be the juvenile of Gnathosaurus subulatus. These conclusions are based on analyses that plot the measurements of Pterodactylus elements against their size frequency. His revision of the genus Pterodactylus shows that the German Pterodactylus is represented by only one species. He originally considered Germanodactylus, a similar pterodactylid, to be a species of Pterodactylus (as P. sp.), but later (2006) showed Germanodactylus to be distinct from Pterodactylus. Jouve (2004) concluded that Diopecephalus is related to Pterodactylus. The revised synonymy of the German Pterodactylus (modified from http://archosauria.org/pterosauria/taxonomy/species.pdf) is presented below:

Pterodactylus Cuvier, 1809 emend. Rafinesque, 1815

=Ornithocephalus von Sömmering, 1812

= "Pterotherium" Fischer, 1813

= Macrotrachelus Giebel, 1852

= Ptenodracon Lydekker, 1888

P. antiquus (von Sömmering, 1812) Lydekker, 1888

= Ornithocephalus antiquus von Sömmering, 1812

= Ornithocephalus brevirostris von Sömmering, 1816–17

= Ptenodracon brevirostris (von Sömmering, 1816–17) Lydekker, 1888

= Pterodactylus brevirostris (von Sömmering, 1816–17) Oken, 1819

= Pterodactylus longirostris Cuvier, 1819

= Macrotrachelus longirostris (Cuvier, 1819) Giebel, 1852

= Ornithocephalus longirostris (Cuvier, 1819) Ritgen, 1826

= Pterodactylus "suevicus" Oken, 1825

= Pterodactylus crocodilocephaloides Ritgen, 1826

= Ornithocephalus kochi Wagner, 1837

= Pterodactylus kochi (Wagner, 1837) von Meyer, 1859

= Diopecephalus kochi (Wagner, 1837) Seeley, 1871

= Ornithocephalus kochi (Wagner, 1837) Lydekker, 1888

= Pterodactylus meyeri Münster, 1842

= Ornithocephalus meyeri (Münster, 1842) Wagner, 1851

= Pterodactylus scolopaciceps von Meyer, 1850

= Rhamphorhynchus scolopaciceps (von Meyer, 1850)

= Pterodactylus spectabilis von Meyer, 1861

Bennett, S. C. 1996. Year-classes of pterosaurs from the Solnhofen Limestone of Germany: taxonomic and systematic implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 16:432-444.

Bennett, S. C. 2003. New information on the genera Pterodactylus and Germanodactylus from the Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23(Suppl. to #3):33A.

Bennett, S. C. 2006. Juvenile specimens of the pterosaur Germanodactylus cristatus, with a review of the genus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 26:872-878.

Jouve, S., 2004. Description of the skull of a Ctenochasma (Pterosauria) from the Late Jurassic of eastern France, with a taxonomic revision of European Tithonian Pterodactyloidea. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: 3: 542-554.

Therefore, update the Pterodactylus taxobox and page, once Bennett publishes his (2003) abstract as a full paper.

Any idea if/when this is going to be published? The abstract came out four years ago, and Bennett has published on similar subjects in the interval. Dinoguy2 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would say that Bennett will publish his work concerning the synonymy of Pterodactylus kochi with P. antiquus and the distinctness of Daitingopterus (to be published as new genus for "Pterodactylus rhamphastinus"), Diopecephalus, and Germanodactylus will be published later this year. Germanodactylus will be restricted to the type species, G. cristatus (Witman, 1925), with G. rhamphastinus (Wagner, 1851) to be made the type of the new genus Daitingopterus.

Pterodactylus "suevicus"

Is the Pterodactylus "suevicus" Oken, 1825 [nomen nudum] mentioned here the same as this? [1] FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No.--MWAK (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Oken's 'suevicus' is actually a 1916 name, but yes, it is apparently a nomen nudum. The description is here: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/276843#page/341/mode/1up. I think this needs to be added to the list. — Dr Mark D. Scherz 20:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Error in life reconstruction?

The CG image on the left side of the article shows Pterodactylus with "Walking With Dinosaurs" grade hands--the smaller fingers curve back over the wing finger. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect--the wing finger doesn't come out of the palm of the hand, it's a digit that begins at a metacarpal just like the regular fingers. It doesn't even seem possible for a pterosaur to twist its fingers that way without breaking and/or dislocating them. Unless pterosaur digits articulated backwards, I just don't see how it could happen. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, the digits appear to be hyperextended relative to the wing in that case. Might be an easy fix, maybe you should contact the artist. I'm hesitant to remove it outright for a relatively minor inaccuracy as it's spot-on otherwise.Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the artist it's based off a lecture by John Conway in which he argued a "palm forward" position as described here. I don't quite understand how that results in "Walking With Dinosaurs" grade hands but according to Arthur (the artist) it was fully intentional. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Arthur might have misinterpreted the palm-forward thing. If you look at Conway's own skeletals showing this position the palm is forward, but the fingers don't all stick up. Instead they all sort of collapse together in a telescoping way along he wing finger. Hard to describe, but they're not hyperextended. It's more like a variation on the orientation of folded maniraptoran hands. You can sort of see it here: [2]. Notice that digit 1 is behind digit 2 is behind digit 3, so the "palm" such as it is does face forward. But the fingers aren't out of the plane of the wing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that none of his pictures have hyperextended fingers, before or after that journal. Any idea what to do about the Pterodactylus, then? 97.104.210.67 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have some time and can try to photoshop it later this week, unless anybody else wants to take a crack at it. Shouldn't be too hard to correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture

There's a viral video and it's fast becoming a pop cultural idea of the Pterodactyle in the cartoons of theoatmeal.com http://theoatmeal.com/pterodactyl_video Maybe it's worth mentioning somewhere but I'm new to this so will leave it to the experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.110.168 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Any reputable, published articles discussing it's cultural impact? MMartyniuk (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Pterodactyl a reptile or dinosaur - anyone have Discovery Science reference

I was told that Pterodactyl was mentioned in Discovery Science as a mammal NOT a Reptile - as such it would be an evolutionary step away from avian-like reptiles, and most definitely not a Flying lizard or dinosaur ... can anyone get the reference and disambiguate and re-edit for this new viewpoint or theory ...

AspieNo1 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Marsupial pterosaurs, 1843

Well, this is not a "new viewpoint", no one supports that today. It wa proposed by someone in the 19th century that they were marsupials, but no one else has taken that seriously. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pterodactylus longirostris twice?

Here a Pterodactylus longirostris is attributted to Cuvier, 1819. But in the Aurorazhdarcho article, there's a Pterodactylus longirostris von Meyer, 1859. What's the matter? FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to double check but I *think* this is a case where the same species name was used twice for two different type specimens (maybe one started out as Ornithocephalus?). Edit: Ok, so Cuvier latinized his "Ptero-Dactyle" as Pterodactylus with no species name. Subsequently, Sommering named the same specimen Ornithocephalus antiquus. Third, Cuvier, ignoring Sommering's paper, added a species name to the type specimen, as Pterodactylus longirostris. Therefore Cuvier's Pterodactylus as genus priority but Sommering's antiquus has priority of species. So P. longirostris Cuvier 1819 is a junior objective synonym of P. antiquus. The other P. longirpstris was named for a different specimen and so is a homonym but not a synonym. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. What does that mean for redirects? Disambig? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a disambig would be necessary, yeah. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, looks like the source I used was intending to refer specimens referred to longirostris by Meyer to Cuvier's type species, not create an additional name. longirostris only = antiquus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Weirdly, it seemed to make sense at the time, an image of a specimen on Commons was once labelled as P. longirostris, but the specimen has since been referred to Aurorazhdarcho... FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pterodactylus brevirostris

I forgot to mention that Pterodactylus brevirostris was tentatively synonymized with Aurorazhdarcho micronyx by Wellnhofer (1970). Bennett (2013) mentions that the holotype is very similar to Aurorazhdarcho, and so it's possible that P. brevirostris (and hence Ptenodracon could be a senior synonym of Aurorazhdarcho. Extrapolaris (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

True, but I'd wait for a more thorough discussion on potential synonymy before doing anything here. Maybe we should include brevirostris on both pages under synonyms with a question mark. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Diopecephalus to be resurrected

In the paper naming Aerodactylus[3], it is mentioned a paper resurrecting Diopecephalus kochi is in press. Seems this article will have some problems by then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And the paper is now out. Let the splitting begin...... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd hold off on splitting until we see something new from somebody other than Vidovic and Martill, who are the only ones during the past 25 years not treating these as growth stages. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We could maybe treat it like we did with Ornithoscelida; we make a separate Diopecephalus article, but don't do major changes to the Pterodactylus article, just mention somewhere (history/classificaton) that this hypothesis has been proposed. Then we wait with any major restructuring until some kind of consensus emerges, however long that may take. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Abyssal (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seems there was already an old Diopecephalus article, so I just redirected to that. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pterodactylus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one.

Comments

What a fascinating article, and on an iconic subject.

WOW, that was fast! It's just today that I've nominated it, also, thanks! Anyway, I've finished with the corrections.

• '"Naturalienkabinett", or nature cabinet' - the Wikilink should be displayed in full as Cabinet of curiosities, as that is its ancestry.

• Edward Cope is a disambiguation page.

• So is Ornithocephalus.

• Many .. were found in England. Perhaps say in which formations (or counties).

• "Holotype specimen of Cimoliopterus" - maybe say it's the jaw or snout.

• 50 pixels really makes the cladogram images very small (hard to see). Perhaps around 80px would be better (it's certainly quite usual); the trees are not especially large.

I've kept the images at 70px, 'cause 80px looked a bit too large.

Many thanks. The tree works a lot better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Preserved fossil specimen of the species Rhamphorhynchus muensteri" - aren't all fossils preserved specimens? The wording doesn't seem necessary and isn't used on any other image.

• "The Solnhofen Limestone is diverse Lagerstätte" - perhaps "consists of" or better "is exposed in".

• "closer related" - "more closely related".

• Maybe wikilink Rhamphorhynchus (or provide a "further" link) at 'Growth and breeding seasons' where the genus is first mentioned.

Rhamphorhynchus is actually already linked in the 'Life history' section.

• "A P. antiquus specimen (AMNH 1942) showing muscle impressions" - the tiny image makes it impossible to see these, even if the reader knows what to look for. Perhaps a) make the thumbnail larger b) use a cropped image to draw attention to the muscles, and c) use an .SVG image (including a cropped bitmap) to provide some graphic help e.g. an outline or arrows to point out the muscles. I suppose some caption engineering would help a little.

The image may take a while, but I'll try to upload a cropped version of it showing the muscle impressions.

Hey, I tried to upload a cropped version of the muscle impressions, but it looks all blurred, so I was thinking of this one (it's actually a fossilized pelvis), I know it has nothing to do with the previous one, but would it still work? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And you'd draw on the muscles? But it doesn't have the impressions ... I think the impressions were quite reasonably sharp on the other image, but perhaps an Unsharp Mask would help (with or without an Edge Preserving Smooth first). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you stated that it doesn't have the impressions, it may be inaccurate to put that as the caption? The image itself does sit within the Classification section, so it has nothing related to what the paragraphs say, so it can easily be substituted...? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. The image originally in the article certainly had impressions; the one you propose above as a replacement doesn't, so it doesn't seem suitable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I actually got confused with what you said before. I'll try with the Unsharp mask for the image then. I apologize for the confusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've uploaded a cropped (new) version of the image, is it OK now, or should I do more adjustments? Also, sorry again for the confusion before. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. The new image is fine, though it would be nice to draw the reader's attention to the muscles in the image, with SVG graphics or some sort of explanation of what and where in the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've specified putting "in the chest and wing-membranes" in the caption, since that's where the muscles are, would it work, though? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly helps.

• I see there's no 'In human culture' section. This seems a shame for such an iconic species, which created great excitement on its discovery. Perhaps that should be mentioned; there is indeed Pterodactyl (film); Tolkien stated that Nazgûl#Steeds were "pterodactylic" (see there for citations). Not to mention merchandise, soft toys, etc. The section can be quite brief.

As for the 'In human culture' section, which I think would be better as 'In popular culture', might take time, but I'll start today. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to it.

I've included the 'In popular culture' section, and I think you've already seen it. Should I change anything, though? Or maybe include something more? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The "pterodactylic" Nazgûl#Steeds are certainly noteworthy, and if you look there you'll find a citation ready and waiting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Included, anything else? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, good work. I'm happy to pass this now. It would be great if you could pick one or two articles to review from the GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for the efforts on the review! I'm actually reviewing the article Echinodon, I've just started yesterday with it. Anyways, I'm happy that this iconic creature has passed the GA review, thanks again for the efforts! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Life reconstruction of Pterodactylus

• ... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) only had a wingspan exceeding 1 meter (3.3 ft), and the animal itself also had a low bony cranial crest on its skull? Source: "demonstrates that the species exceeded 1 m in wingspan and had a low bony cranial crest" [4]
  • ALT1:... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", with many specimens split from the type species, and were then placed in different genera and families? Source: "Throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, specimens were split from the type species Pterodactylus antiquus, and placed in different genera and families" [5]

• Comment: This just got pass GA yesterday, so it works, right?

Improved to Good Article status by JurassicClassic767 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

• It works! Long enough, sourced, eligible. I changed your image width to "160" because it is horizontal.

Let's talk about these hooks... Alt1 might be more interesting if written well, but it's really technical, and I honestly don't understand it. For the main hook, the source says: "a new specimen of P. antiquus larger than all previously known specimens, which demonstrates that the species exceeded 1 m in wingspan and had a low bony cranial crest", but you say it only exceeds one meter, giving the idea that it is small. Can you come up with some better hooks? Maybe...

"... that Pterodactylus, the scientific genus for a pterodactyl, was a carnivore that most likely preyed on fish and other small animals?"

I don't know if that specific wording would be correct, and it admittedly still sounds a bit awkward, but it'd be nice to add in how Pterodactylus relates to the well-known Pterodactyl, for that's what people will be interested in. Awsomaw (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to say what you said above is: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for pterodactyl, was a carnivore that most likely preyed on fish and other small animals?" I've put "name" instead of "genus" since people will be more familiar when they see "scientific name" instead of "scientific genus". For my main hook, maybe a better way to say it is: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had a maximum wingspan exceeding 1 meter (3.3 ft), and a feature that the animal itself had was a low bony cranial crest on its skull?" Since the source says that a new specimen was found larger than the previous ones, maybe putting "maximum" would be good? Because as far as I know, the source was published in 2013 (pretty recent), and no other later discoveries of Pterodactylus found larger specimens.

Another idea I've got is perhaps mixing some info from my main hook ('cause I admit that the second one is really scientific) and your hook? Maybe something like this: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for pterodactyl, was a carnivore that had a maximum wingspan that exceeds 1 meter (3.3 ft)?" I'll admit I'm not so good at creating hooks, but is this a good idea, or should we just stick to the ones above? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@JurassicClassic767: I like this combined hook idea. I think it's kinda confusing to talk about a "maximum wingspan that exceeds ___", because then you don't really have a maximum. Maybe just:

ALT2: ... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus, the scientific name for a pterodactyl, was a carnivore whose wingspan could exceed 1 meter (3.3 ft)?

Also, what do you think about getting rid of the word "pterosaur"? Since we already have Pterodactylus and pterodactyl. Let me know what you think. Awsomaw (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Awsomaw: The word "pterosaur" actually describes the animal a bit more, but since you said that there is Pterodactylus and pterodactyl already, I'm actually ok removing it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Good to go as ALT2. Since you prefer keeping 'pterosaur', we'll keep it there unless someone else objects. Awsomaw (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this. I find the nominator's original hooks nicely descriptive and maybe other descriptive things could be found to write a good hook. But the reviewer's suggestion for ALT2 is simply a dictionary definition. BTW per Rule H2, the reviewer is not allowed to approve a hook he suggested. Could you suggest something else please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Yoninah. JurassicClassic767, I think that the idea of a "wastebasket taxon" for ALT1 is interesting, but I don't quite understand what the rest of the hook was saying, maybe that could be expanded on in place of the "textbook definition". I still think that the addition of "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is a helpful addition to clarifying to readers what this is. Let me know what you think. Awsomaw (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Awsomaw, I also think that "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is a helpful addition, but this isn't stated in one of my hooks, in addition to the fact that this segment was something you suggested, therefore, like Yoninah said, the reviewer is not allowed to approve a hook he/she suggested.

As for the "wastebasket taxon" hook, maybe we could simplify what it states, perhaps something like: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured) had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", with many species assigned to it, and later reassigned to other genera and families?" This is perhaps a more or less simplified way of saying it, but maybe it's still a bit too scientific, and also, I think "families" isn't needed since it confuses readers more? Let me know what you think about it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JurassicClassic767, I believe that the problem with the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" is not that I came up with it, but that I put it into an official hook proposal, and then accepted it. So the phrase is not irredeemable if you still would like to use it. In addition, I can approve one of your proposed hooks if you just propose it officially, with the bolded intro like I did with ALT2.

As for the new hook, it's a lot better. So I guess what you're saying is that many species used to be assigned to the taxon Pterodactylus, and then was moved to another taxon, right? maybe... "because many species were assigned to the taxon that were later reassigned to other genera and families?". Awsomaw (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Awsomaw Then I guess I should put "ALT3" to my proposal to be approved officially? So, the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl" could still be used? If so, how about this: ALT3: "... that the pterosaur Pterodactylus (pictured), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", this is because many species were assigned to it, and later reassigned to other genera and families?" I've just took your suggestion above, and made some modifications while also adding the phrase "the scientific name for a pterodactyl", let me know whay you think. Oh, and yes, you did get the meaning of what a "wastebasket taxon" is. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JurassicClassic767, nice. Maybe ""wastebasket taxon", as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned to other genera and families?" to be more concise. Everything else looks good. Thanks!

@Yoninah:, I have a question for you. With this new modified hook, since I contributed a lot to the writing of a new hook, does that mean that the best action is to ask for another editor's approval of the hook? Please advise. Awsomaw (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Awsomaw, We could change it a bit of course, I don't really mind. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Awsomaw: looking at this thread, it appears that JurassicClassic767 proposed the ALT1 hook and you are simply tweaking the language without adding any new facts, correct? So you can complete the review. But ALT3 is way over the 200-character limit. Please write out your suggested wording as ALT4, check that it's under 200 characters, and then review and approve it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that Pterodactylus (pictured), the scientific name for a pterodactyl, had been considered a "wastebasket taxon", as many species were assigned to it and later reassigned to other taxonstaxa?

What do you think about this hook JurassicClassic767? I've removed "pterosaur" and consolidated "genera and families" into "taxon" and linked it for those who don't know. Awsomaw (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Awsomaw, everything is good enough, though I think putting "the" before Pterodactylus is a bit inappropriate, since Pterodactylus is a proper noun given to a specific type of animal, "the" is probably unnecessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the change is small, I just removed the word from ALT4. The hook looks good, and it is well cited. Everything else has been checked before. Awsomaw (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Awsomaw! As I said, you're allowed to tweak the hook; you're even allowed to tweak the article and continue reviewing it if you haven't done a major overhaul (in which case you would add yourself to the DYK credit line and call for a new reviewer). BTW, "taxa" is the plural of "taxon", and since "taxon" is linked earlier, I unlinked it. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but it's important to cite the hook fact(s) in the article. I do not see a cite for "wastebasket taxon". Please add one. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The citation for the hook (which is also the one for ALT1) says: "Until relatively recently, the genus Pterodactylus Cuvier, 1809 had been a wastebasket taxon that has included many diverse pterosaurs..." It is in the lines 37-38 if it's hard to find. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JurassicClassic767, I believe what Yoninah is saying is that you need to cite the fact in the article Pterodactylus, which you just did. It should be gtg now. Awsomaw (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"P. antiquus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect P. antiquus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6 § P. antiquus until a consensus is reached. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)