Talk:Paraceratherium

Untitled

Isn't the preferred modern name for this giant mammal Indricotherium? The American Museum of Natural History uses Indricotherium. --and so did the recent Discovery Channel's "Walking with Big Scarey Mammals that Roared a Lot," or whatever they called it... --Wetman 20:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the general consensus is that Indricotherium transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and Baluchitherium grangeri Osborn, 1923 are the same species. So yes, of those two, Indrocotherium clearly has priority. However, the correct genus name may actually be Paraceratherium Forster Cooper, 1911, making the species name Paraceratherium transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922); I don't know enough to clarify that. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I saw a reference: (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/Iceagemammals.shtml) - perhaps, Baluchitherium is now called Indricotherium.--Bhadani 18:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The correct name is Paraceratherium; this is the earliest name, and except in very few cases, the oldest name has priority. See Lucas, S. G. & Sobus, J. C., 1989: The systematics of indricotheres. 358-378 in Prothero, D. R. & Schoch, R. M., (eds.) 1989: The Evolution of Perissodactyls (Oxford University Press, New York, New York & Oxford, 1989) - here is the list of synonyms M Alan Kazlev 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Indricotherium and Paraceratherium?

Scince writing the above I came across this comment by Dr Mikael Fortelius in reply to a query on the Discovery Channel Walking with Beasts website

"There is a lot of confusion about which name should be applied to these gigantic rhinoceros-relatives...my own opinion is that these two names (Baluchitherium and Indricotherium) refer to the same animals. In particular I agree with the Russian palaeontologist Vera Gromova that Baluchitherium grangeri, named by her American colleague Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1923, is identical to Indricotherium transouralicum, named by Maria Pavlova in 1922.

Ironically, the fossils from Baluchistan do not seem to belong to the same group, but to the genus Paraceratherium, named by the British palaeontologist Clive Forster Cooper in 1911."

This indicates that both Indricotherium and Paraceratherium (but not Baluchitherium) are valid taxa. I wrote to Dr Fortelius and he replied and said that although he is not an expert on indricotheres, he did think (on the basis of skull proportions) that the genus Indricotherium was valid, contra Lucas and Sobus, but couldn't give any further details.

I then did a google and found the following:

Close relatives to Caenopenes and Aceratheres, the Paraceratheres, produced some of the biggest rhinoceroses which were also the largest terrestrial mammals ever to have lived. The largest, Indricotherium asiaticum 's fossilised remains were discovered in Kazakhstan in central Russia and were dated at 35 million years old. A similar find was made in the Gobi Desert in the early 1920's. Paraceratherium had no horns but formidable tusks and low crowned molars indicated it would have been a browser with a reach not much less than a modern day giraffe.

- The Evolution of the Rhino or Rhinoceros species of the world

Very large rhinoceroses evolved in Central Asia; they were the Paraceratheres. One was Indricotherium (also known as Baluchitherium)...It stood 18 feet tall at the shoulders. Paraceratherium was another and it was also enormous. These rhinoceroses did not have horns; they did have tusks and crowned incisors.

- Neal Robbins - Teleoceras and the Paleontology of Rhinoceroses

Prehistoric ancestors of the rhinoceros include Indricotherium and Paraceratherium, hornless giants that may have weighed up to 20 tons, making them among the largest mammals that ever lived.

- MSN Encarta - Rhinoceros

Indricotherium is an extinct, hornless rhinoceros with relatively long legs. (It used to be known as Baluchitherium). Adults were about 26 feet (8 m) long, 18 feet (5.5 m) tall, and weighed about 17 - 18 tons (16 tonnes). The skull was 4.25 feet (1.3 m) long. It was one of the biggest land animal ever to live on Earth (Paraceratherium was even bigger).

- Enchanted Learning - Paleontology and Geology Glossary: I

(note that the author of "The Evolution of the Rhino or Rhinoceros species of the world" says that Indricotherium was bigger.)

The following also list these two genera as separate:

• long PDF
• (in german, gives list of names of living and estinct rhinos)

At the same time, there are many other sites that give the two as the same (i guess on the basis of Luca and Sobas). So, it looks like there is still no certainty regarding this.

Anyway, I'm inclined now to consider Indricotherium and Paraceratherium as two genera, although i still don't know what the precise differences between them are.

By the way, here's the etymology of Indricotherium:

"as it turns out, Mr. Fortson, the etymologist who asked originally, got back to me with the whole story, which I quote here:

Dear Dr. Waggoner,

Well, it appears that indricotherium gets its name from a fabulous Russian beast called the "indrik," considered the most powerful creature and the father of the animals. Makes sense considering how big the thing was."

sci.bio.paleontology - Jul 20 1999

regarding further details, This site gives two species

• Indricotherium asiaticum
• Indricotherium parvum

(and also some nice pictures  :-)

According to Luca and Sobas, I. parvum is a synonym of Urtinotherium incisivum Indricotheres ; Urtinotherium is i think a little smaller than Indricotherium and Paraceratherium. I need to find my copy of the Luca and Sobas paper, then I'll be able to do a decent write-up.

M Alan Kazlev 8 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Here is another article that mentions these two genera as distinct:

Prothero, DR, E. Manning, and CB Hanson, 1986 The phylogeny of the Rhinocerotoidea (Mammalia, Perissodactyla). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 87: 341-366.

So I'll make a new stub for Paraceratherium, and revert the one on this page to Indricotherium M Alan Kazlev 9 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. If Indricotherium is a distinct genus from Paraceratherium, then in which genus should the species transouralicum Pavlova 1922 be placed? If grangeri Osborn 1923 is a synonym of that species, that doesn't, of itself, make Baluchitherium a junior synonym of either genus name. Regardless of taxonomic validity, to which animal does the term "Baluchitherium" apply? Presumably first and foremost to whatever Forster Cooper was looking at when he coined the Latin name, and secondly (because of the long-established Latin use) to grangeri Osborn (= transouralicum Pavlova), which ever genus that species ends up in. It could be that the "Baluchitherium" is actually an Indricotherium, even if the genus name Baluchitherium is a synonym of Paraceratherium...? (Or vice versa.) 193.63.239.165 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If the animal about which most of the facts are true is actually Indricotherium, and not "Baluchitherium" = Paraceratherium, then wouldn't it be better to have most of the information at either Indricotherium or a general article on Indricotheres, and leave only a short article on Baluchitherium explaining that it is an older name? Myopic Bookworm 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PS McKenna and Bell (1997) say that I. asiaticum Borissiak 1923 is a junior synonym of I. transouralicum Pavlova 1922, so if I. parvum is actually in Urtinotherium, that leaves us back with only one species in Indricotherium. Since "B. grangeri" is in Indricotherium and "B. osborni" is in Paraceratherium, the article on "Baluchitherium" cannot treat it as though it were the name of a single animal. Myopic Bookworm 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose, on the basis of Lucas & Sobus (The Systematics of Indricotheres, 1989), which still seems to be the only authority on the systematics of this subfamily, to merge this page with Paraceratherium. In other words: to move essential information from this page to Paraceratherium, link Indricotherium directly to there, and remove this page. Ronald12 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article said that Indricotherium weighed about 20 tons. Rhinoceros says that Indricotherium weighed 30 tons. Perhaps somebody who knows which weight is correct can change the wrong number to the right one.Alex Klotz 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier reconstructions showed the Indricotherium still very rhino-like and compact, and therefore the weight was highly overestimated. Modern reconstructions have shown that it was much more slender and lesser bulky and weighed only about 15.000kg.

Balook

Should mention of Piers Anthony's book "Balook" be included in the Pop culture section for the wee beastie? Sochwa 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the book, but if it's relevant, sure!  :-) M Alan Kazlev 08:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heaviest Mammal?

i dont understand how this animal is substantially heavier than the largest mammoth, when the largest mammoth approaches this animal in height and has a more robust skeleton. in walking with beasts, they show this animal as something between a giraffe and a rhino, the skeletons i see give that same impression.70.50.133.110 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Paraceratherium tienshanensis?

Just got back from the Beijing Museum of Natural History. They have a skull on display from a "Paraceratherium tienshanensis". The article presently doesn't mention that species. Don't know if it's just missing or an alternate name. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] According to this report, P. tienshanensis is one of the three/four original species in Paraceratherium before Indricotherium was subsumed by it.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the paragraphs in the link you provided and I am still confused. Paraceratherium is a genus. Indricotherium is now a synonym for that genus. It is still ambiguous to me what the species P. tienshanensis should now be called and if it is now merged with some other species. I guess the exact question I have is what scientific name would P. tienshanensis have today? Is it the same or different. I have a reasonably nice photo of a skull I'm going to eventually upload to Commons. I just want my facts perfect before I do because things like renaming photos at Commons can be a pain. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Better image?

There is a nice reconstruction at the California Academy of Sciences. However, there is already a good number of images in the article and I wasn't sure which one to replace. Junuxx (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Indricothere CAS.jpg

File:Indricothere CAS.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indricothere CAS.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Indricothere CAS.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest consensus on valid genera?

Fossilworks (the old paleo database) lists Dzungariotherium and Indricotherium as valid.[2] I'm waiting for the Donald Prothero book, and hopefully it can be used as source to get this article featured. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Best living analogues" uncited

This section needs more citations to avoid giving the impression of being original research:

The best living analogues for Paraceratherium may be elephants, rhinos and hippos, due to their large size. To aid in thermoregulation, these animals cool down during the day by resting in the shade, or by wallowing in water and mud. They also forage and move mainly at night. Due to its large size, Paraceratherium would not have been able to run and move fast, but they would have been able to move across large distance, which they would need in an environment with scarce food. They may therefore have had large home ranges, and performed migrations.

Prothero is cited at the end, but it's unclear that the other claims come from that same source. This should be addressed. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

All of it is from Prothero. That is why the citation is at the end. Text in a single paragraph does not need multiple citations if the source is the same. If you think it does, please provide evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When supporting a longer passage with a source, the convention I'm familiar with is to use the source once when beginning the passage, and then again at the end. I also would generally recommend citing more diligently when statements are likely to appear controversial, or when statements are likely to appear to be coming from different sources, as may often be the case when citing from summary literature. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever made that point in 15 passed FACs I've nominated (I've had longer passages with a single source at the end), so I doubt it will be a problem in this one. I'm not sure what's controversial either. See for example Woolly mammoth, which also has "unsourced" restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Which ones? I find historic ones, those originating from a notable artist, and one that was published by a museum. (1) Which of these compare to the situation here? (2) There are processes to re-review articles if, after promotion, they are found to suffer from problems. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

For example this.[3] And as here, the image does not diverge from how the sources describe the animal, so it is a non-issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how your example is comparable. It's a simple case of pasting two photos of museum exhibits together, where the only consideration would be keeping them to scale. The contested illustration meanwhile reconstructs two individuals without explicit recourse to reliable sources. I find your lack of rigour disturbing. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, you are simply dead wrong, and don't comprehend the subject. The images are not "museum exhibits". They are photo collages.[4] Yes, just like the contested image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary - you're the one who's dead wrong because you don't understand that that IS the problem: These illustrations have no description that even identifies what they are, i.e. how they were created. And on top of that, there are no sources supplied. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is wrong as well, because it's policies do not agree with your claims. All you need to do is look at the answers to the thread you started yourself.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking, and I find people agreeing that some statement should be made identifying the authority on which the restorations are based. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

They're not agreeing that images should be removed if no such statement is added, and they're not agreeing to your claim that it constitutes original research. And yet again, I don't know which exact reference the illustrator used, so I cannot arbitrarily add just any reference. Not much else to this, I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested to you that you could leave a note that the illustration is consistent with such and such a reference, e.g. "has been reviewed by ... and found to be consistent with ..." You haven't given a good reason for refusing that suggestion. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My reason is that you've been consistently rude. If you hadn't been, I'd do it, even though Wiki policy doesn't require me to. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to provide sources or citations or statements for pictures in Wikipedia, unless absolutely, positively necessary, i.e., to ensure against theft/plagiarism/copyright infringement, or presentation of gross original research (i.e., claiming that Paraceratherium had horns, that Megatherium is a carnivorous primate, or that Diplocaulus used its lateral horns for flight). Otherwise, requiring sources, citations and or statements on how the pictures are created as prerequisites for uploading and donating pictures will create rules-creep that would greatly discourage Wikipedians from illustrating Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

P. transouralicum with calf - source?

This needs to say sth. like "reconstruction at ... Museum" Samsara (FA • FP) 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a digital photomanipulation made by a Wiki editor. Not sure how much detail it should go into? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The way it was created should be briefly stated. It also needs to cite its sources - doing so on the image description is sufficient imo; however, there is currently nothing there. Failing that, labelling it as an "artist's impression" may be permissible. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean by source? There's a drawing in there too, made by another Wiki editor. This is generally not a problem on Wiki, user created images are permitted. Of course, it is somewhat subjective whether a user created image is correct or not, but we do have a review process for that[6], if accuracy is in doubt. In this case, the image matches published skeletal restorations, and the various theories about its external appearance, as described in the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they have to be based on sources, otherwise they constitute original research, which I'm sure you're aware Wikipedia is not the right venue for. Cf. File:Tuatara skull.png Samsara (FA • FP) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Life restorations are based on published skeletal restorations or photos of skeletons. In any case, an external source is this, the artist's website: http://prehistoric-fauna.com/gallery/indricotherium FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what are those published skeletal restorations? NAME THEM. PUT THE INFO ON THE COMMONS PAGE. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one also lacks sourcing, the others are fine. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As per above, there is a link to the artist's page, where he explains it is based on a skeletal restoration. Both artist's have had restorations they made published by actual scientists, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. The burden of proof is on you to show that these are not pieces of original research if you want them included in the article. Someone making a drawing is not an authoritative source. Find out what published reliable sources, if any, this is based on, or remove the material from the article. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We've had tonnes of discussions like this in the past, and this is not the place to bring it up again. The images will not be removed unless you gather consensus to do so, user created images are accepted on Wikipedia, and are not subject to the same sourcing requirements as the article text, as long as they are not copyright violations. Such images are used in dozens of FAs, and their use has been accepted by the community. And I repeat yet again, the authors have stated that they are based on skeletal restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me examples of unsourced figures in FAs, and I will contest them. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Try every single dinosaur and palaeontology FA. If you want to change community consensus, I suggest you bring it up on one of the relevant pages for general guidelines, not here. Do not remove any images before consensus is reached, it is disruptive. See also past discussions:[7][8] FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of the four illustrations listed at the original debate, three are now deleted. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look at their deletion logs, it is because the author requested they be deleted. I guess he felt slighted by parts of the discussion. And note that since those discussions, there has been a review process for such restorations, and inaccurate images are removed or improved when discovered. We remove images after inaccuracies are pointed out, not before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not add citation needed tags to text that is clearly cited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You told me it wasn't and didn't need to be. Which is it? Samsara (FA • FP) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article text, not image captions. Anyhow, it seems we got a pretty clear verdict from your query: "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yet again, please do not continuously add citation needed tags to already cited text, it is extremely annoying. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So are those text places supported by the source, yes or no? I note that you weren't willing to insert them in the requested places, which makes me wonder why you wouldn't do that. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

See reply in the relevant section. Prothero's book is online at Google Books, check if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Taxonomic history" is ambiguous

See e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2012.01248.x/abstract

Samsara (FA • FP) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The same terms can be used in different ways in different fields. When palaeontologists talk about taxonomic history, they talk about the history of taxonomic classification. This is a palaeontology article, not a plant article. Some examples.[9][10][11][12] FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The term you prefer has two different meanings, both of them in zoology. The suggested replacement is unambiguous. Samsara (FA • FP) 01:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The "suggested term " is overly convoluted and bad writing. This is getting silly. Do a Google scholar search. The results show that the term is used differently in zoology and botany.[13] FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Taxonomic history" does not sound ambiguous: "History of (its) taxonomy" on the other hand, seems too wordy to read smoothly.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As shown above, however, it IS ambiguous. :) Samsara (FA • FP) 02:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Worse yet, it has a double of: "history of the taxonomy of" simply sounds bad, and good writing is required to pass FAC. Samsara, show me an example of this term being used the way you imply in a zoology article, not a botany article. And even then, it doesn't matter, because it is widely used the way I do in palaeontology literature, which is what matters in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just silly. Botanists read Wikipedia, too. Just make it unambiguous and be done with it. Why have these endless debates? Samsara (FA • FP) 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's silly is that you expect that you can just boss people around without meeting any kind of dissent. You can't. If you can't provide backup for your demands in any policy or precedents, nothing will happen. If you can't be polite about it either, I'll just ignore your requests entirely. More importantly, your alternate wording for the sentence is simply horrible writing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Samsara, we are having this "endless debate" specifically because a) you refuse to explain how the term "taxonomic history" is ambiguous beyond repeating that you and botanists say so, which leads to this situation of b) if you can't be bothered to be diplomatic, don't be surprised if other editors respond to your commands with WP:SHUN.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Taxonomic history" is fine, not ambiguous. Burmeister (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion -- second paragraph

I think that the second paragraph, currently starting with "The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history," should be moved down into the taxonomy section. This close to the top of the article, it "buries the lead" and immediately distracts away from the key important thing that a casual reader would want from reading the article. Fine details, like the controversies and struggles over appropriately assigning taxonomy are of less interest to somebody just coming to the article for the first time. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this is one of the most often repeated issues involving the animal (presented in pretty much all sources), after its size, so it is imperative that it be explained somewhat in the intro. Furthermore, per the Wikipedia manual of style[14], the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, so we don't arbitrarily leave out significant parts under any circumstances. I can move it so it comes under the description/behaviour part of the intro, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This review is now officially going down. I haven't been involved in the mammals wikiproject to any large amount recently, so might as well claim this review before someone else does. I also have learned a large amount about this genus recently, uploaded some images and own a few resources. The overall article is good, although then again, User:FunkMonk, you probably are more an expert than I at layout and text formatting. One first thing, the text is relatively balanced over the species, but the images are all about P. transouralicum (yes, I do know that one image is of the type species), or are not species-specific. The case might indeed be that no restorations have yet been made of P. bugtiense, and P. orgosensis is an uncertain blacement, but illustrations can be modified, and some free images probably exist. No biggie, but just a preliminary point. Great article, IJReid (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! GA reviews are always a good way to learn more about unfamiliar topics. As for images, there simply aren't any free images available of the other species (apart from the one I already added of a P. bugtiense jaw, and maybe some other isolated elements that aren't so interesting). They are mainly known from very scrappy remains, so they have rarely been reconstructed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead and taxon box

First paragraph:

1. No form of pronunciation or etymology can be found in the lead. This should exist somewhere.

I'll add the etymology, but the sources say nothing of pronunciation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The country Yugoslavia should be linked. China does not need to be as most people should known where it is.

Many links were removed by the copy editor. These often have much experience with which links that should be used, so I'm not sure. But since Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, I guess some people would need a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

1. Based on the skeleton in the taxon box, it is not very incomplete.

I believe that is actually a cast of the most complete specimen, and even then the skull does not belong to it... So gives a good impression of how little we actually know about this animal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Many elusive or uncommon terms should be linked or (less preferably) defined.

Which ones, for example? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Prehensile, incisor, and columnar. IJReid (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph:

1. The many species that are synonymous in the taxon box, are not mentioned, nor are any related genera.

They are kind of glossed over in the source, so there's little more to say about them than what is already stated in the taxobox. But I'll try to see if I can add a bit more about the most notable ones. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taxon box:

1. It does not state that Thaumastotherium was preoccupied.

Will add, though this is done inconsistently across taxoboxes. But you gave me an idea, it should not be listed as a synonym under genera, because it is actually a valid genus of something else. So only the binomial version should be mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The authority for Baluchitherium osborni should be in brackets.

Why? I think brackets are only used when a binomial name is the result of a reassignment. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, essentially, the species was reclassified, from the preoccupied genus to a new one. IJReid (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but by the same author and the same year! So there would be no difference in information. Not sure how this is done for similar cases... Added anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The type or both species of Dzungariotherium should have a question mark preceeding it, as well as P. ordosensis in the synonyms list.

Well, there is no doubt that they are synonyms of Dzungariotherium/P. ordosensis, which is all the species synonymy list suggests? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy

1. Should be divided into sections containing info on specific species (redundant?)

Already is in a way, the three recognised species have a paragraph each on their discovery and locations. Not much more to say, because they are so similar that no differences in biology have been proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Smaller reference numbers should always be in front of larger numbers.

Where for example? FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

1. The second to ninth paragraphs should be in a subsection titled "Species and synonyms".

Hmmm, I'm not sure that is necessary, the term taxonomy already accounts for this. You may be thinking of dinosaur articles, but they usually don't have titles called taxonomy for some reason, but instead have a history of discoveries. Species and synonym sections are not used in all dinosaur articles even, much less in FAs, if you look. But hey, added a section anyway, since the part was so long. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph:

1. "He did not assign a species name I. asiaticum until 1923, but by 1922 Maria Pavlova had already named it I. transouralicum by 1922" redundant, grammar errors.

What part is redundant? I think the structure may have been changed during copy editing. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the second "by 1922". "He did not assign a species name I. asiaticum until 1923" is also wrong and should probably be changed to "He did not assign a species until 1923, when he named I. asiaticum. IJReid (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, may be a copy edit error. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1. What related forms?

The various genera that are not recognised today, for example. Already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph:

1. What other species, otherwise this won't be a full review of the taxonomy.

Well, they're all mentioned in the taxobox, all and every synonyms do not have to be explained in the article, that is rarely done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Eighth paragraph:

1. Why does this paragraph state that a highly revered study found P. prohorovi valid, while the taxon box contradict this?

Because a newer examination found it to be. I'll see if it has become less clear during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Twelfth paragraph:

1. Are any newer cladograms available?

Some Chinese ones that are not accepted by western scientists, as they include invalid taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you list them for me, as they might be useful for Forstercooperia? IJReid (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to work on that, the indricothere articles are sorely neglected, I'll send you something on your talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Description

First paragraph:

1. "The weight of Paraceratherium was approached by some extinct proboscideans; the largest complete skeleton known belonging to the steppe mammoth Mammuthus trogontherii" suspect that this was tampered with by the copy editor, but should should probably have an extra "but" or "with".

Added with, seems to have been changed~during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph:

1. Trochanters is incorrectly spelled.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Could remove the comma immediately after "reduced"

Which one? I'm fairly sure the way here is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph:

1. It should be mentioned that much of the skull is partially reconstructed (the cast material is easy to spot).

You mean in the image caption? No complete skull exists. The one in the photo is actually the most complete one, apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Great pic! IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Eighth paragraph:

1. "The teeth of P. orgosensis are 25 percent bigger than those of P. transouralicum, making it the largest known indricothere" how does that make sense?

Because it is mainly known from teeth, so there is not much else to compare with. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then that should probably be mentioned. IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't say this specifically, it says one plays that it is mainly known from teeth, and in another it says the stuff about size. If I relate the two, it is a kind of original synthesis, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not do "The teeth of P. ordosensis, which include almost all the material of the species, are ..." This would almost certainly not be original research, and mentioned that almost only teeth are known. IJReid (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it is mainly known from teeth is already mentioned under taxonomy, wouldn't it be redundant to mention it again? Added, anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Which species is the dental formula of?

I will come back to this soon, original source is in Russian. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've asked a user who added this to the German Wikipedia, not sure when she will respond. If it's a problem for passing GA, I can remove it until she responds. I'd like to nominate this for FA as soon as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A completed review of the article will come later. IJReid (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

After these last querries are completed, I do believe that this article meets the GA standards. Nice work! Also, an old reconstruction that is not outdated, Hurray! IJReid (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, mammal restorations age pretty well, because there are close living relatives they could be based on back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I hate citation template stuff, which one would you suggest I use for ref 29? FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the cite journal, which also doubles for magazines, which are generally more reliable than websites, which use cite web. IJReid (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, but it is a website? A blog? FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that cite web would indeed be more suitable. IJReid (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Final point

1. The cladogram should be referenced

Readded, must be some copy edit stuff again... FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is now passed!! :) IJReid (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

6m at the shoulder

During the process to improve this article, on September 2, the whole citation to Greg Paul 1992 conference abstract was removed from the article without explanation and replaced by a reference to Prothero's book, why was it removed, he produced an skeletal reconstruction of the thing and 4.8m is as tall as he got the largest individual represented by a metacarpal and some cervicals, he explained this further in Paul (1997) and his estimate for the most complete specimen (3.8m) agrees with Granger and Gregory (1936) improved reconstruction of the same individual. While not mentioning Greg Paul even once Prothero does mention Fortelius and Kappelman (1992) and how weights of 15-20t are more likely for the largest individuals, this agrees with Paul estimate for the largest specimen too (16.4t), a 6m tall individual will be as heavy as the weights he claims are exaggerated, 30t. My point being that Prothero didn't put much thought into that estimate and is not sufficient to "refute" Paul's estimate so as to completely remove the later without explanation. BTW the 8m nose to rump is still here despite being unsourced since... forever, it was added without citation. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul's estimate is just a throwaway line in an abstract ("4.8 m tall indricotheres were rather gracile at 16 tonnes"), he doesn't even state what genus he refers to (or even species), and he isn't cited in the rest of the literature. It is certainly not reliable enough to trump any other estimate. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "refuting Paul", 15-20t is well in line with Paul's estimate. The body length is from Fortelius and Kappelman (which the statement is cited to), but is also mentioned by Prothero. 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

As I wrote the estimate is explained further in Paul (1997) which was not referenced here though so I give you that. The specimen in question is mentioned in his online appendix, AMNH 26175, the "Indricotherium" transouralicum metacarpal assigned to grade 1 by Granger and Gregory. I said "refuting" Paul when talking only about the shoulder height estimate as Prothero's is also a throwaway line but one that has no further explanation anywhere. About the head body length of 8m, can you tell me the page number? I can only find those referenced to Gromova (1959) and Fortelius and Kappelman (1992), if you read the later you find that they argue that grade 1 of Granger and Gregory to be a size category not supported by fossil evidence, that "grade 2" at 7.25m in head-body length is the largest instead and that this agrees with Gromova's 7.4m head-body length, none of them round to 8m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Weirdly, his skeletal is not featured in the paper you linked, but I've seen it and one of a steppe mammoth in his Dinosaurs of the Air. Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 mention the 740-870 cm estimates and show a chart where the animal is a little less than 8 metres long. Hence my "about 8 metres long", it is in between, and it fits their chart. But I agree that we could probably be more specific by attributing the two estimates to the original authors, and then we can add Greg Paul's height estimate for good measure. I must admit that I probably muddled up your two complaints, I'm still a bit groggy after New Year's... Can you write up the citation for Paul's paper here so I can add it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all good haha, the skeletal is also in that paper but in the appendix which he uploaded separately for some reason. Here's the citation: Gregory S. Paul 1997 Dinosaur models: The good, the bad, and using them to estimate the mass of dinosaurs. Dinofest International Proceedings. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked length and height and gave more direct attribution, what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect!Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'East' and the 'West'

There are some problematic phrases in this articles which imply a binary division between 'Eastern' and 'Western' scientists and scientific practice - for example in the taxonomic debates where the articles reads "Outdated species concepts were being used in the East long after they had been abandoned by Western scientists". This is unfortunately similar to older and erroneous depictions of 'Western' science as inherently progressive and cutting edge, with 'Eastern' science implied to be regressive or derivative. This should be rephrased to avoid this implication, particularly when it is clear from contradictory phrases later in the article that 'Eastern' and 'Western' science are hardly monolithic and essentially divided in their approach - eg "Some western writers have similarly used names otherwise considered invalid since the 1989 revision, but without providing detailed analysis and justification". There were 'Eastern' and 'Western' scientists on both sides of this debate - and there are few definitions of 'Eastern' and 'Western' human endeavours which do not rest on some kind of historic prejudice. This is a good article, but it's let down by the appearance of East-West bias (perhaps also in the overall adjudication of the taxonomic debate). I haven't made these edits myself, as I'm not a regular editor on the page, but I suggest that someone should. 92.25.148.172 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not an invention of this article, it cites two major sources that go much more into detail about this problem, and give more context. Have a look at this recent paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10739-014-9395-y FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and swift response. But surely the article advances the same critique that I've made: that it's wrong to imply a stark divide between 'Eastern' and 'Western' scientists in this debate, or more generally - that the 'building' of this taxonomy was collaborative rather than undertaken in two camps (one of which includes scientists from European Russia as much as East Asia), and it's wrong to use these terms (which the article avoids in their unproblematised senbse) without defining what's meant by 'Eastern' and 'Western'. This Wiki article should be similarly cautious about using them without definition, since it risks being associated with the long-standing East-West prejudice which I've mentioned. 92.25.148.172 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have a look at the wording before long. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I snipped the following sentence, as it may be a bit too subjective, enough? "Outdated species concepts were being used in the East long after they had been abandoned by Western scientists." FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)