# Talk:Hibbertopterus

I see no reason why the tracks of an animal should be treated separately from the animal itself. It can hardly be because the article would be too long otherwise. --Stemonitis 12:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.  Well, one reason for keeping two separate articles is that hibbertopteroid track is about a specific geological feature that may be interesting in its own right for loads of reasons...discoverer, other tracks or fossils nearby, geology, etc etc.  None of this would be relevant to hibbertopteroids, but very relevant to hibbertopteroid track. Keep separate, that's what I say.

best wishes
Robinh 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the trackway was made by a 'Hibbertopterus', but in science the trackway and the animal are treated separately - the trackway will have its own scientific name (and ichnospecies) and can never be directly assigned to a species of producer. The articles should be separate.
Severan (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was it walking sideways on a wall, and why was the wall soft at the time? It looks like sedimentary rock to me.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hibbertopterus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, I'll be reviewing this article. It'll take around a week or so, because it's very verbose and uses terms I'm not totally familiar with. starsandwhales (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the images are reconstructions that are own works of ДиБгд. I'm counting that as OR unless these reconstructions were also published in some paper or article.
Well, reconstructions by wikipedia users are commonplace on article about extinct animals so I don't think it's normal to count them as OR, I'll ask at the relevant wikiproject but I haven't seen this complaint come up before. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added references on Commons matching the depictions in the article, as per what I was told by editors at Wikiproject Palaeontology. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok. starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of sentences that are unclear or somewhat confusing. Is there any way to rephrase these so it's easier for the average reader, such as defining certain words? starsandwhales (talk)
ex.
It used its specialised forward-facing appendages, equipped with several spines, to rake through the substrate of the environments in which it lived in search for small invertebrates to eat, which it could then push towards its mouth.
As such, Hibbertopterus would have used a hexapodal gait.
In 1831, Scottish naturalist John Scouler described the remains, consisting of a massive and unusual prosoma and several tergites, of a large and strange arthropod discovered in deposits in Scotland of Lower Carboniferous age, but did not assign a name to the fossils.
The three fragmentary genera were suggested to by synonyms of each other by American paleontologist James Lamsdell in 2010, which would have meant the oldest name, Dunsopterus, taking priority and subsuming both Cyrtoctenus and Vernonopterus.
I've explained and linked some of the words in the sentences you brought up. I'm not sure if that's enough but it is a bit inherently difficult since the animal in question here is quite obscure and virtually only written about academically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
MoS says that citations go right before periods (occasionally commas). Basically the citation is given at the end of the phrase or sentence. starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd need some specific examples of where this is violated. I know in some cases that citations pop up in the middle of the text here but for the most part that should be when a specific study is referenced, e.g. "a 2018 survey[8]". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Double check for duplicate links starsandwhales (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless one counts the lead section that should be all duplicate links gone. There are some duplicate links remaining in the "table of species" but I think that should be fine since the order of things in it can be rearranged and it's just linking specific time periods. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Everything looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is currently factually incorrect in considering Hibbertopterus, Cyrtoctenus, and Dunsopterus synonyms. The synonymy was taken from an unpublished MS thesis, which are explicitly not considered valid for taxonomic works by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. At present, Hibbertopterus, Cyrtoctenus, and Dunsopterus are valid and distinct genera. Severan July 6, 2021

No, it's not factually incorrect and the situation is outlined very clearly under the section "Cyrtoctenus and Dunsopterus". Several researchers have suggested the genera to be synonymous since back in the 1980s and I'm not aware of any recent paper exploring in detail what would make them distinct from each other. Even if such papers would exist, it's also fine to lump genera together even when synonymity is not universally agreed, see the article on the dinosaur Irritator, which also includes fossil material described under the name Angaturama, which is not completely universally agreed to be the same animal, though it is extremely likely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The ICZN is pretty clear - synonymy is only achieved via valid taxonomic works, and these genera have not been officially synonymized yet. I'm one of the researchers working on them, so I know what the situation is. Severan July 7, 2021

Keep in mind that if you're a researcher working on the genera you are strongly discouraged from editing their articles here per WP:COI - discussing matters on the talk page like this is fine though. As I said, I believe the situation is quite clearly outlined under the relevant section of this article. Following in the line of other articles were synonymy has been repeatedly suggested, and never seriously contested, i.e. Irritator (with Angaturama), it should be fine to treat Dunsopterus and Cyrtoctenus in this article. For another relevant example, see how the article on Tyrannosaurus includes Nanotyrannus. I again ask for recent works contesting Hibbertopterus, Dunsopterus and Cyrtoctenus being congeneric. Perhaps you're also aware that while Hughes (2019) is a graduate thesis, Hughes also co-wrote a later 2020 paper with James Lamsdell, which also synonymized the three genera? For the sake of completion I've added that paper as a reference to the article as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am James Lamsdell, and we did not synonymise the genera in the appendage armature paper. The fact of the matter is that there has been no systematic work that has synonymised these genera - it has just been suggested. Severan July 7, 2021  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:C101:570:340C:6382:96CF:CB33 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC) 

Well what do you know, that does change things. I assumed the 2020 paper explicitly synonymized them given that the abstract I found (can't access the whole thing) explicitly states "The strong morphological similarities between Hibbertopterus and Dunsopterus warrant their synonymization, and because Dunsopterus is paraphyletic with respect to Cyrtoctenus, all three genera are synonymized". I have re-worded the relevant bits of the "Cyrtoctenus and Dunsopterus" section so that it is clear that the 2019 thesis and 2020 paper suggest synonymization.
I still believe, per the Irritator and Tyrannosaurus examples, that treating Cyrtoctenus and Dunsopterus here should be fine if the many suggestions of synonymization have never been clearly contended (though perhaps with some edited bits here and there), but I can consult with the other editors of the paleontology project if you wish. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Lamsdell, I'm surprised to see your participation here. Please take in account in Wikipedia there's mostly volunteer editors who only expand articles as a hobby in their free time and who don't always have some kind of particular professional training in the topic, at least this is in my case (stating so as me and Ichthyovenator could be considered the two biggest recent contributors in eurypterid-related topics in Wikipedia). Thus, it is possible some articles may not be exactly in line with academic consensus.
Now onto the problem, I had assumed the three genera had been formally synonymized already or that they would be eventually at least, considering the first thesis talking about this appears to treat them like that (speaking for the Systematic Paleontology section on Hughes' 2019 thesis, starting at page 37. I also do not have access to your 2020 thesis with Hughes so I can't say anything from it). I had always considered that when there was a systematic paleontology (or similar) section on a scientific article, the change had been made formal. I am speaking for myself but I believe Ichthyovenator's procedures are similar to mines.
On this website, we've considered theses to have some important relevance when writing articles, the biggest example for this probably being the Waeringopteridae situation in which Grossopterus, Orcanopterus and Waeringopterus are pretty much always grouped in one single family in academic sources (as far as I know) even though the family (and superfamily) have never been formally published. In Wikipedia articles, we've always grouped them in these informal clades. It is probable this issue arises from this earlier practice from us, and it would be impractical to stop using these informal clades to opt for the still official but outdated I dare to say stance in which Waeringopteridae and Waeringopteroidea do not exist yet.
As the mergers in Wikipedia have already been done, it would also be impractical to undo them considering Hibbertopterus, Cyrtoctenus and Dunsopterus might also start being treated as synonyms in future academic articles. So maybe you can shed some light into this, does any researcher (including youself) have any intention of making official the suggested synonymization of the three genera? If so, maybe there's not much point in treating the three genera as separate again just to undo the changes after a few years. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone; yes, this is more of a technical issue. We are working on revising the genera, so things are likely to change in a year or so, however the exact treatment is likely to be different from the preliminary results presented in the thesis. I just wanted to note initially that theses and dissertations are considered unpublished and invalid for ICZN taxonomic acts - this is particularly relevant if new taxa or species are named in them. Wikipedia is also not considered a valid taxonomic repository, so what happens here has little impact in that regard (except for the question of whether or not the articles aim to be completely accurate in representing the current state of the science), however it can be considered bad form among scientists to trawl through recently published theses and advertise their conclusions before they are peer reviewed and published.
I understand this is just a difference in perspective, I just wanted to the issue here on the talk page for the article. I regularly check up on the various arthropod pages, but don't have time to contribute to them myself.
Severan (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Lamsdell, I would just say that Super Dromaeosaurus Ichthyovenator is incorrect. Academics do not have a conflict of interest with the topics that they write about. I generally agree that we should not be using unpublished thesis for taxonomic purposes. That said, I don't think articles on the other two genera should be split out for now, pending the revision of the taxonomy. I have modified some of the pose to make the synonymy "possible" rathen than "generally agreed". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, Lamsdell. If new changes are coming in just around one year, I would wait to see the results and then decide what to do with these articles. Hemiauchenia, read carefully, it wasn't me who mentioned conflicts of interests. I am also largely in favor of academics and researchers, if specialized in pretty much uncontroversial topics like paleontology, to edit pages they are related to in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't paying enough attention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Severan: I apologize for coming off a bit headstrong earlier. As Super Dromaeosaurus wrote, we've worked to expand the eurypterid coverage on Wikipedia for a while and though we've followed what sources we can find, we are not arthropod researchers. Misinformed edits and comments are unfortunately quite common on Wikipedia and since you initially did not provide any credentials or sources and I considered the article to be well-cited, I at first assumed this was another case of that. You are of course correct in that the genera have not been formally synonymized, I should have examined the cited material more closely. Per what Super Dromaeosaurus and Hemiauchenia said, I believe that the three genera can be treated in this article for now, especially given that they have been suggested to be synonyms so often and given your pending taxonomical revision. When the revision is published we will revise our coverage and split off article(s) if necessary. In the meantime, I've continued in Hemiauchenia's footsteps and made some minor adjustments to make it clear that the genera are not formally synonyms just yet. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)