# Talk:Ornithocheiromorpha

From what I've seen in a document, it described this group as being a sister taxon to Anhangueria, not within it. Shouldn't it be move into that position? OviraptorFan (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Got that fixed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ornithocheiromorpha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a big ol article but I will try and tackle it. First impressions are alright, but there may be too many images that take up space and also are not very relevant to the content they are placed near. I'll start with some proper suggestions below. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Many paragraphs lack references at the ends, these are required
History of research:

Not required but at first mentions it is probably best to give full names, and nationalities, eg. "brasilian paleontologist Alexander Kellner"
It should be specified that Kent is in England/UK
The overall structure of the section is off, it should be arranged chronologically within paragraphs, so Lonchodectes being named is before Lonchodraco, Ornithocheirus being named should be before Lonchodectes, etc.
The use of "renamed" when you're talking about reassigning a species to a different but not new genus is incorrect
Two occurrences of this still exist, and should all be replaced with "reassigned". Paragraph 2 has 2 at the ends of the two last sentences
Seeley not designating a type species is incorrect and should be removed
Some of the sentence structure seems off, I'll put some suggestions here
"But it was then considered a nomen dubium and therefore, they created a new genus called Lonchodraco, resulting in a Lonchodraco giganteus." -> "Lonchodectes was then considered to be a nomen dubium so Rodrigues and Kellner created the new genus Lonchodraco ti contain the valid species L. giganteus"
"In the same chalk pit where P. giganteus was found, there were also unearthed remains of two other pterosaur species, one of which was named in 1851, also by Bowerbank, as Pterodactylus cuvieri;[2] in honor to George Cuvier, and the second species was described by Richard Owen, also in 1851, as Pterodactylus compressirostris, although it is currently known as the type species of Lonchodectes." -> "In the same chalf pit as P. giganteus, two other pterosaur species were discovered. The first was named in 1851 by Bowerbank as Pterodactylus cuvieri in honour of the prominent german scientist Georges Cuvier, while the second was described by british paleontologist Sir Richard Owen in 1851 as Pterodactylus compressirostris."
"In 1861, fossil remains found yet again in the UK, were also referred as new Pterodactylus species and Richard Owen described it as P. simus, but in the same year, Harry Govier Seeley created a new genus named Ornithocheirus, "bird hand", as paleontologists in this period still considered pterosaurs to be the direct ancestors of birds." -> "In 1861 further pterosaur specimens were found in the UK, and were also given new species Pterodactylus simus by Owen. British paleontologist Harry Seeley then created the new genus Ornithicheirus for the species in the same year, the generic name translating as "bird hand" due to the notion of the time that pterosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds."
The rest of the section reads alright apart from the points I've mentioned above. I'm going to hold the review here until the most pressing issue of citations is dealt with. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Before anything else, I should say thanks. I actually didn't expect to get a reviewer this soon, besides, this is my first GA nominee, and I'll try not to mess this up! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Changed first segment of history based on your suggestions, but where should we put the renamings of P. cuvieri into Cimoliopterus and P. giganteus into Lonchodraco? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say directly after (or at the end of) the paragraph on Hooley's 1913 work, since the following paragraphs don't overlap in content so it wouldn't cause confusion. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Some references don't match up with their content. P. compressirostris is cited using Bowerbank 1851, which doesn't include it, talk of Seeley 1870 is cited by Seeley 1869, Seeley's disagreement of Owen's work, along with Nortan 1888 is cited to a DML post. Hooley 1914 should also be cited at the end of the sentence naming Lonchodectes and Amblydectes. O. nobilis and O. latidens lack citations. Hooley 1913 should be cited at the end of the sentences describing his thoughts.
The image of P. cuvieri should be moved to the paragraph of Seeley 1870 to Norton 1888 so it doesn't overlap with the one of P. giganteus above
Cited Owen 1851 for P. compressirostris, rearranged Seeley 1870, the reference was already there, but misplaced, added citation to Hooley 1914, moved ref Hooley 1913 at the end of sentence and added ref to O. latidens. I've actually removed Newton 1888, mostly because it explains about Coloborhynchus clavirostris instead of Ornithocheirus, and it also lacks references. Also, I've added a paragraph about the reassignings of P. cuvieri and P. giganteus in 2013, let me know if I need to add or change something from that segment. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The placement in the genus Lonchodraco should be mentioned after the discussion of A. cuvieri
Stating "Another discovery in Asia" implies there was one previous, which is not mentioned
The end of the sentence discuss size and nests needs a citation
Statement of discovery in Asia corrected, added citation at the end, also replaced "renamed" with "reassigned" in paragraph 2. As for Lonchodraco, what do you mean by mentioned after A. cuvieri? Maybe you misspelled A. cuvieri instead of C. cuvieri? Regardless, the naming of Lonchodraco (formerly Pterodactylus giganteus) is placed after the 2013 description of C. cuvieri (formerly Pterodactylus cuvieri). Though maybe I misunderstood? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The mention of Anhanguera cuvieri in the south american section should be followed up with a very brief note about it now being Lonchodraco. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Added brief mention in the south american section, note that Anhanguera cuvieri is a synonym of Cimoliopterus cuvieri, not Lonchodraco, which I forgot to mention earlier. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Description:

The "average size range" should have a citation or its hard to tell how legitimate it is
I'm not quite sure why the pelvis gets a section but the rest of the skeleton beyond wings and skull is not
Honestly the rest of the section reads well and seems to be good. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Added reference to average size range. Also added more info on parts of the skeleton such as limbs and vertebrae to match the statement of the pelvis, if it's too much, I'm actually OK with removing it. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Seeing how none of the non-wing and non-skull information is directly related to Ornithocheiromorpha, I think it would be best if each section was halved or more and combined into a "postcrania" section instead of separated. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Removed a chunk of the non-related info of the body parts. How is it now? JurassicClassic767 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Classification:

Being recently named is subjective, probably removed unless a source says that
Usefulness is subjective, probably removed unless a source says that
Newly named is subjective, see above
Targaryendraconia and Hamipteridae being singled out as the important subgroups seems odd
Perhaps just start the section with "Several studies show that ..."
"Early controversial analyses" -> "Early and controversial morphological comparisons" as analysis implied phylogenetic
"to group [them] with Ornithocheirus" probably specify istiodactylids
"but then led to debates" -> "which then led to debates"
"showed that Lonchodectidae was thus" -> "showed that Lonchodectidae was instead"
"but resulting in a basal placement, due to uncertain ..." -> "but was given a basal placement because of uncertain ..."
"and therefore considered Lonchodraconidae a synonym." -> "and therefore synonymizing the two families."
"Brian Andres and colleagues had since found the families Istiodactylidae, Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae to group in a new clade called Lanceodontia, which consists of the toothed ornithocheiromorphs with certain placement. The uncertainty of the placement of Lonchodectidae, had since considered it a basal family within Ornithocheiromorpha, even though the members of the family have been seen as derived forms of toothed pterosaurs." -> "Brian Andres and colleagues found the families Istiodactylidae, Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae to form a group in [year] they named Lanceodontia. The clade excludes the more poorly known family Lonchodectidae, even though members of the family had previously been seen as some of the most derived forms of toothed pterosaurs."
"but suggested that Serradraco didn't belong to the family, and thus was just a basal member of the group"
"which also follows the analyses by Andres & Myers (2014) and Pêgas et al. (2019)" -> "which is an updated version of the analyses by ..."
Done, it was actually pretty easy, no doubts in this one. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Following Hooley 1913 sentence, "In the analysis" -> "In the comparisons"
"With the analysis of Lonchodectes, its family ..." -> "Studies on Lonchodectes and its family ..."
"toothed ornithocheiromorphs with certain placement."
Fixed. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Paleobiology:

Reads well, not much to say beyond:
The first paragraph of diet is entirely focused on istiodactylus and not other ornithocheiromorphs, cutting it down in size would be nice
Liaxiopterus has been suggested to not be an insectivore https://peerj.com/articles/8292/
Paleoecology:

The image is not great, something more accurate or at least visually interesting and focused on the pterosaurs would be nice
Added suggestion of Liaoxipterus not being an insectivore, cut the Istiodactylus paleobiology paragraph a bit. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a replacement for the inaccurate image. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"and even some are believed to belong from the Turonian stage" -> "and some are even believed to belong to the Turonian stage"
"are both classified as basal members of Ornithocheiromorpha, even if they are derived genera, this is due to complex taxonomy issues." -> "are both classified as basal members of Ornithocheiromorpha despite their young ages, due to complex taxonomy issues."
"Ornithocheiromorphs were present since the Early Cretaceous (Valanginian stage), and therefore started evolving throughout the rest of the period." Link Valanginian, reword to "and evolved throughout the rest of the Cretaceous"
"Following the studies of the ornithocheirids Tropeognathus and Anhanguera, suggested that ornithocheiromorphs also expanded territorial range as well as evolutionary traits, and therefore several genera from Asia such as Hamipterus and Nurhachius had common ornithocheiromorph features, as well as having their own unique ones." -> "Studies on the ornithocheirids Tropeognathus and Anhanguera suggested that ornithocheiromorphs expanded their distribution while also evolving more specialized features."
"The significant evolutionadaptations of the ornithocheiromorphs had also made them the top pterosaurs in almost every formation ofby the early Late Cretaceous, including the ones where they rarely existedthey were rare in, such as the Blesa Formation in Spain, limiting to Iberodactylus as the only confirmed pterosaur from that formation. where only Iberodactylus has been found."
Reworded, Valanginian is already linked in the lead section. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Recommendations against duplicate linking only apply within the body of the article, links are allowed to be both in the lead and the body, so I would suggest that here. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The image of Australovenator is both inaccurate and doesn't represent the pterosaur content, I would suggest replacing that with the skeletal of Ferrodraco.
An image of the Irritator skeleton attacking a pterosaur could be added for the Santana section.
Replaced images as you said, also linked Valanginian. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead:

"Examples of such enlarged wingspan estimates belong to the very well known Quetzalcoatlus." This seems out of context and probably unnecessary, the mention that azhdarchids got larger already exists.
Fixed. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well that is all I have, time to give this a pass. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@IJReid: Thanks for the efforts on the review! JurassicClassic767 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Whut? Who the fuck passed this? Just a quick read already gives "Brian Andres and [who??] found...." (under Classification). Then an unedited reference ".< ref  >Bennett, S. C. (1994)"... and that is just what catches the eye. There needs to be much more scrutiny and not just 1 "reviewer". You need to do more work and give this actual attention, I revert the GA. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tisquesusa: Thanks for alerting, I've corrected the mistake. I don't even know how that didn't get corrected, as for the reference, there was actually nothing wrong. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tisquesusa: Yes I am indeed a single reviewer. And I am the only reviewer required for a Good Article Review. If you wish to challenge the quality of my review (I read through every single sentence see above) please request a reassessment, but do not touch what I have concluded to be the correct assessment of this article until that reassessment has concluded. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at the GA criteria, Tisquesusa? "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required." Perhaps quibbling over minor details like reference formatting and commas is not the most important aspect of an article's quality. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I do agree Lythronaxargestes, also, I was wondering what was that about the unedited reference "Bennett (1994)", it was perfectly fine and it cited the systematics of Pteranodontoidea, which is why it was placed there (if you didn't know), so there was nothing with that. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This image of Guidraco is a foam reconstruction of the isolated head and spine - an in-progress picture from the construction of this mount. I don't think it's a good choice of image for the vertebrae section, because most of the vertebral column is reconstructed based on related taxa (the actual fossil only preserves a few cervicals), and it may be difficult for the reader to determine where the cervical series ends and the dorsals begin, so making reference to the length of the neck could lead to the wrong impression. I've replaced it with a plate containing illustrations of Istiodactylus's vertebrae (including the notarium), although it could be replaced with a different, more fitting image. Shuvuuia (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

While I think the paragraph is fine to remain, I agree the image should be replaced, I was going to put in Tropeognathus since it was mentioned in the section but there were no images of its verts. The image doesn't even match the known cervicals, which are much more elongate. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree on the things you' ve said, and I guess the "mount" of the vertebrae is still being "mounted"? I also agree that the Tropeognathus would actually be the best idea, but the problem is that we don't have, so for now we just go for Istiodactylus then? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shuvuuia: Hey, thanks for expanding the vertebrae section, and mentioning Istio, Anhanguera and Zhenyuanopterus within. I wasn't actually expecting that.
@IJReid: This may not be related to the Guidraco vertebrae talk, but that cladogram I added to Mimodactylidae was no OR, it was originally by Kellner 2019, though as suggested by User:Shuvuuia, we should include the topology by Pêgas 2019 (Targaryendraconia + Boreopteridae), 'cause their identical (according to Shuvuuia), but I think the final decision is that we'll just use separate cladograms (which aren't OR) for certain taxa to avoid confusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortuntely no the result of Pegas is not identical to that of Kellner. While the Pegas result is what was used, with the addition of Mimodactylus sister to Haopterus, it is not a published result in any way because of the nature of analyses. It would be more proper to say "with Mimodactylus sister to Haopterus as in Kellner 2019" but this is still artificially illustrating a result that was not published. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That was also what I was thinking, so I made a cladogram with the Pegas results (the second cladogram), excluding Mimodactylus according to the analysis of Targaryendraco, and since Lanceodontia is a synonym of Ornithocheiromorpha, it'll be the closest to precise to put in the classification section (well, I've already put it). The "composite" cladogram of Pegas 2019 + Kellner 2019 analyses was Shuvuuia's idea, and I insisted that no refs say it, but I haven't received a response since my last reply. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of folks over at WT:PAL have discussed a big consolidation of the taxonomy articles for Pterosauria.  The exact details of our plan can be found here.  I will be posting a notice on all the proposed articles so that anyone can express objection/support regarding any specific merge in particular.  The merges in general are based on the criteria of WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:REDUNDANT as well as the precedent established with the merging of similar dinosaur articles (Cerapoda, Genasauria, Plateosauria, Averostra, etc). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per the original discussion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we also merge Pteranodontoidea and Ornithocheiromorpha? (If we're doing the same for all "higher" taxa it's strange that it hasn't been done here. It wouldn't be too much of a change.) 173.56.57.148 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Or alternatively Pteranodontoidea and Pteranodontia. Whichever causes the least disruption. 173.56.57.148 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
My logic on pushing to keep all three articles was that Pteranodontia and Ornithocheiromorpha are far more useful clades to have pages for, but Pteranodontoidea is too major of a node to justify merging up into Pterodactyloidea. If we merged this page up we'd need the article about ornithocheiromorphs to cover pteranodontians too, or vice versa. You'd really start to lose focus when trying to cover two quite different lineages from two halves of the Cretaceous, especially when Ornithocheiromorpha is increasingly diverse on its own. Pteranodontoidea as a whole is just a huge topic and I think both major divisions mandate articles. The actual Pteranodontoidea article itself is frankly of little use (and if we had to ditch one of the three, that would absolutely be my pick), but it just doesn't feel right to me to have articles for Archaeopterodactyloidea and Azhdarchoidea but not the third major division of Pterodactyloidea. Similar logic was applied when Marginocephalia was kept in the dinosaur merges, I believe. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)