# Talk:Pseudamphimeryx

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pseudamphimeryx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one, some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
At first glance, there seem to be a bunch of unnecessary duplinks that can be highlighted with the usual script.[1]
I made a Commons category for the images:[2]
Footnote B could have a citation?
Is it appropriate to include a sizable cladogram that doesn't even show this genus, whe  you seem to have one below that does? Also, Amphimeryx murinus should not be bold in it, not being the subject of the article.
Redirect all the species, and I'd do that with synonyms and alt combinations too.
Link restoration in first caption.
Give years for historical image captions.
Done all the above except for the 4th suggestion, as it's meant to highlight the overall phylogenetic position of the family (Amphimeryx is highlighted in the first to represent that). PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Can't it just have Ruminantia and Cainotherioidea (and other more derived clades) collapsed, then? Given the basal position of the point of interest, I'm not sure why we need all that excess detail (and resulting size). Second cladogram seems fine, though, as the subject is in a more complex position. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the size of the first cladogram is that problematic since it's not really that large (I don't really know how to handle Wikipedia's cladograms anyway). PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It's very large for a cladogram that doesn't even include the subject, we can ask someone at WP:treereq as usual. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Pinging SlvrHwk for thoughts, who has made some other mammal cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the first cladogram takes up more space than it needs to, especially since the genus in question isn't even featured. In my opinion, it doesn't really help with showing the position of the family in the first place. At the very least, some hidden clades should be instated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
" which was previously classified to Cainotherium" Classified as.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"that differed from Amphimeryx only by specific cranial and dental traits" But was it even known by anything else? If not, then "only" is misleading, as it implies that there are no other features that could potentially distinguish them.
At the time in 1910, it had no known postcranial material, but I'll just remove it anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"then Xiphodontherium (the latter synonymized with Amphimeryx)" I'm not sure what the part in partenthesis means. It was a synonym at the time? He synonymized it? It is a synonym now?
Specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"it was first named by the naturalists François Jules Pictet de la Rive and Aloïs Humbert in 1869." The chronology is very confusing at the beginning of the article, you should start with when the species was named, then go on to explain it was later moved to a new genus, suddenly jumping back in time makes it difficult to follow.
Except for cases where the research history of a given genus is extensive, I think it's better to delve straight into the genus being named first. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I disagree, it makes it more confusing than it needs to be, but I'll not press it further at GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"He also recognized two additional taxa from the Phosphorites du Quercy site: P. Renevieri var. Pavlowiae and P. decedens" You should explain what is meant by "var.", as this is not common knowledge.
Provided explanation in footnote. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"recognized P. pavloviae as a distinct species" No explanation why this name is suddenly spelled differently.
Provided explanation. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"these morphologies previously gave palaeontologists ideas of the appearance of the skull of Pseudamphimeryx" I'm not sure what this means in the context or why it belongs under taxonomy?
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"not present in any other skull of other amphimerycid species" Double "other" is unnecessary, and to be less wordy, just say "amphimerycids".
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"that the now-lost skull" By then lost skull could be clearer.
Revised. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"In 1986, however, Geneviève Bouvrain, Denis Geraads and Jean Sudre" This is the second time you mention Sudre, should spell out the full name at first mention.
I already mentioned his full name before, but removed the first name at the second mention. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
You link Iberomeryx at second instead of first mention.
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"was both a nomen dubium and potentially a junior synonym of P. renevieri" it can't be both, so should be "either".
Revised. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"Because of some similar anatomical traits of the amphimerycids to those of ruminants" Link ruminants in caption.
Added link. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"Palaeogeography of Europe and Asia during the Middle Eocene with possible artiodactyl and perissodactyl dispersal routes." Link Eocene, artiodactyl, and perissodactyl.
Added links. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Link endemic.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link and explain selenodont at first mention.
Linked and explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"making them the first selenodont dentition artiodactyl representatives" Confusing and wordy, "the first artiodactyls with selenodont dentition" or such would be clearer and simpler.
Rephrased. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link Grande Coupure at first mention.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"Because of its similar anatomical traits with ruminants, some palaeontologists had originally included it within" As this is a new paragraph, specify what "it" refers to.
Specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link sister taxa.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"Its affinities, along with those of other endemic European artiodactyls, are unclear" again, specify "it", as you don't mention a genus in the preceding sentence.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link and explain derived.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
The classification section doesn't give dates or names for anything prior to 2019, is there one seminal earlier revision or scheme that could get some names and dates attached?
I'm not sure I follow. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Classification of this taxon obviously goes far back, but you only name a 2019 study by name? There must have been earlier ones of equal importance? FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
"The results retrieved that the superfamily was" I'm not sure retrieved is used correctly here.
Replaced with "found." PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"The phylogenetic tree used for the journal and another published work about the cainotherioids is outlined below" First, used by an entire journal? You mean the specific article? Second, is this WP:synth of two cladograms, as indicated by "and another published work"?
No, this is the same cladogram but used in two different journals. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mention in the prose? And why not cite both then? FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Link and explain basal.
Linked and explained. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"tree of the basal artiodactyls, a majority endemic to western Europe" What is meant by this, that basal artiodactyls in general were mainly endemic there, or just the ones shown?
Specified to mean a majority of artiodactyls in the cladogram. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
State in the prose that the second cladogram specifically includes Pseudamphimeryx.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link and explain monophyletic, paraphyletic, and synapomorphies.
Explained and linked all. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure the given explanations are appropriate, monophyletic is a "natural" group and paraphyletic is an "unnatural" group, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not having descendants (descendants of a monophyletic group are just considered part of that group, for example). FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Link clade.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"In terms of the amphimerycids, while the clade consisting of P. renevieri and A. murinus was recovered as a sister group to the other endemic artiodactyl clades, the placement of P. schlosseri has rendered the Amphimerycidae paraphyletic in relation to the derived amphimerycid species and other families. He argued that the Amphimerycidae thus needs a systemic revision for which P. schlosseri would be assigned to a new genus and removed from the Amphimerycidae.[14]" If there is a newert cladogram including this genus, why is it not the one shown in the article? I'd certainly think two cladograms showing the subject of the article in different positions would be more important to include than the first one that doesn't even include it.
I'm not sure as to whether PhD cladograms are worth including considering that they're not from academic peer-reviewed publications. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Overlooked that, but could be taken intro consideration if it gets published. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Anything occipital crest can link to?
It links to a disambiguation page because nobody bothered to create a general page for it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"Its skull additionally resembles those of both Dacrytherium and Tapirulus." This is from a 1927 source, and at least the first genus does not seem to be thought closely related anymore, so is this part and others like it still relevant?
Amphimeryx is very similar to Pseudamphimeryx in skull form with specific differences, so I suspect that it's still relevant. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"the latter of which divides into two less prominent branches behind the fronto-parietal suture that extend up to the supraorbital foramen." Why sudden change of tense? Check for such throughout.
Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Link or explain glenoid.
Linked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"are large plus flat" Not sure "plus" is appropriate in sentences like this, seems very informal.
Changed to "and." PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"That of Amphimeryx is close to the orbits' upper edges" What does "that" refer to?
Specified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Articles like this could really need annotated diagrams of skulls to guide the reader. This goes for all the articles you've written, I'd say.
I'll consider requesting skeleton diagram images if someone is willing to do so, but I don't know anyone who makes such images. I'll consider asking the Discord server sometime. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Requests can of course also be made directly on the image review page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
"has an extensive pars facialis" Something like this, and honestly many other terms, need in-text explanation.
Explained pars facialis. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"There is no difference between both amphimerycids in terms of the orbits, suggesting based on their morphologies that the snouts of both genera are elongated." I'm not sure what the former has to do with the latter? And does this mean that the skulls are not completely known? If so, should be stated outright somewhere.
Decided to delete the 2nd half. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"the frontonasal suture is implied to have formed a W shape on the skull's upper surface like that of Pseudamphimeryx" Does the suture imply, or is it implied by researchers? Either way, needs clarification.
Specified in terms of the latter. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"although the endocasts of it and Amphimeryx were not as closely described in detail." What does "closely described"? mean?
Rephrased to well-studied. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
" fossils classified to Pseudamphimeryx" Not sure you can say "classified to", either say assigned to or classified as.
Chose "assigned." PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"and is known from postcranial fossils from multiple localities" Not sure why this detail is needed under description, also, since it's a postcranial bone, goes without saying it's known from postcranial fossils.
Removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"with Sudre differing P. pavloviae from P. renevieri" Differentiating or distinguishing.
Chose the former. 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"(both of which coexisted with each other)" Very long-winded way of saying "which coexisted".
Simplified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
There seem to be comparisons to mouse-deers in the choice of photo and the restoration, but do any sources specifically mention this similarity that could be added?
Added a tragulid mention in the main body. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"and therefore differ little with the incisors themselves." Differ from?
Emended. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"a hothouse climate climate" Why double climate? If this is intentional, it could be done in a more elegant way.
Removed one of the "climates." PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"tropical environments with consistently high precipitations prevailed" Where instead of with?
That would make it a fragmented sentence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"The Amphimerycidae, and by extent the first genus Pseudamphimeryx" Is oldest meant by first?
Yes. Changed to "older." PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"The unit MP16 records the appearances of P. renevieri and P. pavloviae, both of which are recorded from the MP16 French locality of Robiac" Repetitive to have "recorded" twice in a sentence.
Replaced the second with "known." PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"as many as four total species" Why is "total" necessary?
Removed total. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Anything about its biology?
Not really much that can make paleobiology a separate section, no. What little of such is touched upon in the description section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
" from another amphimerycid Amphimeryx" needs comma before the genus name.
Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Changes look good, will pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)