# Talk:Slimonia

This is the text as it originally appeared:

Slimonia is a genus of Silurian eurypterid closely related to the infamous Pterygotus. Slimonia closely resembled Pterygotus, save that the former's telson is larger, and that its body was smaller and more slender than the latter. The main difference between the two genera, though, was that Slimonia was exclusively freshwater, whereas Pterygotus lived in estuaries. Slimonia preyed on smaller freshwater fish, such as heterostracans and early osteostracans, by seizing and rending them with its pair of large chelicerae (pincers). The largest species of Slimonia was extremely long, around two meters, carrying its body on spindly legs and probably hunting through sudden rushes from hiding. The lungs of the species were located on the underside of the body in a series of folds. It would have been tough to crack through the armor of the early osteostracans and heterostracans, so Slimonia probably devised some primitive hunting tactics.[1]
I've tidied the article and removed the last sentence. It's speculative, vague and reads like something out of a children's book. It could at least be more direct in what it's trying to say; all it really accomplished was to state in a very roundabout way that we don't know something that doesn't really seem that important in the first place. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add an anatomical description  from the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.  It will raise some issues, however, as it is at odds with both the illustration and the preceding description, which appears to be drawn from a popular book by Richard Fortey.  While Fortey is a specialist in paleozoic arthropods, I am still going to post the TIP description, because it is quite specific.
It is possible that the genus Slimonia has been formally reappraised, resituated, or redescribed since TIP volume P was published in 1955.  If that is the case, anyone is free to amend or replace the TIP description.
I am also going to change the statement that Slimonia is "closely" related to 
Pterygotus.  Both are eurypterids, and both are large, but it appears to end there.  They are in different families.  The discussion of similarities between them is a mess as well, but I'll leave it for now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digthepast (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 
In fact, it looks like Novojilov 1968 redefined the Hughmilleriidae as Slimonidae.  If anyone has access to an updated description accompanying that, please post it.--Digthepast (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slimonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Citations are generally not needed in the lead section, since it is only supposed to be a summary of the article, with no unique info. Sometimes citations can be added for controversial statements, though I doubt there are many controversies in this case.
Got it. I doubt anything is controversial and as all the statements are also in the article itself (and more expanded upon there) it should be fine. Removed citations from the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps state where the taxobox image fossil is housed.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"more derived" Link and explain in parenthesis.
Done, a better explanation might by needed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I usually write something similar. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"The pterygotid telson was in general slightly larger than that of Slimonia and they were more slender." You go from singular to plural for some reason.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Most of the middle paragraph under description is about function rather than form. Why is this not unde rpaleoecology or a paleobiology section?
Done, paleobiology section has been added and paleoecology section expanded with redistributed content. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"Prey likely included animals such as heterostracans and early osteostracans" Specify they were jawless fish?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"The largest species of Slimonia, S. acuminata, reached a maximum length of 100 cm (39 in)" You should also give a minimum species size here. species.
Added size of the smallest species. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"and a telson with a "strongly expanded anterior half"." Why a quote?
Removed quote. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
" Genital appendages were long and narrow in both males and females." How are they sexed?
There are two distinct types of genital appendages but it is unknown which one belongs to which sex, they are most commonly referred to as "type A" and "B" genital appendages, but I thought it might be more simple to just write male and female as this refers to both types of appendages. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally I would incorporate all the info in the species section under description, history, and other more specialised sections, but it's up to you. I do think lists in articles are discouraged, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
What do the names of the species mean?
I will see if I can find out. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems a bit arbitrary which species are covered under history or not (and what writers are mentioned). Ideally, the circumstances about the naming of all of them should be covered there.
It covers 3 of 4, I have so far been unable to find any substantial sources on S. boliviana. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The last section under history also seems like something that would make more sense in a paleobiology/ecology section (maybe you should have two separate sections).
This is also in the current paleoecology section, but more expanded upon there. I figured since this was a study that was actually talked about outside of actual papers (link) it could also warrant inclusion under history? Maybe not? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't duplicate info like that. With for example dinosaurs, every new research paper has fanfare pop science articles like that, so it would be endless if every single news splash would need to be mentioned under history... History is usually reserved for discoveries of specimens, naming, and nomenclature changes. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, removed it from history. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I was going to ask if this[1] restoration could be used, but then I saw the huge arms, which are not shown in the other restorations here. I guess it is inaccurate? I'll add the inaccurate paleoart template then.
Yeah, Slimonia did not have huge arms (they are a feature only found within the Pterygotidae family). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Could be stated what other genera are included in its family.
The only other genus is Salteropterus, which is mentioned in passing in the article, I will add it more prominently when I go through the structural changes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Now mentions Salteropterus in the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"it is likely that the articulation seen in the postabdominal segments would have been possible in life" What can be inferred from this? Why would this articulation be surprising? If purely descriptional, this should be moved to the description section.
Surprising because studies have shown that eurypterid bodies would have been very stiff dorsally. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"where remains of S. dubia have been found, preserve fossils of a large amount of" It seems arbitrary that you only list animals that lived alongside S. dubia, and not the other species.
Will see what I can find on the others. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"Similar pustule rows have been discovered in the other eurypterid Drepanopterus abonensis, a sweep-feeder that used the marginal rim to search the substrate of its living environment for prey. If the pustules had setae, the gracile second pair of appendages of S. acuminata may have functioned as tactile and sensory organs used for locating and identifying prey, together with the pedipalps (the second pair of appendages).[17]" Yet another paragraph that would make more sense under paleoecology/biology.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
" Though this is large for a predatory arthropod, Slimonia would be exceeded in length by later and more derived members of the closely related pterygotid family of eurypterids, which would become the largest known arthropods to ever live." This is only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
Added in description. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Though the text is good, I have some problems with the structure, as outlined above. I can see a similar structure, with a seperate species section, has been accepted in other eurypterid GAs, but I think it could be reconsidered, as the section then becomes a hodgepodge of information that would be better collected elsewhere in more relevant sections of the article. For example, all description text/defining traits etc. of each species could be moved to the decriptio section where most readers would look for it, all info about their taxonomic history should be moved to history, and all info on their function should be moved to paleocology. In this sense, I think the lead sectiopn is better organised than the article body itself. Related info is logically grouped together, in an order that makes sense, and not sprinkled throughout the article in unrelated sections.
I think the new placement of text is much more focused and easier to navigate. If more etymologies and palaeoecology info can't be found for the other species, I'll just pass this as is. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I have added some more info on associated eurypterids with other species of Slimonia. Finding the names the two species whose etymology currently feature was quite easy (S. acuminata because it is an actual latin word and S. boliviana because it is quite obvious what the name refers to) but I have been unable to find what S. stylops and S. dubia means. S. dubia probably refers to the fragmentary nature of the remains ("dubious" perhaps?) but I have not find any sources stating this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I will pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Until I happened to look closely at the ventral/dorsal restoration image in this article and saw the tag that had been added to it, I didn't realize that the chelicerae mentioned in the "Description" section as "small in comparison to those of the pterygotids" aren't actually shown in any of the images in this article. I had naively assumed that they were the small front appendages visible in this article's restoration images. (I was a bit puzzled that these had no pincers, but I was naive and ignorant enough to assume that this animal simply had pincerless chelicerae.) As it turns out, those appendages aren't chelicerae at all; they're the pedipalps. Slimonia's chelicerae were very short, short enough to be completely hidden by the head in a dorsal view. They had not yet been found in fossil specimens when the ventral/dorsal restoration used here was published back in 1878. They were first described in Malcolm Laurie's 1893 paper "The Anatomy and Relations of the Eurypteridæ" and should be visible in restorations published after that date. Some sort of view of them should be included to make the description of Slimonia clearer to readers.
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)