Talk:Dunkleosteus

message: I see that the Germans refer to the Placodermi as Panzerfische.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkleosteus
http://www.joergresag.privat.t-online.de/mybk4htm/chap54.htm
Sounds about right to me! :-) -- 201.51.221.66 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panzerfische! 

message: Where does uts name come from?DS 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I added Dr Dunkle in. --Wetman 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm? 

message: There especially needs to be a bit of history as to where and when the first fossils were found and why the name has been changed. CFLeon 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info Needed! 

message: From which source comes this: "The discovery of Dunkleosteus armor with unhealed bite marks strongly suggest that they cannibalized each other when the opportunity arose."? Dropzink (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: I have tagged the 'Description section for editing to improve encyclopedic tone.  It tends to be too informal and has too many unscientific asides such as as stating that Dunleosteus was "highly evolved" for the Devonian.  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: I've read encyclopedias, encyclopedias have long been chatty and informal, assuming you weren't brought up on modern anti-formal English. Is it that the Dunk article isn't encyclopedic enough, or that it's not scientific paper enough?
Encyclopedias are published for the general public. For that reason they must be informal to some extent. They must be, in a word, accessible. That doesn't mean badly written. It certainly doesn't mean colloquial. It does mean the wording has to be couched such that people can understand it and gain from it.
Dunk's story on Wikipedia is accessible, and it informs. So it aint as formal as some would prefer, it doesn't have to be all that damn formal to do its job.
BTW, I have read a number of authors refer to Dunk as being highly evolved for the Devonian. Maybe true, maybe not, but calling any such claim unscientific without proof does not make for scientific discourse.
One last thing: Death to passive voice in scientific writing!
mythusmage (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "highly evolved" even mean? Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone? 

message: I'm willing to clean up the article. given time. ResMar 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Something is wrong with the reference used for bite force in the article. In the main text of the reference is says 1,100 and 8,000 pounds respectively but in the text below the photo it says 11,000 and 80,000! I don't know which is correct, but in the wiki article we use 8,000 pounds (=matching main text in reference) and 11,000 ponds (=matching text below photo in reference). Additionally, someone indicated the convertion to Newtons in the wiki article don't match, but corrected the wrong numbers (the numbers used in the reference instead of correcting the Newton). That clearly is wrong so I reverted it but will leave it to someone else to sort out this mess. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one good reason why conversions should be in parentheses, following the original units, which should come first.  Don't pretend like the conversion is in the opposite direction.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if the latter part was directed at me, but I didn't add the measurements/convertion and don't pretend anything. Rather, I corrected what clearly was a mistaken edit done without checking if it matches the associated reference. As anyone on this site, you're free to switch the convertions. WP:UNITS arguably suggests SI units (i.e., newton) are most appropriate as the primary units in an article like this, though this is contradicted by the following MOS:CONVERSIONS (not totally sure this is what is ment by "direct quatations", or if that is aimed at longer passages where the measurement only is a part). Regardless, that doesn't solve the mess of the different figures (8,000/80,000 and 1,100/11,000) used in the reference. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bite force

message: According to Carr, R.K. & W.J. Hlavin, 2010: Two new species of Dunkleosteus, the type species of Dinichthys, Di. herzeri, is rescued from synonymy and is the sole member of Dinichthyidae.  All the other species of Di. herzeri are considered to be either synonyms of it, or of Dunkleosteus.  Furthermore, according to the Carr and Hlavin paper, all of the other former members of Dinichthyidae are either moved to Dunkleosteidae, their own family, or to basal Pachyosteomorpha.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Potaeto, potahto, Hlavin and Carr just took a chainsaw to Dinichthyidae.  Should we start adjusting the template to reflect this?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. We should also have a page for Dinichthys itself since it is a valid taxon of giant arthrodire, albeit one known from pretty cruddy remains.Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was Dinicthys redirected here in the first place? FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunkleosteus versus Chondrichthyes 

message: How could Dunkleosteus have swam over Morocco 360-380Ma, amidst the Variscan orogeny, which uplifted the Atlas mountains, throughout the region ?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the fossils there suggest.  A lot of placoderms were much more competent swimmers than what a lot of humans realize, Dunkleosteus included.  Having said that, what is your point?  Fossils in the Fammenian portions of Late Devonian Moroccan strata show that the formation of the Variscan orogeny was no barrier to Dunkleosteus or the other placoderms found there.  Disbelief that they could is not a good reason to believe they couldn't, especially in the face of fossil evidence.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to "The Cleveland Museum of Natural History PALEOECOLOGY OF DUNKLEOSTEUS TERRELLI (PLACODERMI: ARTHRODIRA)", and "Ecomorphological inferences in early vertebrates: reconstructing Dunkleosteus terrelli (Arthrodira, Placodermi) caudal fin from palaeoecological data", Dunkleosteus is thought to be a rather large, pelagic cruiser, with good swimming. Due to the lack of of benthic trace fossils in the Cleveland Shale, and the deadly conditions that formed the black shales,  and Dunkleosteus's dry and wet weights, it is believed that Dunkleosteus couldn't settle on the seabed (because the unsettled fine silt could clog the gills), or get near the anoxic benthos, even if it wanted to. And recently in 2022, a new selenosteid arthrodire, Amazichthys, has preserved postcranial remains showing features consistent with fast swimming pelagic sharks. In conclusion, not just the fossil evidence, but articles regarding the swimming habits of these early jawed vertebrates suggest pelagic habits, and morphologies consistent with other pelagic animals (e.g sharks, tuna, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs.) PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This post is over 10 years ago anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Variscan orogeny]] in Morocco ?? 

message: 20' length here, 33' length there - should be synched 98.67.182.246 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  size conflict between this article and the "Evolution" section of the Shark article 

message: PRIMAL S2E1. Drsruli (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:IPCEXAMPLES.  I don't see how important or noteworthy it is to mention Dunkleosteus' appearance in that episode when it is the catch of the day and has no bearing on the plot, let alone how that appearance impacting how the public sees Dunkleosteus.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't answer my question about notability or impact on public perception.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media depictions 

message: (Copy/Pasted over from my user talk in Wikimedia Commons)
1. Coccosteus has a different niche, ecology, and lifestyle to Dunkleosteus. According to this publication, Dunkleosteus was a pelagic organism, and an actively-swimming one at that, according to this publication from 2017. It could probably pursue its prey. Coccosteus on the other hand, was, albeit capable of free-swimming, inhibited demersal habits by ambush hunting from the sea floor, too. It was also incredibly tiny, at less than a foot long. Even an adult Coccosteus would be an easy snack for even a juvenile Dunkleosteus.
2. The two are from different clades. Coccosteus hails from Coccosteomorphi, while Dunkleosteus hails from the clade Pachysteomorphi. If anything, Coccosteus is closer related to Coccosteomorphs like Plourdosteus and Incisoscutum than the Pachysteomorphs like Dunkleosteus and Titanichthys.
3. We have better references. As of the time I'm typing this, we now have a magnificently preserved selenosteid from Morocco named the genus "Amazichthys". It has fins preserved, including a lunate, heterocercal caudal fin (the tail), and a larger dorsal fin than once thought for arthrodires. Amazichthys is believed to have been an active swimmer, and a high-speed predator, or a pursuit predator, making Amazichthys a way better comparison to Dunkleosteus, morphologically, and ecologically, than Coccosteus is. Amazichthys is also closer in phylogenetic relation to the mighty Dunk, as it's in the sister group to Dunkleosteiodea, Aspinothoracidi.
Conclusion: Dunkleosteus reconstructions don't have to end up like this, and they shouldn't, unless you purposefully want an inaccurate depiction for the fun of it. That, I'm okay with. But if you want to make scientifically accurate Dunkleosteus, or at least accurate to what we know, then publications like the ones I found, and comparisons to Amazichthys should give you a good clue as to Dunkleosteus's ecology, and morphology really was. Also, are you surprised that an arthrodire with similar ecology to Dunkleosteus has a caudal fin similar to what was predicted for Dunkleosteus in a publication published on December 6th, 2017, almost 5 years ago? PlacodermReconstructions (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coccosteus as a comparison to draw body plans for Dunkleosteus reconstructions 

message: Y'all really revising all the size estimates because of a single study? Im not even questioning the study itself, it jus seems extremely irresponsible to rewrite because of one study by a single researcher instead of waiting to see how this affects broader scientific consensus.  Angrysockhop (talk to me) 02:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a peer reviewed article, not just one lone guy, not to mention the second time we get a size of less than 3.5 meters for CMNH 5768. (also, not an argument for anything but this isn't exactly anomalous behaviour when it comes to keeping paleontology articles up to date) SunlightBlade (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, we shouldn't simply replace estimates with others, but explain in depth that different estimates have been made and on what grounds. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "The largest species, D. terrelli, typically grew to 3.1–3.5 metres (10.2–11.5 ft) in length" How can we say "typically" as if this is anywhere exact? We need to give these measurements with much more cautious phrasing. Like "study x gave this estimate based on this methodology" etc. Never present it as just facts. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

text: If this study has passed the peer review (it has) then it is extremely unlikely that it follows a questionable methodology. I know it's a pretty long article but before asserting that basing wikipedia's voice about it is "extremely irresponsible" you should read its methodological section and compare it with previous studies leading to conclusions contradicting this article's conclusion, if any. Overlooking this article because it dramatically changes our knowledge is the actually irresponsible thing. As of today, the state of the art knowledge - which is not the same thing as truth - is that Dunkleosteus was a tuna-sized fish. Now the burden of the proof is up to those who aim to assert that previous size estimations are reliable. Leonardo Cefalo (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review doesn't equal new truth or dogma, that depends on how other researchers receive it. In this case, it is one possibility that differs from previous ones in having a more well constructed methodology, but other mythologies in the future might very well suggest new lengths or confirm older estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future we may even find new specimens or remains of its cartilage - who knows?. It is utterly impossible to predict how future findings are going to evolve. The best of our knowledge is the state of the art. And the state of the art estimates are those carried out by Engelman. Scientific truth is temporary but not relative. I agree that if somebody is capable of disproving the OOL approach then it is necessary to wait the time required to formalize the results, submit the paper, carry out its review etc. before such a study comes out. But, again: should we overlook the latest research developments only due to this possibility? How much time should we wait befor recognising these findings as valid? Leonardo Cefalo (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What is overlooked? The new study is covered in the article, along with other estimates, as it should be. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  I think Engelman's size estimate is one of the most rigorous and methodical amongst those currently available, but we need to take a wide look at all the current size estimates, given the recent nature and therefore lack of reaction to the publication, and the long history of widely varying size estimates for this taxon, and see how other researchers react to it in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engelman