Talk:Leptoceratops

Primitive?

I'd defer to editors with more dinosaur expertise than I have, but the description in the lead as this being "primitive ceratopsian dinosaur genus" (which also appears on some lists, such as Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation seems wrong or at least misleading. This was one of the last ceratopsian dinosaurs on earth, the product of millions of years of ceratopsian evolution, so it was hardly a primitive form. It seems like it would be more accurate to describe it as being a "ceratopsian dinosaur genus with features similar to primitive forms" or perhaps even a "ceratopsian dinosaur genus with primitive features". Rlendog (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Primitive features is what makes it primitive. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like "a ceratopsian dinosaur genus that is a late-surviving member of a primitive lineage" would be better? "Basal" is more precise but probably too technical, and also needs more context to make any sense. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leptoceratops/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IJReid (talk · contribs) 16:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Will review soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• leptoceratopsid ceratopsian dinosaur – per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, better to simplify the first sentece by removing one of the terms (maybe "leptoceratopsid", since it only helps those who know about the group, and even those should get the hint from the genus name). Maybe have a separate sentence "It is the eponymous genus of the family Leptoceratopsidae" or something.

Split the Leptoceratopsidae mention into a later sentence.

• I would link the state names (Alberta, Montana), since not everybody is familiar with North America to that degree.

Alberta, Montana, Wyoming linked

• fully complete skeleton and two other very complete – I don't think that the general reader can make sense of what "fully complete" and "very complete" means, and what the difference is, if there is any. Maybe just write "almost complete" (if that's the case?).

"Additional specimens found in the Scollard include one complete and two mostly complete skeletons together,"

• link: primitive and derived, floodplain, braided streams

Done

• and Leptoceratops was likely bipedal when moving at speed, or quadrupedal – should that "or" be an "and"?

Removed comma and used "and"

• though not as high as its relative Montanoceratops – "those of" missing?

Added

• especially unique – I don't think "unique" has a superlative? You cannot get more unique than unique.

"Unique among dinosaurs"

• So much for the lead. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• the Edmontonian age – I suggest to stick with "Maastrichtian" first; if you keep it, it needs to be explained/introduced and the difference to Maastrichtian made clear, I think, otherwise the reader will be confused.
  • How about "Edmontonian beds" since that's what Brown actually calls them?
    • Is that old term still in use? What does it add? Better keep it simple. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• The name translates as "slender small horn face", though Brown did not explain its etymology – If possible, provide the Latin/Greek names it is derived from, as we do in other articles.
  • Brown (and Dodson) do not provide any root words, so I'm unsure if their addition would be OR or SYNTH or not
    • Just found this: [1]

Nice, added (I happen to have the 6th edition, didn't know about the appendix though). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• The individual preserving a partial skull, collected and accessioned as AMNH specimen 5205 – Was it really collected under that specimen number? Usually they get some field numbers and then the official collection number once they are in the collection.

Removed "collected"

• The second individual, also included under AMNH 5205 despite being slightly larger, – Why is it relevant for the specimen number assignment that it is slightly larger when it is a different individual anyways?
  • It is definitely relevant that AMNH 5205 includes two individuals of different sizes, but the problem is no one has yet acknowledged that AMNH 5205 is a syntype series
• Please have a general look at terms and links. You link forelimb, but not presacral and caudal. You first refer to them as "from the tail", but later use the technical term "caudal vertebrae" (stick with one term here to minimize confusion).

Done

• The locality that Leptoceratops was first found in, – link to type locality?

Linked

• 'The locality that Leptoceratops was first found in, originally described as the Edmonton Formation only, was identified in 1951 by Canadian palaeontologist Charles M. Sternberg as being from the Upper Edmonton member based on location information given, – Sentence needs rework. It does not make sense to say the locality "was identified" "based on location information given". This seems to be about the stratigraphic unit, not the locality?

Reworked

• as the exact quarry was lost. – What does this mean; the quarry cheases to exist, or that it is now unknown which quarry it was?

For early Canadian palaeo, these are the same, "quarries" are really just slopes with bones. Changed to "could not be relocated"

• one fully complete – again same issue as above, please check entire article.

Changed

• The specimens were discovered towards the end of the 1947 field season, where Sternberg located a skull, jaw, and most of a skeleton of a first specimen, Canadian Museum of Nature number 8889, student assistant T. P. Chammery found a smaller individual missing most of the head and a partial left hand (CMN 8888), and a third complete individual directly beside the latter was uncovered during excavation (CMN 8887). – I can't follow here; sentence parts do not seem to match. What do you mean with "a first specimen"?

Reworded

• These specimens were complete enough to allow Canadian palaeontologist Dale A. Russell to describe and published a complete skeleton of Leptoceratops – Misleading, he did not really describe a single "complete skeleton", right? Also, published --> publish

Modified

• plesiotypes – link/explain

Changed to "CMN specimens" since plesiotype is inconsistently used and would be hard to add a citation for

• palaeontologist – Is the article writen in British English consistently? Or is it Canadian English?

I've written it entirely in Canadian English (palaeontologist is the proper spelling) given the types are from Canada

• American palaeontologist Charles W. Gilmore led three expeditions of the United States Geological Survey to the Two Medicine Formation of Montana in 1913, 1928 and 1935, discovering two specimens in the third expedition that he later described as Leptoceratops. – Do you mean "referred to Leptoceratops"?

Done

• The separate stratigraphic position from both the Alberta and St. Mary River material suggested that Gilmore's specimens, United States National Museum numbers 13863 and 13864, could belong to a distinct species, but the fragmentary nature meant he did not give it a name and left it as indeterminate. – Also a bit unclear. What is the difference in stratigraphic position, are you referring to age? "Indeterminate", but still referred to Leptoceratops?

Specifically indeterminate, changed

• Princeton University (now Yale Peabody Museum) number 18133. – The grammar does not fit with the sentence.

Moved to next sentence

• extremely similar – not encyclopedic. Isn't "very similar" enough?

Changed

• other former Leptoceratops material – "material" is singular, but you use it as plural? Specimens instead? Also check elsewhere in the article.
  • Material is both the singular and plural, "materials" is an alternative plural if you want
    • According to Wiktionary, "material" is the singular, but it can be both countable and uncountable. However, I never saw saw such usage in any paper or Wikipedia article I read, and I still think that "specimens" is better and clearer here than "materials". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• as the jugal is very similar to that described for Prenoceratops – again maybe not the best wording, wouldn't simply "similar to that of Prenoceratops" be clearer?

Done

• partial rear skull – "rear part of a skull"?

Done

• and shows the first complete unfused braincase yet described. – Bit strange to specify "unfused" here; does it mean there is a complete fused braincase in addition?

Removed, there are braincases for CMN specimens, but they are articulated with the rest of the skull so not as accessible to describe (per Ott 2006)

• UWGM-200 was found within a 1 m (3.3 ft) cross-bedded sandstone – 1 m what? Does this refer to Thickness (geology)?

Added

• So much for the Discovery section. In general, I think the article is pretty comprehensive, but the issue that needs to be fixed for reaching GA is prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments where I think further discussion is needed hade bullet points, the rest are done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment - there seem to be a good deal of nice images that compare bones of Leptoceratops with other genera[2], nothing to use from there? Especially since you have no anatomy images under the postcranial skeleton section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Added the ulnar image, the othere either don't illustrate Leptoceratops well (scapula, foot) or are more limited in importance and taxa (radius, tibia). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Could also be interesting with one of the micro-wear photos from this[3] paper, perhaps in a multiple image template with the chewing diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is also the other figures in Brown 1914 that could be uploaded, though I'm unsure where the higher-quality mounted arm came from, since the available pdf of that paper has much lower resolution. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The resolution of the available pdf (I just linked it in the citation, btw) seems good to me, same as in the mounted arm image? I agree that the article could do with a bunch of additional images. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded all the figures from Brown as their own individual images now, and added some I think are relevant enough with a bit of image rearranging. How does it look? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Leptoceratops was an unusual ceratopsian, displaying a very large head but minimal frill, with a forwards center of mass that may suggest quadrupedality, and a higher number of vertebrae in front of the pelvis than other early ceratopsians – Multiple issues here: First, "unusual ceratopsian" bites with "other early ceratopsians" (which are you comparing to? The entire group or just the early ones?). Second, "minimal frill" contradicts the lead which suggests it lacks a frill. Third, the "forwards center of mass" is also present in many other ceratopsians, especially ceratopsids, so I'm not sure why this is now "unuwual". Fourth, should be "than in" ("in" missing)?

Reworded

• The complete skeleton of CMN 8889, with the tail of CMN 8887 added and scaled up to match the other bones, measures 1.81 m (5.9 ft) in length,[1] so Leptoceratops was likely around 2 m – Need to explain how you can conclude "2 m" when the skeleton was 1.81 m long. The scale shart shows something like 2.5 m, is the chart inaccurate?

Clarified ~2m is largest specimens, the chart is acceptably close to this approximation I think?

• In several places you say that Leptoceratops lacks a frill, but there are at least a couple of sources saying it had a slight frill.

"minimal"/"reduced" frill

• Hyoid bones are known in Leptoceratops, only otherwise preserved in specimens of Centrosaurus and Protoceratops.[3] – add "amongst ceratopsians" if this referrs to that group?

Added

• and has been separated from the rest of the skull. – This might need an "during preservation" or something similar, otherwise it may be unclear to the reader what you mean.

Added during preparation clarification

• with a lowered articular surface for the skull to being the tooth rows more in line – I think I know what you mean but this needs explanation. I think the point is that a jaw joint level with the tooth rows results in a scissor-like closure of the jaws, good for cutting but not good for chewing, while a ventrally displaced joint makes the jaw close like a press (with rear and front teeth making contact at the same time).

Better?

• being both the largest single-rooted ceratopsian teeth – largest in absolute terms, or relative to skull length or another measure? Also, the reader will not be able to do something with "single-rooted"; you need to explain where you can find ceratopsian teeth that are not single-rooted, as background.

Bit of an explanation and reshuffling

• a unique type of tooth wear only shared with taxa such as Udanoceratops and Archaeoceratops. – Would be good to explain here what tooth wear is; also, it is not evident that this is the introductory sentence for the sentences that follow, this could be reformulated to improve reading flow.

Shuffled

• Overall, the skull section reads pretty good, better than the Discovery section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• The first three cervicals are not fused together into a syncervical in all specimens but the adult, which is distinctly more primitive than Protoceratops and ceratopsids. – I am a bit confused, is there only one adult specimen? The "which" refers to the adult here, but should it refer to the feature? And does it mean that the presence of this feature in juveniles is more primitive? Please check.

Reworded, hopefully better

• Neural spines are more slender and longer in Leptoceratops than Protoceratops, – still referring to cervicals or to vertebrae in general?

Cervicals

• The dorsal vertebrae of Leptoceratops are more distinct, as the neural spines are far more slanted and, together with the zygapophyses, are overhanging the main vertebral body. – Aren't zygapophyses always overhanging, or is that different in ceratopsians?

Neural spines almost never overhang, pre and postzygapophyses do sometimes but not most of the time

• The fusion of sacral vertebrae is inconsistent, but while vertebral fusion is variable the count of six vertebrae agrees with the fusion and rib articulation forms of both the last dorsal and first caudal. – I have no idea what this means.

Rewrote

• main vertebral body, centrum – again here, stick to one term if you mean the same thing.

Consistency

• and gradually slope more towards the end of the tail. – Do you want to say they become increasingly inclined towards the end of the tail? If so, write "increasingly sloped"?

Changed

• Sternal plates and clavicles of the pectoral region are known in Leptoceratops, the former of which are comparable to those of Centrosaurus and Chasmosaurus in shape, while the latter were probably lost evolutionarily as they have not been found. – First you say they are known, and then that they have not been found? Also, you cite very old sources for this, this might require a more recent one to back it up.

Added a new source and also a rewording, turns out clavicles are *only* ossified in basal ceratopsians among ornithischians

• Are these general comparisons to Protoceratops and Ceratopsids really relevant here? You cite very old sources, and while the information should still apply, you don't really make comparisons to those quite distantly related taxa elsewhere in the description section, so this seems a bit inconsistent.
  • I may go through descriptions of other leptoceratopsids to get these details, but the only descriptions of Leptoceratops itself are from before any other genera were described. Would it be worthwhile? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• The humeri of all specimens from Alberta can be compared: – Everything can be compared theoretically, what's the point?

Removed

• AMNH 5205 is 290 mm (11 in) long, CMN 8889 is 242 mm (9.5 in) long, CMN 8888 is 255 mm (10.0 in) long, and CMN 8887 is 185 mm (7.3 in) long. – If there is no implication/conclusion and these are just numbers, I would say remove, they don't help any reader of this article I think. Also, restricting this to specimens from Alberta does not really make sense?

Gave some context so it parallels the femur measurements

• while lacking the ridge found in the other genera – I think that's too unspecific. Either say where on the scapula this ridge is, or remove.

Diagonally across scapular blade (does the blade need explanation?)

• They show a pronounced curvature along their length and are more slender than in Montanoceratops. – What is "they" referring to here?

Ischia

• The trochanters for muscle articulations are distinct. – If you really mean "distinct" and not "pronounced", you should say in which way they are distinct. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Pronounced.

• The forelimb would be held straight with the elbow flexed anteriorly – Two issues. First, how can the limb be "straight" when the elbow is "flexed"? Do you mean "upright" (i.e, not sprawling) instead of "straight"? Also, I do not understand "anteriorly", and you can only flex into one direction anyways so this word could go.

Removed

• they may not have been ecologically abundant, – Whyt does "ecologically" mean here? Can they be abundant in an non-ecological way? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed, also specified taxonomic diversity

• The fossils in the taxonbox image look like casts; if so, that should be said in the caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently the specimens are panel mounted like that at the CMN, so either that photo is of casts or the originals at the same institution. The only other photograph I've seen is of a cast of one at the PIN. The CMN site states that 8887 and 8888 are on exhibit as originals [4], with 8889 having two casts. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.