Species format discussion

From Palaeos

HELP

Edit help | What Redlinks are | Using Templates | Reporting Spammers and Spam bots | Reporting Vandals and Trolls | Wikifying

The following is from comments posted originally on User talk:Kazvorpal/paleo-template; it has been edited and modified for Palaeos org. Although all this is unworkable as a template, but would probably be fine as an info section of a page.

However this still requires discussion, and should not be made official Palaeos org policy before then.

Contents 1 Format Suggestion 1.1 Ceratosauridae 1.2 Ceratosaurus nasicornis 2 Information 2.1 short version 2.2 Long version 2.3 Further comments 3 Additional suggestions 3.1 Phylum Dinoflagellata Bütschli 1885 4 Credits

Format Suggestion

Here is my "data panel" suggestion for Ceratosaurus (original page)

The above applies only to those taxa that are well known or regarding which there is a lot of information. Otherwise a short page without subsections would suffiuce.

Where there is a lot of information in some areas, but in others none is avaialble, those fields can be replaced with a few crosses (xxx) or if the information is simply not knowable or is exceedingly speculative a few question marks (???). Or the fields can be left out which would give a more concise page.

I have included first a suggestion for a family level information panel, then a short species info panel, then a long info section for the same species.

Ceratosauridae

Suggested info panel:

==Information==

Superorder: Dinosauria

Order: Theropoda

Suborder: Megalosauria

Superfamily: "Ceratosauroidea"

Family: Ceratosauridae

Subfamily: Ceratosaurinae

Ceratosauridae (Author, year)

Guild: Medium to Giant terrestrial carnivore

Modern equivalent: none

Time: early to late Jurassic period, possibly

Distribution: Pangaea

Evolved from: Coelophysoidea?

Replaced: Dilophosaurs?

Replaced by: Allosaurs, Abelisaurs, Tyrannosaurs

Extinction because of: Terminal Jurassic extinction event?

Descendents: ?none, ?"Megalosauridae", ?Abelisauroidea

Linnean status: Family

Cladistic status: (need to look this up)

Parent clade: Ceratosauria

Adult length: less than 3 to 11.5 meters (the larger figure implies the Tendaguru teeth described as "Megalosaurus ingens" belong to a ceratosaur as G.S.Paul (1988) suggests; I am now more dubious of this)

Adult weight: 70kg to about 5 tonnes (re maximum weight, see above note)

Habitat: floodplain, uplands (but not mountain)

Diet / Preferred food: other dinosaurs, any tetrapods smaller than themselves. Some Ceratosaurs probably only preferred small animals, others went for big game.

Hunting/Food gathering/Foraging/Feeding habitat/Feeding behaviour: ambush, attacks large animals by quick slashing of the teeth, the victim dies from shock and loss of blood, small animals captured and swallowed whole

Movement: bipedal, active on land, adequate swimmers

Predators: for large species none (top of food chain)

---

Ceratosaurus nasicornis

Suggested page layout:

(parent template goes at top of page)

(heading) <center><big><big><big>Ceratosaurus nasicornis</big></big></big></center> <br>

(graphic if any) [[Image:|thumb|300px (or however many pixels large)|center|caption goes here]]

==Introduction==

(short intro blurb here)

==Information==

(see below)

==Other headings if necessary==

Further discussion

==References==

References used in writing this page

==Links==

External links

==Credits==

Author name or initials and date (year-month-day)

Information

Following is a suggested short and long version, again only if the species is well known. For invertebrates, plants, etc., length can be replaced or supplemented by width or height, depending on what is most appropriate:

short version

Ceratosaurus nasicornis Marsh, 1884b

Horizon: Morrison formation of Colorado and Utah

Age: Kimmeridgian

Place: north-central Pangea

Remains: remains of five individuals, including one nearly complete skeleton

Length: 5.7 to 7 meters

Weight: 500 kg to 1 tonne

Comments: (maybe this could go in a separate section of the page) Interesting because it is structurally so much more primitive than its allosaur contemporaries, this medium-sized theropod is characterised by its tall nose horn and smaller preorbital horns in front of the eyes. It also possesses a row of bony nodules down the spine, similiar to those of pseudosuchian thecodonts and the earliest dinosaurs. The skull lightly-constructed skull is armed with quite proportionally large teeth. It is unlikely this animal could bring down large game (in contrast to the Allosaurs); it probably preyed on smaller animals like ornithopods

Original paper (where the species is first described)

---

Comments on information panel above:

The reason I have the species template much shorter than the family template is that a lot of info for the species automatically is included under the family anyway.

Every field entered in the template should either be as much as posisble scientifically accurate or else a plausible estimate or guestimate. It may be a good idea to include references as well, so we know where the information is coming from. For taxa with a short stratigraphic range (such as Ceratosaurus) I would suggest using geological ages - e.g. Kimmeridgian, rather than periods, e.g. Jurassic. The large number of speculative fields included below are part of my interest in trying to bring these extinct creatures to life in the imagination via palaeoecology, the idea of a "prehistoric menagerie". This is, obviously, much more speculative than straight paleontology. However it also much more interesting to the general reader. For example for large theropod behaviour one might cite books or papers by Bob Bakker or Greg Paul, although being always wary of excessive claims - i.e. there is no way that an adult T. rex could have run at 60+ kmh. (as shown by bimechanical studies by R. McNeil Alexander and others)

Long version

This includes both the family and species info section:

Superorder: Dinosauria

Order: Theropoda

Suborder: Megalosauria

Superfamily: "Ceratosauroidea"

Family: Ceratosauridae

Subfamily: Ceratosaurinae

Ceratosaurus nasicornis Marsh, 1884b

(list of synonyms goes here - see section on Dinoflagellata for example. This of course is only if the information is easily available)

Horizon: Morrison formation of Colorado and Utah

Age: Kimmeridgian

Place: north-central Pangea

Remains: remains of five individuals, including one nearly complete skeleton

Length: 5.7 to 7 meters

Weight: 500 kg to 1 tonne

Guild: Very Large terrestrial carnivore

Parent clade: Ceratosaurus

Related species: (whatever)

Habitat: floodplain, uplands (but not mountain)

Diet / Preferred food: other dinosaurs, any tetrapods smaller than themselves.

Hunting/Food gathering/Foraging/Feeding habitat/Feeding behaviour: (same as for Ceratosauridae)

Movement: bipedal, active on land, adequate swimmers

Predators: none (top of food chain)

Competition: subadult Allosaurus, subadult Torvosaurus

Comments: (if relevant)

Original paper (where the species is first described)

Other important papers (if relevant)

Further comments

Here are some of the fields considered in more detail:

Horizon: stratigraphic formation and locality (i think for paleontology entries this is a must) - this replaces the current "distribution" on the paleobox

Age: (this can be distinct from period - so at the top of the box would be Jurassic, but under horizin and biostratigraphic zone would be Kimmeridgian)

Original paper (the paper where the species is first described; this is actually very important, and usually ignored on most paleo websites, except for Trevor Dykes Eucynodont Directory)

The following are interesting, and some can be included, but there is also the danger of imagination/"original research", so if they are used they should be referenced with scientific citations. Often this information can better be incorporated in the body of the article. However some people may find it easier if there is a neat box with all the info in it, and it does givce the whole thing a nice look if done well

Fossil Remains: (where info on this is avaialable; usually only in the original scientific paper)

Length: (with tetrapods a lot of sizes given in books seem to be exaggerated; Greg Paul might be someone who gives reliable measurements. Also the scientific paper that describes the species may have a drawing with a scale bar.)

Weight: (this seems to be even more unreliable; although i am sure that some of the big theropods are under-estimated as far as weight goes; e.g. none of them apart from T rex seme to ever be listed as more than 4 tonnes)

Diet: (speculative; you can never really know exactly, but some clues from dentition, shape of mouth, etc. But leaving it as "insectivore", "low browser" etc would be fine)

Predators: (this is usually very much speculation, although sometimes one can make good guesses, e.g. sauropods were preyed upon by large theropods. Also it would let one link to other applicable pages)

Habitat (some clues may be found from sediments etc in which the fossils are preserved - e.g. rivers, floodplains, ponds; but the animals may also live in other environments where they were not fossilised)

Additional suggestions

Here are some alternative fields to describe a taxon. This is from the Dinoflagellata page. Although this is for a higher level taxon it could also be applied to a species

Phylum Dinoflagellata Bütschli 1885

1885 Dinoflagellata Bütschli

1914 Pyrrhophyta Pascher

1985 Pyrrhophyta, Evitt, p. 26

1993 Dinoflagellata (Bütschli 1885) Fensome et al., p. ??

comment: Having a list of synonyms is good and should be included at the start, just after the species name

• Dinoflagellates are protists - neither plants nor animals. Mercifully, taxonomy has not yet been cursed with an International Code of Protistan Nomenclature (given that the objective is the same, and the issues to be overcome nearly so, it is quite bad enough that there exists separate botanical and zoological codes) so it is necessary to treat dinoflagellates as one or the other, for the purposes of nomenclature. The botanical code has been settled upon, more or less by historical accident. Botanists frequently refer to the phylum-level taxonomic rank as a "division" - another absurd terminological distinction where there is no difference.

Type: [?] [Authority]

Original Diagnosis: xxx

Description: xxx

Habit: xxx

Distribution Occurrence: xxx

Discussion: xxx

Review of sub-ranks, if appropriate...

Credits

MAK061108