Talk:Harpactognathus

Taxonomy?

What is the parent taxon to Harpactognathus? Fossilworks says Lonchognatha, but the taxonomy template was deleted under the assertion that it is deprecated. Is it? I could not find sources supporting that. Currently the parent taxon is Novialoidea. What should it be? --Nessie (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

References

GA review

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

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 12:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Will begin reviewing soon, comments can be expected later today.

I've performed a small copyedit of the article while writing up my first batch of notes, which can be found below.

• "When Harpactognathus was described, it was assigned to the subfamily Scaphognathinae within Rhamphorhynchidae, a group of long-tailed, toothed non-pterodactyloid pterosaurs. It was initially referred to Scaphognathinae, but later discoveries of large rhamphorhynchines like Sericipterus and Angustinaripterus with characteristics found in Harpactognathus suggest it was a member of Rhamphorhynchinae instead." - This sentence should probably be rewritten, the double mention of it being assigned to Scaphognathinae is a little clunky.
• "and origin" - what do you mean by this, exactly?
• Using Dinosaur Zone 2 might be a little confusing, as there are multiple different zone assignments for the Morrison. Might be best to remove this
• It would be good to align the given definition of the name in Discovery and naming with that given in the lede (snatching jaws vs. seizing/grasping jaws).
• Explain 'apex of the rostrum'
• Double check the article to see if all anatomical terms are explained/linked, at least on first mention.
• "The shape and proportions of the rostrum as well as the anatomy of the alveoli are comparable to those of Scaphognathus, although Scaphognathus lacks the diagnostic traits of Harpactognathus." - I don't think this needs to be mentioned, if it did have them this article wouldn't have to exist!
• Go over the article to see if you mention paleontologists by their first and last name upon first mention.
• "both of which are now classified within the tribe Angustinaripterini" - Who assigned them to this tribe?
• In the description you mention that the premaxillary crest of Harpactognathus is not found in any related taxa, but in classification it is mentioned that it is a feature of the augustinaripterinins in general. This needs to be cleared up.
• The sentence that mentions Jagielska et al. reads a little weird after just reading that it came out of an analysis as closely related to augustinaripterinins. Maybe this could be clarified by the earlier request to elaborate on when that tribe was established (and that Harpactognatus, I'll assume, has not been included in a phylogeny since the establishment).
• I would rewrite the last paragraph and maybe try to fit it in chronologically with those above. Currently it feels like an afterthought and mentions that the genus can't be a Scaphognathine three times.
• "the authors" (first sentence of paleobiology) which ones are you referring to here? Especially since only one source is listed for an initial claim and one proposed by 'more recent publications'
• "Harpactognathus was found in the Morrison Formation, which is a non-marine fossil formation." - This can probably be removed.
• The entire first paragraph can probably be restructured to read a little nicer.
• Currently it reads (to me) like there's three seperate hypotheses for their habitat, marine, freshwater and terrestrial. I assume terrestrial and freshwater are one and the same, and if so this should be more clear.
• As mentioned above, here its stated that not many [cranial crests] have been found in rhamphorhynchids. Maybe link this to the augustinaripterinins if possible, but make sure it lines up with the fix mentioned above.
• I don't see solid support for the connection between soft tissue extension and it being inferred from Tapejara, that publication seems to deal mainly with Pterodactyloids.
• Description of the Morrison Formation as having shallow marine sediments contrasts with what was said earlier about the formation being nonmarine.
• Might be worth looking at the talk page of Morrison Formation, as Kenneth Carpenter left some notes on the 'youngest date' used here.

That's all for now, will be back later when I've done my source check and to provide any additional notes. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a new diagnosis for Harpactognathus since Carpenter's description so I am unsure about whether the premaxillary crest is diagnostic. From what I've seen, the crest is found in related taxa but it may not be the same. I am going to check the phylogenetic characters in the Andres papers to see what is unique. AFH (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

made many improvements, though I am unable to find a set of years for the Salt Wash Member to include in the article. Do you have them? AFH (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I think the most recent dates for the Morrison Fm. were given by Maidment and Muxworthy in 2019. I can send you a PDF of the paper if you want? The Morrison Man (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

i dont see a range of years for the salt wash member AFH (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I set out to perform a spot-check on a sample of the sources used in the article, specifically sources 3, 14 and 21. It does not seem like source 3 supports the statement that "Comodactylus was later declared a nomen dubium", and if you do have a section from the article that supports this I'd like to see it. Source 14 supports both the cladogram and statement made about Harpactognathus being in Scaphognathinae, so that one passes the check. Because I could not access source 21, and 3 did not support its statement in my opinion, I also checked sources 13 and 17. 17 supports its claim, although having a distinct source to back up a lower bound outside of a conference abstract would probbaly be preferable. (A useful source can probably be found here ) As for 13, I do not see what text its supposed to support. If you could elaborate here that would be appreciated. As it currently stands, I was unable to check one of the five, two do not support the claims made in the article and two passed a check. I'll wait for some elaboration from your end on the former two.

If you could also mark down which of my above comments you've resolved/worked on, that would be great aswell. I saw that you've made improvements to the article since I last left my comments. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Everything suggested has been implemented, thank you AFH (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is all, the sources have been corrected and the dates for the Morrison Fm have been done. AFH (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying! The past few days have been busy and Wiki did not deliver these replies to my inbox. Changes look good, so I'm going to pass this. Well done! The Morrison Man (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sericipterus wucaiwanensis by jconway d2ycola.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)