Talk:Puijila

BBC article: shouldn't link it?
The reason I removed the BBC article is because it's foolish and misleading; just for one thing, it states that Puijila was an ancestor of modern seals, which is simply wrong. It also say that it is the "oldest", wrong again -- Enaliarctos is older though more similar to modern pinnipeds. I'm sorry to say it, but although the BBC is a good source for some purposes, their science journalism is usually c.r.a.p. I think this article shouldn't be included in the External Links when better general-audience discussions are already there, such as the New Scientist article or the one by Ed Yong. [copied to Candlewicke] --Levana Taylor (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I put it back into the external links. I don't know much about the topic myself so in future I'll bear in mind that the BBC don't handle it very well. Thanks. :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I remove it again? --Levana Taylor (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right. :) Well you seem to know more on the subject so I'll follow your guidance. If you think it should be removed then perhaps that is the best idea. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Move
Shouldn't the article be moved to a genus page instead of the species. In many cases, where the type species is the only species in the genus, it seems better to have it on the genus page. See the Otodus talk page for more details. Just a suggestion :)--Spotty11222 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point. Certainly scientists would normally refer to it by its generic name rather than by the binomial and, unless other species are found, everything in this description could refer to the whole genus forever. One would have to consider what wiki usually does and any reasons given elsewhere. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If no one objects then, I shall move the page. -- Spotty  11222 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Puijilidae?
Where did this name come from? Rybczynski did not propose it in her paper, indeed she does not refer to ranked taxa, only describing unnamed clades. Yong doesn't mention it, and Google has no records of it, so did someone just make it up to fill in the box here on wiki? I hope not. I will remove it within days if no-one defends it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was originally in the taxobox as "Puijilae" and I fixed the spelling assuming "Puijilidae" was meant. If the name has not been proposed in any reliable external source I agree it should be removed. --Cam (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Time range?
If theese is only one specimen, dated in the early Miocene, what is the justification of showing the range as starting in the late Oligocene?

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the paper that the specimen was published in refer to its age? Perhaps that time range was a hypothetical one for when this species existed, based upon phylogenetics, etc.?--Spotty11222 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the story on dating that I gather from the Canadian Museum of History's website: the fossil was found in the Haughton Formation, which is sediments from the bottom of a lake that formed in an earlier crater. The lake originated several million years after the crater, but the crater itself has not been accurately dated yet: one study found that it formed 24 million years ago, another 39! Therefore, the dating of the Haughton Formation is mostly based on comparison of plant and animal remains with those elsewhere -- details not given. On this basis, the Puijula team thinks that the formation is about 23 million years old.


 * Enaliarctos is a few million years older: according to Robert Boessenecker referencing Deméré et al. 2003, its remains are from the Oligocene (Chattian, 29-23 Ma). --Levana Taylor (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose that until the deposits are accurately dated, the age remains speculative. Perhaps we could put a note ref in somewhere regarding this? -- Spotty  11222 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Italicized title
I noticed that the title has become italicized. I was wondering two things. One, how do you do that w/o moving the page, and two, it doesn't seem necessary. The large amount of extinct and extant taxa on Wikipedia have page titles that are not italicized, yet in the text they are italicized. There should really be a set standard for this on taxon pages. The majority of articles use the non-italicized article title.-- Spotty  11222 01:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Taxobox name
 * Template talk:Taxobox name
 * archive WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 56
 * archive WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 58
 * archive WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63
 * archive WT:Manual of Style/Archive 108
 * --83.253.252.221 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Puijia
There is always the problem of copyright with pictures, but a good picture exists here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8012322.stm. 78.146.202.228 (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Puijila restorations
I was wondering why the original image of Puijila was completely replaced. Is it anatomically inaccurate in any way? I made sure to pay close attention to the details and proportions of the reconstruction of the skeleton provided in the Nature article while I was making the illustration (the reconstruction can be seen here). My restoration does seem to be rather slenderer than what would typically be expected for an animal like this, but it nonetheless seems like a relatively accurate depiction of the animal. I have placed the image back into the article while still keeping ArthurWeasley's restoration in the taxobox. Please tell if you have any objections or see anything inaccurate with the original image. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that several users who place ArthurWeasley's pics simply remove the pic that was there before. The same was done to the Minotaurasaurus article, and someone deleted that image and replaced it with the new one, which shouldn't have been done. Images, if nothing is anatomically wrong with them, should simply be placed somewhere else in the article, preserving other artist's work. Boy, I wish I could draw like Arthur or you smokey, but stick figures will have to do for me :p-- Spotty  11222 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your picture does seem to be rather longer than the reconstruction shows; however, since the vertebrae are not complete in the skeleton, who knows! Mr Wesleys picture suggests that the back legs would be more substantial, but is that based on the muscle attachment in a scientific way, or just copying a picture of an otter? Thank you for contributing your picture. Wesley presumably studied pictures of otters, which this is surely based on, to get colouration and soft tissue appearance. This makes it seem rather more 'real' than your pic, but is that neccesarily a good idea? Your picture serves to remind us that these are speculative reconstructions, based on a single, incomplete specimen, which might, for all we know, be deformed, like the original Neanderthal specimen! We should certainly keep it, at least until more evidence is available. IceDragon64 (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

American/British spelling
This article was originally written with the spelling 'meter'. Despite the fact that I am British and I hate that spelling, I recognise that the original spelling should be preserved and will revert to it (reluctantly!) unless anyone can give a valid reason for doing otherwise.

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The species name honouring an English naturist might be a good reason perhaps? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was a naturist? Manormadman (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)