Synapsid Scutes

EOL Pages
1

I have a few issues wið statements of ðe page on synapsids about scutes.

  1. Ðe page states
    “Among the early synapsids, only two species of small varanopids have been found to possess scutes”
    and cites “The integumentary skeleton of tetrapods: origin, evolution, and development” as a source. However, ðis wellspring of info says ðat osteoderms have been found only in two varanopids among synapsids, not ðat scutes have. Moreover, a few words later, ðe page rightly states ðat skin impressions have shown some synapsids to have had scutes on ðeir undersides. Indeed, ophiacodonts and ðe trackmaker of ðe Polish tracks (ðe paper, “A supposed eupelycosaur body impression from the early Permian of the Intra-Sudetic basin, Poland”, about ðis is cited by ðe page) have ðus been shown to have had belly scutes. Ðis shows ðat synapsid scutes have not been found just in varanopids (if varanopids are synapsids at all).

  2. Why does ðe page cite “A mixed-age classed ‘pelycosaur’ aggregation from South Africa: earliest evidence of parental care in amniotes?” as a wellspring of ðe (true) info ðat some synapsids had belly scales? Said source seems to not hold ðat info. Instead, “Pennsylvanian pelycosaurs from Linton, Ohio and Nýřany, Czechoslovakia” does.

  3. Ðe page doesn’t draw attention to ðe possible placement of Varanopidae in Sauropsida raðer ðan Synapsida.

Regards,

Tristan

2

Thanks for inquiring, Tristan! It looks like the article provider in this case is wikipedia. It is from last year, but I think the issues you raise are still evident in the current version. If you would care to make some revisions to the wikipedia page, please let me know when you are satisfied with it and I will run a refresh script to bring the updated version to EOL.

Standing by,

Jen

3

Hi Jen,

Þanks for your reply!

Will do.

Best,

Tristan

4

Hi Jen,

Done :+1:. Please make sure my edits are right :white_check_mark: and tell me if ðere’s someþing wanting before you bring ðe updated version hiðer.

Best,

Tristan

5

Thanks for that quick response, Tristan! It looks good to me. I think a wiki process came after you and reformatted your citation dates, but the meaning is unchanged. I’ll schedule an ad hoc update to get this to the EOL page for your review. It may take a few days to propagate.

Thanks again!

Jen

6

:blush:

I’m happy ðat you’re happy wið my changes.

Þanks for scheduling ðe update.

Best,

Tristan