Talk:Uintatherium

Size

The article says that Uintatherium was the size of a Rhino, but rhinos vary widely in size. The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wellll... to within an order of magnitude, all rhinos are the same linear size, like all humans. But few people even know about the Sumatran rhino. But with the smallest rhino massing nearly a tonne, and the largest less than 4 tonnes, I reckon it gives us not too bad an idea of whether any animal you trip over is likelier to be a uintatherium or a goat. Anyway, the article gives an estimate of about 2.5 tonnes, which sounds like a good average rhino, no? JonRichfield (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Marshy browsers

I have not changed the text, yet, but I am bothered by a couple of apparently contradictory statements. Consider: "...a large browsing animal..." and "...the aquatic plants from marshes that seem to have comprised their diet...". I could of course re-word the text to emphasise the unusualness of a diet of marshes, but more importantly, since when is an animal that eats aquatic plants from marshes a browser? I think that text need re-thinking plus some citations. What do uintatherium cheek teeth look like? Hmmm... I see that online Britannica say: "The teeth were also distinctive: males of the genus possessed large, powerful canines; incisors were absent in the upper jaw but present in a reduced state in the lower; and the upper molars were characterized by V-shaped crests." That sounds more like browser than marsh-eater to me. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612818/Uintatherium . But I am no palaeontologist. Mind you, I went looking and found a remarkably interesting site: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/jwahlert/enamel/schmelz.html Ooooh boyyy... Distraction alert! The more I look the more I find that needs attention! I'm outta here for now! JonRichfield (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2012 (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:Uintatherium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Borophagus (talk · contribs) 20:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Since I already did a comprehensive review at the paleo article workshop with GAN in mind, I will just do the source review here:

• Not strictly necessary, but it would be super helpful to any reader (not only for the sources reviewer) to provide links to the pdfs of the old public domain papers of Cope etc., many of which are somewhere in the BHL.

  Not sure if this is doable at the moment, as I only really edit using visual mode and all of the citation references being moved to the end of the article means I can't edit them the way I normally would. I can probably work on it when I have time.

  Sorry, I did not know that Visual Editor does not work when the citations are at the end; that's frustrating. If you prefer to have them within the text, I can use the script to move them; it's just three clicks, absolutely no problem. Let me know what you prefer. That said, I mean this as a general comment; adding all those links is not needed to reach GA (but a reviewer may ask for assistance to access those papers (quote, instructions etc.) to do the spot check, per WP:SPOTCHECK). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  All good! Moving them would make it a lot easier, thank you (especially for spot-checking as you say).

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Cheers! I've done what I can, although Leidy's work naming Uintamastix was available only on the Internet Archive, and Cope's "Lefalophodon" telegram, frustratingly, seems to have no internet presence whatsoever. Borophagus (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Alongside Loxolophodon, Cope also described another genus of dinoceratan, Eobasileus;[5][7] – I am not sure why this needs two sources (both Cope papers), did he name Eobasileus in both? I tried to find these papers but I only found a third, which seems to be the first description of Eobasileus but has a different title? Confused.

  Replaced with the description.

• In 1977, Leo Gabounia reported fossils possibly assignable to Uintatherium[12] – The English part of the paper only says that Gabounia reported fossils of "large uintatheres", but the rest is Chinese. Did you translate the Chinese? If you tell that the source says this directly I will AGF here.

  I don't have access to Gabounia's paper itself, but the U. insperatus description, when translated, does seem to say: Reports indicate that large Uintatherium fossils have also been found in Early Tertiary strata of the Zaisan Basin in Kazakhstan, Soviet Union (Gabounia, 1977 et al.)

• Uintatherium was initially regarded by Marsh as a brontothere.[1]: 4 – This does not seem to check out. The source (on the cited page 4) only says O. C. Marsh found some uintathere scraps in the Bridger Basin of Wyoming in 1871 which he described under the name of Titanotherium f anceps (Marsh 1871, pp. 35-36). You seem to have some WP:SYNTH here, as you assume Titanotherium = brontothere? But then, why do you cite Wheeler (1961) and not Marsh directly? In any case, my problem here is that Marsh described Brontotheriidae in 1873, while he described Titanotherium anceps in 1871, hence he could not possibly have regarded it as a brontothere, no? Maybe I miss something, but please explain.

  Changed. That was a genuine oversight on my part.

• In 1881, Henry Fairfield Osborn assigned Uintatherium to the order Dinocerata. At the time, dinocerates were believed to be part of Amblypoda, a group uniting an assortment of basal (early-diverging) ungulates from the Paleogene,[15][18] and were sometimes referred to as "dinoceratous amblypods".[19] – checks out.
• A 2015 analysis by Benjamin R. Burger, presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, not only recovered a monophyletic Uintatheriamorpha (consisting of Carodnia + Dinocerata), but placed them immediately basal to the artiodactyl/perissodactyl split.[29] – An SVP poster is a bit dubious for controversial information like this. Suggest to remove this.

  Removed.

• The oldest remains confidently assigned to this species are from the faunal zone "BR3" of the Bridger Formation, which is at the end of the Bridgerian land mammal age.[58] – I bet it's in the source somewhere, but it's not easy to find and the page range is very long. Can you give me a page number please.

  Added. Borophagus (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You added p. 291, but I can't see any mention of Uintatherium on that page? A hint would be appreciated to save me time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, my bad: "Eight genera make their first appearance in Br3 with Uintatherium, Telmatherium, and Tillomys being among the most important."

I must be blind or something. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

That's my spot check; waiting for your replies before deciding how to continue (it has time until January). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

We apparently got two source-text integrity issues, so I'm going to check some more when time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• The mandibular condyles are small and convex, and sit slightly above the level of the cheek teeth. Below the condyles, the posterior face of the mandible roughens, due to the attachment of the pterygoid muscles. – you cite p. 41, but it is not on that page (it's on page 29). Regarding the second sentence (the roughened posterior face), I am wondering why you pick this particular detail? What do you want to teach the reader? As this article is a high-level summary, I would assume that this feature is particularly important, but I don't see why. Isn't the surface where the pterygoid muscle attaches always rough? This does not seem to be specific for this genus? In addition, I would also question the info that the condyles are "convex", condyles are always convex, that's nothing we need to point out.

  Removed. I agree that it was kind of superfluous.

• George Gaylord Simpson suggested that Uintatherium's canines might have been employed in aggressive downward stabs.[43] – Checks out, but you should provide the year (1941), otherwise a reader might think this is a recent opinion; knowing that it's 1941 is important or else this could be misleading.

  Changed.

• Remains assigned to U. insperatus have also been found in the similarly-aged Uqbulak Formation in the Junggar Basin.[65] – The source (here: ; you could add that link to the reference, too) does say U. cf. insperatus, which means they did not formally assign it to that species. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Changed and added the link. Borophagus (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: Despite some issues with the sources, they were mostly minor, and overall, I think it's in good shape. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2025 (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.