Talk:Epidexipteryx

Article creation

Wow, there was no page on this dinosaur (perhaps proto-bird?), and then I decided to look at another article. But when I clicked the back button, there it was! Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I couldn't just leave that link red! Abyssal (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good work on this page, Dinoguy2. I just heard about this thing, I am still in shock. This is just so awesome!Jbrougham (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Free images

FYI, the pre-pub article is licensed under CC3 attribution. Anybody able to copy the images from the pdf for upload? Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just had a glimpse of the paper yesterday. When I came back today, I find out it has been withdrawn from the Nature Precedings site because of some licensing violation. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And because it wasn't supposed to be there. ;) J. Spencer (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that. Well, I'll just have to wait until it is published in Nature, then ... ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Grey Zone

It's a little late to stuff the genie back into the bottle, since it's been widely discussed throughout the Internet and the article is currently freely available, but would it perhaps be polite to redirect (say, to Scansoriopterygidae?) and lock this page until it is published? It's not technically even peer-reviewed yet. J. Spencer (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wiki policy on this? It was the journal's call to publish it on the web before peer review. It's not like it was published in a blog or something. The fact that there's a "pre-review" section publicly available on the web site of a major journal, licensed under Creative Commons (!!) is a stupendously bad idea, but I don't think it's our place to make that call. We're just reporting what's out there. If any taxonomic dramas arise out of this, we'd have to discuss them in the article anyway! Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was all a manuscript submission mistake by the authors, says T. Holtz on DML. Tweaked the article accordingly; it should now be fine (Sarefo and I had a similar case with some spiders once). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The DML post or perhaps its actual source on the Nature Web page ought to be linked though. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He said there's a "non-zero chance" it was an error. I'd still like to see some kind of source for this before we treat his guess as fact. Thanks for adding the in-press qualifiers though. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He posted again this morning, where he said he got in contact with the authors and confirmed the mistake. It should show up in the DML archives in the next couple of days. J. Spencer (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the article was published by mistake is of course irrelevant. The main reason the name is invalid is simply article 8.6 of the ICZN:

"Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself"

Is there such a statement in the article naming Areosteon?--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter for our purposes: citing that article, which does not specifically mention these situations, would be drawing original taxonomic opinions not found outside Wikipedia. If somebody writes a Letter to Nature about it or something, that's a different story. But as far as I can tell, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, articles published in otherwise valid online editions of journals are fair game unless there are published opinions to the contrary. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature Precedings is an author self-archiving service for life scientists run by Nature Publishing Group. It is similar to the ArXiv, an author self-archiving service for physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists run by Cornell University. Nature Precedings is not an "advance online publication" service for the journal Nature, but is a hosting service open to any researchers who choose to make preliminary findings widely available for (re-)use by other researchers. (The use of Creative Commons licenses is intended to facilitate the free and open dissemination of information.) In addition to agreeing to a Creative Commons license, authors must explicitly agree to the terms and conditions of the site, which includes acknowledging that documents will be publicly available to anyone accessing [the site] usually within one working day or less. (The journal itself does not release any material to the site.) Documents hosted on the site are primarily manuscripts which may be submitted before, in concurrence with, or after peer-review, depending on the publishing journal's policies. (Most journals, including Nature, prohibit the posting of the post-peer-reviewed versions of articles.) There are both benefits and risks to posting one's manuscript on the site, which vary by discipline. In the case of documents involving nomenclatural acts, authors are strongly advised against posting manuscripts.-- Hilary Spencer, Product Development Manager, Nature Precedings 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! The publication thus also failed to meet the condition of Art 8.1.1.: "it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record."--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been updated with the link to the official publication in Nature. 17:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.186.2 (talk)

You guys probably know this already, but National Geographic news covered this story and ran a photo on Sept. 29th. They gave no caveats about it not being peer reviewed. So, I think we should cover it as "reported" by the authors. Their manuscript leaves a lot of unanswered questions (what's in the counterslab? What position is metatarsal I in? Any evidence the slab is not composited - it should be CT'd), and it may even be rejected still. But word is out, people will come to Wikipedia looking for more details, and I think it is good that we can provide them.Jbrougham (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nat Geo ran a story about an unpublished, un-peer reviewed dino/bird? I'm chocked, shocked! ;) Any cite for the archaeor-- err, article? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Published

Just FYI, the paper has now been published. The leaked 'manuscript' was apparently in fact a post-review finished version close to release. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The earliest example of feathers in the fossil record

Hello- This is a difficult issue. It seems to me that Epidexipteryx is the earliest example of feathers in the fossil record. This is simply because I cannot find a species with evidence of feathers that is older. However, it is difficult to find a direct quote supporting this view.

From here I quote: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/10/epidexipteryx_a_tall_tail.html

"“It shows that feathers were likely being used for ornamentation for many millions of years before they were modified for flight,” says Angela Milner, an expert at London’s Natural History Museum who was not involved in the research (BBC). “It provides fascinating evidence of evolutionary experiments with feathers that were going on before small dinosaurs finally took to the air and became birds.”

Discovered in China by researchers led by Fucheng Zhang, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the animal is probably between 152 and 168 million years old. This would make it slightly older than the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx."

This seems to support my position. However, I cannot find a direct quote. I'm not quite sure about how this may work, but I'm going to stick with my addition until someone comes up with an older species. Cheers, InterwebUsr (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, here we go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7684796.stm "The new species is the earliest known to possess ornamental display feathers"

I admit I'm rather wikipedia-illiterate. If someone else would like to add that as a source to the claim on the page, please go right ahead. I cannot figure out now and currently do not have the time. Cheers, InterwebUsr (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I added the second as a reference, with "ornamental" added. J. Spencer (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Avialae?

Well I am far from an expert in paleontology and I know I will probably initiate a shitstorm, but.. the overall description of the creature in this article indicates a creature obviously basal in the maniraptoran clade (especially the saurischian hip)... Can anyone point out details of the original Zhang's publication (linked PDF is no longer available) that would justify Scansoriopterygids' inclusion into avialae (while excluding deinonychosaurians) as described in the cladogram?--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been talk online that they may be basal maniraptorans, especially since they share some key features with therizinosaurs. But this has never been supported in the lit and literally every extant paper finds them to be avialans. So implying anything else is pure original research. But, keep in mind that the lit for these guys consists of about 2 papers, so literally any further study (which is desperately needed) will probably change a lot :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, from the paper: "Although possessing many derived features seen in birds, including a humerus as long as the femur, a long preacetabular process of the ilium with a strongly convex margin, and many other features..." But they then go on to list features in common with oviraptorosaurs and some not seen in other theropods. The phylogeny has them fall out as Avialae but it's probably weakly supported. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of remiges

Should that really be there considering that one manus is a mangled mess consisting of about 5 pieces, and the other isn't even preserved on the slab? Also neither are described in the paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.169.1 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be OR contradicting the source. From the paper--"pennaceous feathers suitable for flight are not present in Epidexipteryx, even though the bones and integument are well preserved. Because pennaceous feathers are commonly encountered in other feathered maniraptorans, their absence constitutes another highly unusual feature of Epidexipteryx, as well as strongly implying that this taxon was non-volant." To indulge in a bit more OR, the ulna is preserved on both arms and not really overlapping the body, with no trace of remiges. Additionally, the remiges usually serve to hold the manus together in other fossil specimens due to the strong binding of ligaments. The fact that the manus is mangled while the rest of the skeleton is not is evidence itself for the absence of remiges. Of course more specimens could shed light on this issue, but this is what we have to work with right now. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then there's of course also the question of whether it had wing-membranes like its relatives... FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epidexipteryx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606032913/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/10/epidexipteryx_at_last.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/10/epidexipteryx_at_last.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)