Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

Add discussion
Active discussions

WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

New Subsection ProposalEdit

So, I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a subsection, probably best in the tasks or article alerts section, that lists uncreated gen. nov.(new fossil discovery) pages. It would be good to have one place to keep track of all of them. It would just list redlinks, or even draft namespace links, and once an article for one of them is created, it is removed from the list. A good format, I think, would just be:

  • [[Draft:<Genus>]]: <Author>, (<date of publication>)<reference>

((most recent on top, oldest on bottom))

example:

Reflist
    1. ^ Mapalo, M. A.; Robin, N.; Boudinot, B. E.; Ortega-Hernández, J.; Barden, P. (2021). "A tardigrade in Dominican amber". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 288 (1960): Article ID 20211760. doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.1760. PMID 34610770.
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference A was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The only thing is that a list like this would have to be kept track of and updated somewhat daily.

And of course, feel free to let me know if there's some other dynamic that has a similar purpose to this. And if not, let me know if this seems like a good idea or not. Hiroizmeh (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the lists of years in paleontology already do that (just scroll through for hundreds of red links), would be a bit much to keep a parallel list updated. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

20XX in paleontology already covers what you are suggesting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess I could've mentioned 'besides Years in Paleontology pages' in the comment. What I was thinking was a list to be used for WP:Paleo members to keep track of new articles for new taxa that are in need of being written. But yeah, Years in paleontology works too. And that brings up one more thing I was wondering about---what's your opinion on having the lists of new taxa there being in chronological order instead of alphabetical? I feel like it would be an overall more useful format, and new additions could easily be kept track of. What do you think? Hiroizmeh (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That would be easy to do in cases where it is easy to determine the exact date of the publication of the article naming a new taxon. It would make me unsure what to do in cases of taxa named in journals with limited or no Internet presence, such as some museum bulletins - in cases of taxa named in such journals I sometimes learn about them years after the date of the publication, and I find it hard to narrow down the date of the publication to something more specific than the year (or sometimes the month) of the publication.--188.147.99.83 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to find exact dates for all of them, so it would be incomplete anyway, and therefore not really chronological. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright. If anyone needs it anyway, I have an (incomplete) list at my userpage for reference.Hiroizmeh (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

About Magnatyrannus (was: Suffixes for clades)Edit

Bears a public notice: Magnatyrannus, just because a group is named with a certain prefix nowadays, doesn't mean it automatically falls under the corresponding Linnaean rank. Look at the paper that named Daspletosaurini:

Dinosauria Owen, 1842

Theropoda Marsh, 1881

Tetanurae Gauthier, 1986

Coelurosauria von Huene, 1914

Tyrannosauridae Osborn, 1906

Tyrannosaurinae Osborn, 1906

Daspletosaurini clade nov.

— Voris et al. (2020)[1]

Modern cladistic taxonomy is not beholden to the Linnaean system at any level higher than the genus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Magnatyrannus. You need to stop. Your edits are being constantly reverted and that is a signal to you that you need to stop what you are doing and align with other editors. Your combative attitude is not helping. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Magnatyrannus has massive competence issues generally, see Talk:Chiniquodon, where he provided no valid justification for his reversion for a redirect for a synonymous cynodont genus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
An intervention is clearly needed. I'm hoping that this will be it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I don't know if this would be of any help, but I know Magnatyrannus off-wiki, and he has displayed the same combative, self-promoting, dissent-ignoring attitude, trying to force me to edit cladograms I made and researched myself in order to fit his viewpoint. In light of that, I believe he is not WP:COMPETENT enough to edit Wikipedia. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I've had enough. Hemiauchenia, Atlantis536, I'm game for an ANI thread if you are. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes: Go ahead. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
As a note @Hemiauchenia: has (temporarily?) retired.--Kevmin § 21:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Some scientists keep them as separate Magnatyrannus (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  • This is getting increasingly frustrating. I don't think I've seen a single edit by Magnatyrannus that wasn't disruptive and ignored consensus. Is it time to take action? They're wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I can agree now. On the positive side, Magnatyrannus is very active and does make some good corrections, so I was hoping for improvement over time. But the percentage of bad edits is so high. And when pointed out, the lack of cooperation and communication is very frustrating. Here are some past examples of just some of my encounters: Talk:Mekosuchinae#Should_it_be_called_"Mekosuchidae"? (regarding clade names) and Saurolophinae (check recent edit history: trying to change the common name to Saurolophines, despite disagreement from myself and Kevmin). And just today, check out the recent edit history on Borealosuchus - Magnatyrannus was eager to immediately jump into an edit war without willing to engage in discussion. Shows lack of growth. A bummer. Cougroyalty (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, as Cougroyalty already noted, @Magnatyrannus: does make some good edits at times. but having to sift though all the edits to verify there is actual support for each one is a huge disruption and times sink, plus additional basic skills such as backing edits with reference addition is actively being ignored at this point despite months of being told to include them.--Kevmin § 21:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Cougroyalty, Kevmin, Atlantis536 - would one of you like to start an ANI thread? I'm less active than you so you're probably a better judge of Magnatyrannus' overall behaviour. But I'd be happy to provide supporting arguments. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no experience with those, but yeah, I think it's about time, if anyone knows the ropes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I haven't really analyzed Magnatyrannus' entire edit history, so I don't think I'll be able to chronicle the entire scope of his disruption. But I can offer some cases if need be. Cougroyalty, Kevmin, you may go ahead. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Sadly I am totally inexperienced at ANI structure and writing, I would be able to support with diffs, but I dont know the needs of creating and shepherding one.--Kevmin § 01:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I can maybe nominally be in charge of it if we can make a draft here first. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: How about this?

Ever since he joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, he has rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements he personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). He has shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). He usually doesn't communicate, but when he does, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). He has also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with him (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so I believe he is not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia.


Also pinging Hiroizmeh and Trilletrollet, who have dealt with him before. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, if others agree, and we can get some diffs inserted, I'll go ahead. FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, there's not really much point for me to add any more input to this discussion, but I can attest that they've been a little... difficult. Some diffs that I can think of from off the top of my head for reference:
Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 02:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Removing sourced statement because he personally disagrees with it: [4]
Rewriting template and deleting entries to fit personal viewpoint: [5]
Refusal to seek consensus: [6] [7]
Insistence on a personal "official classification": [8]
Mocking remarks: [9] [10]
Personal attacks on userpages: [11]

These are what I can remember on the top of my head. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

He's been doing a lot of edit warring on the Thescelosaurinae page too. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs inserted into draft. I think it's ready to be brought to ANI. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ANI begun here, feel free to add further diffs and comments:[12] FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, Magnatyrannus has been indeffed. Seemed a bit harsh but we won't have to sift through their edits now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm surprised it's an indef already, but well, I'm not going to protest it... He has the option himself anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Tbh I'm glad they're finally gone. The edit warring was getting quite obnoxious -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Big John (triceratops)Edit

I recently created a draft for Draft:Big John (triceratops). It recently sold at auction for a record price. Thriley (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why it needs a new article, not much to say about it other than it was sold for a lot of money. Specimens should be treated at the article about the animal. One could argue we might have a Specimens of Triceratops article, though, but I don't think individual specimens compare to those of Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur). Given that Thriley has engaged in canvassing by invoking the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (a group known to have strongly skewed views towards inclusion) participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up on the AFD, but does an article along the lines of "private trade in dinosaur fossils" exist? It's a fairly significant controversy, after all, and does regularly come up in the news. It might be a sufficiently clearly-defined and notable topic to merit its own page—thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that an article Specimens of Triceratops would be difficult to source, and could only include some of the specimens due to a lack of sources. Instead, I would suggest to just add one sentence about Big John to the Triceratops article. When, at some point, the "History of discovery" section in Triceratops gets too long, it could become its own sub-article with all the details on individual specimens. We should, however, not give too much weight on this specimen because privately owned fossils are practically worthless for science.
  • An article on private fossil trade is definitely important. We just need somebody who writes it I guess. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Fossil collecting kinda briefly covers it. I think if an article is to be written, it should cover the entire fossil trade, and not just dinosaurs, as the recent coverage I have seen tends not to cover dinosaurs exclusively, like this recent New York Times piece. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I'd support simply having "Fossil trade" be its own article. There's certainly more to say about it than a couple paragraphs in a more general article. It's not really my thing, but I'd contribute some work to it if we decided to make the article. Things that could be touched on could include the history of the private trade in fossils (including early scientific trade, e.g. Mary Anning), legality, ethics/controversy, places particularly associated with the fossil trade (e.g. Morocco, Burmese amber, western US), notable specimens and incidents (e.g. Sue, Nic Cage)... Ornithopsis (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I created a fossil trade article[13] years ago, but it was so short that I just merged it where it is now as a section. It could just be reverted back and expanded from there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I made an article on the Moroccan fossil trade specifically back in July, so there should definitely be enough material out there to do one on the industry as a whole. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and resurrected the page, and started some expansion of it. It seems restoring the old page has triggered some copyright violation and unreliable source alerts, though, the nature of which I am uncertain of. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I found this discussion after reviewing EranBot's tag of the page as a potential copyright violation. The site that it identified is a mirror of Wikipedia, and since the material is simply being restored from the history, there are no copyright or attribution concerns, as far as I can tell. DanCherek (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the page was up for a few years before I redirected it again, so plenty of time for mirrors to pop up. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
There's currently a thread at ANI about the Article Rescue Squadron, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

List of auctioned dinosaursEdit

I proposed a compromise solution at AFD of incorporating information about this specimen, and those like it, into a "list of auctioned dinosaurs" or something similar. I was wondering if anyone here had any thoughts on what to title the article and what its inclusion criteria should be. I'm inclined to think that the list should include all specimens that A) are Mesozoic or non-neornithean dinosaur fossils, B) were sold at an auction, or planned to be sold at one, and C) the auction of the specimen or plans thereof have been covered in independent, reliable sources. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I assume dueling dinos will be included under those criteria? The guide price (if available) probably should also be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Dueling Dinos was specifically one I had in mind as believing the criteria should be set to include. Guide price is a good idea. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction (see List of most expensive cars sold at auction, List of most expensive watches sold at auction). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created a draft, Draft:List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. There are doubtless others that I have missed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I more in the specimens of Tyrannosaurus list were sold at auctions (Samson, perhaps Tristan, etc.). But perhaps not all at auctions. Wonder if the criteria should be more inclusive? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I found reference to a BBC Story where a dinosaur nest from southern China was sold for $420,000 back in 2006. Since the eggs apparently have prenatal bones I thought this warranted inclusion, but perhaps not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, this is awkward—I've spent the last couple of hours working on a draft of my own, and was just about to post it when I saw you had done so... Ornithopsis (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
How much does your list differ from mine? If it's better formatted I'll happily go with yours. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and copied mine in... It mostly has the same information, but there are a few gaps that need to be filled in. Thoughts on the formatting and information I've chosen to include? Ornithopsis (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems fine, listing the auction house seems good. It's currently missing the Allosaurus and Diplodocus that were sold in April 2018. But other than that it's mostly complete considering what I've been able to find via news coverage. I'm still not sure we should incorporate dinosaurs that were auctioned but failed to sell. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that if there are reliable sources revealing the planned auction of the specimen, it's worth including in the list—although perhaps it should be included in a separate section of the list. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
There's also the the issue of local v USD currency, large numbers of specimens are sold in euros. Not sure what to do about that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
There's got to be a standardized way Wikipedia handles information reported in different currencies, right? Converting it all to the same currency, if possible, would be best for comparing different items on the list, in my opinion. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for including the failed to sell section in a separate table. I'm about to go to bed, so if you want to fix up the table I'll stop treading on your toes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of whether to include unsold dinosaurs or not: there are a handful of unsold dinosaurs, such as Skinny the diplodocid and the Dueling Dinosaurs, that I think are remarkable enough to merit mention. I'm not sure what inclusion criteria to use for that besides the availability of reliable sources (obviously excluding auction promotional items), so I think it's better to allow any sourced specimen that wasn't sold to be included (although perhaps we don't need to expend excess effort on seeking out such examples to add). Ornithopsis (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is, there tends to be a lot of presale coverage, like there was of "skinny", but barely any of the failure to sell, because it's less interesting. Having gone through the news archives, there must be at least half a dozen triceratops skulls that went to auction but failed to sell. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There was also a lot about the sale of Samson in 2009, which also isn't included yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Do Ebay sales count? In 2019, there was an explosion of coverage in April about someone trying to sell a "Baby Trex", but I can't find any followup coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I think the list nearly complete, the only thing to do now is to translate the 2009 Canadian sales, (which I think are in Canadian dollars) into USD, otherwise it's ready to go live. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ornithopsis: List is complete, are we ready to go live? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all the work you've put into this! I'd like to go over the list and potentially make a few more tweaks before it goes live, which I'll do once I get the chance. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Weirdest thing I learnt doing this research is that someone paid 420 K for a nest of smuggled Chinese dinosaur eggs? Why???????????????? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Ours not to reason why... I've provisionally added a column on the current owner of the specimen. Might be hard to fill out, but to the extent possible, it could be informative to give an idea of how often these things actually end up in museums. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There are too many anonymous buyers and unclear chains of ownership to try to understand who owns these fossils without engaging in WP:OR. This is difficult even when trying to ask people and follow up on leads in real life, as the recent NYTimes article attests. On the same note, I am fairly sure that "Z-rex" is the same as Samson due to this being mentioned both directly in the current Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article and in some other places, but I can't find RS proof atm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You're right. "Current Owner" might be the information I want, but it isn't the appropriate information for this article. I suppose that in cases of a known change of owner, we could simply say so. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm now coming to regret my initial choice to organize it taxonomically; it's not always viable (fighting pair, unidentified nests), it's sometimes arbitrary, and it's perhaps not best for long-term ease of adding new information. Perhaps I should've organized it in chronological order by auction date from the beginning? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be ranked by highest price at top, as with other similar articles, like List of most expensive films. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I considered that, but unlike many such articles, the price is not necessarily the key piece of information. Also, in a few cases you've grouped together specimens sold at the same auction, and sorting it chronologically would help in keeping information on such cases organized. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
If we do it chronology wise, should we do it ascending or descending? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking ascending, so that new entries can just be placed at the end and a reader scrolling down the list reads the entries in the order that they happened. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your earlier rhetorical question about why someone would spend that much money on dinosaur eggs, it turns out there's been research on that, apparently: [14]. As far as list order goes: if switching to chronological order sounds good to you, I'll go ahead and update it. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I am off to bed now, so I'll see you tomorrow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, this list certainly still has plenty of room for improvement, but I think it's reached the point where it's ready to go live. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ornithopsis: I agree for the most part, though we should have a consistent format for auction dates. If you want to give precise dates, I'd prefer using the sortable format used in List of most expensive cars sold at auction. where the written month is given as it is much less confusing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should give the full date when we have it; I don't really see any reason not to. Other than that I don't have any strong opinions about how the date should be formatted. I was just using the ISO 8601 format [15]. If you think writing the month out would be better, go ahead. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Article is now live. This might be the most comprehensive list of auction dinosaurs anywhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Thank you for all the help, it's been a pleasure working with you! Just about the only thing I wish this article had was whether the specimen is currently owned by a public museum or private collector, but as we discussed above it might be hard to find reliable sources for the ultimate fate of many of these specimens. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I just saw Draft:Dragon King (dinosaur skull) pop up on my watch list, if anyone wants to help it along. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like someone has something they want to sell... FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty clearly a SPA... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This skull is clearly even less notable than Big John, and I'd take it to AfD the instant if was published. For one thing, the coverage period was much briefer, and I couldn't find any coverage of whether the skull sold or not (I presume it didn't as it was always much harder to find coverage of failed auctions than it was to find the pre-sale coverage). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Dragon King (dinosaur skull) has now been moved to mainspace. I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon King (dinosaur skull). Your participation would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD closedEdit

The AfD closed with no consensus today. I think a redirect discussion is in order - the auction article seems to be ready enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we wait at least a few weeks, like we did for Homo longi. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Hemiauchenia. We should give the discussion a bit of cooling-off time before we discuss merging it. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a new article in National Geographic on Big John here that contains some more information on the specimen, and which I feel provides some "missing pieces". If the article must be kept, at least we now have a source that provides a fairly reliable "second opinion" to many of the claims made in the auction. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think the coverage is any more substantial in that of the 2018 Allosaurus that supposedly represented a new species (this was before the taxonomic revision paper that established A. jimmadseni ). The claims made in the article are essentially a rehash of every other time a dinosaur has sold at auction for over one million dollars/Euros over the last decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree, it's still a weak article (and this Nat Geo article refutes some of the arguments made by the pro-keep people, such as the alleged high quality and scientific importance of the specimen). I'm just bringing it up because it seems relevant to the debate and could help mitigate some of the questionable claims made. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Basilemys reevaluationEdit

The article for Basilemys is classified as a stub. However, I think it's worthy of a higher ranking. Does someone else have to evaluate it or can I do so myself? And if someone else has to do it, would someone be willing to? Thanks in advance, -Tim (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@TimTheDragonRider: you are more than welcome to start rating these yourself. Just follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Assessment. It looks like Basilemys is already tagges as a B class now though. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Vote for a new saber-toothed nameEdit

Before I make a formal move request, I've made a survey for what to call the article about saber-toothed predators instead of the too specific "saber-toothed cat" over at:[16] Opinions would be appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The move request has begun, and is already attracting ill-informed editors, so please have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Marília Formation splitEdit

Just letting you know that the dinosaur-bearing Serra da Galga and Ponte Alta members of the Marília Formation were recently split off into the Serra da Galga Formation, leaving Kurupi itaata as the only taxon from the redefined Marília Formation. I have proposed a split on the Marília's talk page. Your help is appreciated. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is probably more relevant for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Google Books public domain questionEdit

Does anybody more familiar with copyright law than I know if a Google Books scan of a public domain work is itself public domain? I want to upload one of the plates from this text to Wikimedia Commons, but I want to make sure I'm in the clear copyright-wise. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, sweat of the brow does not apply, see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. You're all clear to upload. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, doesn't matter who scanned or photographed it, copyright applies only to the artwork. The most important thing is to find out where and when an image was first published, and the date of death of the artist. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Paleontology encyclopedias at AfDEdit

I have nominated The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures and The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals for deletion as they are unsourced and I cannot find substantial reviews about them. Feel free to participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021Edit

Hi! I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many countries last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes paid by WMEE and WMCH) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for the USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photos, infographics or videos to Wikimedia Commons, please consider submitting them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Polar forestEdit

My proposal to merge Polar forests of the Cretaceous into Cretaceous went nowhere, so I thought that I would revist the article here. I think this article has a somewhat unclear scope, and has issues with WP:SYNTH. I think it would be better if it were reforumulated to be about Polar forests as a general prehistoric ecosystem type, rather than focusing on the Cretaceous specifically, thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your merge proposal may go over better were there an actual polar forest article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I would support merging the article, as there is extensive overlap in scope with South Polar region of the Cretaceous; I am not especially convinced that Antarctic-Australian Cretaceous ecosystems and northern polar forests are really studied as any sort of unified topic that would warrant a distinct article. The former is far more extensively studied and that is under the scope of the more developed and well defined latter article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

AustralopithecineEdit

Needs checking, esp. dates. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of LifeEdit

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fossilworks downEdit

Fossilworks has been down for nearly two weeks, with no explanation (technically the main page is still working, but all the others are not). Other mirrors of the Paleobiology Database, like Mindat, remain online. We currently have over 7,000 references to fossilworks per fossilworks.org    . If fossilworks goes offline permanently, we will have to migrate over the references to the Paleobiology Database website, presumably via bot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Either that or just add a Waybackmachine mirror, which is routinely done to many working URLs already. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Much of the functionality of fossilworks comes from clicking on related entries, like the locality information, which won't work with the wayback machine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Internal links to other taxa at least work fine for me.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but the locality link in the one you provided doesn't, which just goes to prove my point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
GreenC has set up a bot to fix this, turns out there was an url migration where they added an additional string for whatever reason, but all of the links should be able to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk)

YakemysEdit

Article on just established genus, published in what appears to be a borderline unreliable journal (MDPI. Single source from a dodgy publisher - worth a critical look? I'll leave unreviewed for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Ping @Faendalimas:, topically :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand why people don't like MDPI journals generally, especially for stuff like medicine, but for paleontology I think they're fine. MDPI is borderline, far above outright predatory journals, and more like Scientific Reports, which also publishes lots of paleontology papers. We recently had a dinosaur, Issi described in MDPI, and I don't think anyone objected. Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES I think Yakemys should be kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

List of extinct plantsEdit

I have nominated the extremely poorly maintained List of extinct plants for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants. Participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, of course the Article Rescue Squadron adopts this one too... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Therapsid taxonomyEdit

I've been having a conversation with Ornithopsis at User_talk:Ornithopsis#Re:Theriodonta about the higher level taxonomy of Therapsida. Apparently, most of the higher level taxonomy of therapsids has no consenus except for Eutheriodontia, and as such, they proposed that Theriodontia and Neotherapsida should be redirected to Therapsida. None of those articles are high quality in the slightest. I support the merge proposal, but wanted to hear others opinions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Kemp (2009) made a pretty good case for the 4 "eutherapsid" groups forming a polytomy, with Biarmosuchia possibly being a basal grade, and with any similarities between gorgonopsians and eutheriodonts likely being due to convergence. I've actually wanted to merge these pages for a while, I've just never gotten around to it. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Angielczyk and Kammerer [18] has a fairly up-to-date overview of the current state of affairs. I think that our approach should be to present the relationships between the five groups (Biarmosuchia, Dinocephalia, Anomodontia, Gorgonopsia, and Eutheriodontia) as essentially a polytomy, but to acknowledge the Hopson and Bargausen paradigm as the "conventional" view. Also, the therapsid navbox needs a major overhaul. I'd definitely support a merger of Neotherapsida into Therapsida, but having given it some thought, I weakly support keeping Theriodontia—it just needs to be heavily revised to be more about the history of the concept, and the current debate over its validity. Theriodontia has much more of a history as a taxon than Neotherapsida or Eutherapsida does—keeping Theriodontia is vaguely analogous to having Ornithoscelida, Thecodontia, Pachydermata, or Insectivora. Not only does Neotherapsida lack much of an interesting taxonomic history (it's basically just a label on a cladogram), but the page as it currently exists sucks. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and boldly redirected Neotherapsida to Therapsida, there's no content of value worth merging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I've likewise taken the liberty of changing Theriodonta's taxonomy template to "Therapsida" instead of "Neotherapsida"; if there's anything else with it coded as the parent group they'll need changing too. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ornithopsis: The various therapsid clades actually used to have separate navboxes until sometime last year, when they were merged by User:Chermundy. I'll go ahead and split them again. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe taxo-nav-boxes are adding anything to articles, except themselves and their consequences, a disclaimer regarding my position. In this case a summary of the taxonomy seems to require prose with attribution [proper article content], presenting a nav box as npov would require a lot of workarounds. ~ cygnis insignis 02:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require that many workarounds. For parent taxa, it can just be linked to the most neutral supertaxon. For child taxa, they can be listed in the most neutral arrangement (as is being proposed here). This is done on many articles with no problems whatsoever. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Amirani1746 read this before reverting again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: So as much as I want the Neotherapsida and Eutherapsida taxa to be merged with the Therapsida article, I absolutely do not share your opinion with the classifications of therapsids. The Theriodontia taxon, for example, is officially validated according to the majority of paleontologists (including Kammerer). I see absolutely no point in deleting all of these pages and cutting the last links... Amirani1746 (talk)
I can only find 30 references to the term Neotherapsida is used in the entire scholarly literature, compared to the 674 times that Theriodontia has been mentioned. It's not just my opinion but that of everyone else here that matters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Amirani1746, a paper co-authored by Kammerer I already linked in this discussion specifically noted that the monophyly of Theriodontia is uncertain. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

After speaking with Kammerer on Twiiter he did tell me that the Theriodontia taxon was indeed valid(Amirani1746 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)).

You realize that we can't use the opinion of one researcher on social media to overturn a well-documented controversy in the scientific literature, right? Especially given that that researcher has fairly recently published a paper that explicitly acknowledges it as controversial. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Krammerer is arguably one of the most respected therapsid workers of the current era, but we can't use his social media opinion to determine taxonomy, only the scholarly literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

So, basically what this talk is saying is that Eutherapsida and Neotherapsida are no longer valid. Magnatyrannus (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically, yes. The status of Eutherapsida, Neotherapsida, and Theriodontia are all currently disputed. It is possible that some or all of them will become supported as valid taxa again at some point in the future, but for now we don't really know. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 4444hhhhEdit

4444hhhh is engaging in disruptive editing. We've previously discussed their bizarre User:4444hhhh/Dinosauria Common where they gave dinosaurs fake common names, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_12#Dinosaur_common_names_list.

There is currently an in press publication at IScience regarding the taxonomy of South American gomphotheres (yes, this again). They got MtDNA out of Notiomastodon, as well as created a morphological tree of most prehistoric proboscidean taxa. [19] the paper as far as I can tell proposes no major taxonomic changes. Using this paper as a justification, 4444hhhh has been making massive taxonomic changes, including redirecting the whole Gomphothere article to Gomphotherium, without any serious consideration as to the consequences [20], and which isn't seriously justified by any of the papers contents. They also created a brand new article Rhynchotheriidae, which the paper in question makes absolutely zero mention of. There is only one mention of "Rhynchotheriidae" in the entire scholarly literature from 1953, so the clade name appears to be entirely original research. I propose that all of 4444hhhh's edits on this topic be reverted, and the Rhynchotheriidae article should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should follow WP:NPA no matter the quality of an editor's edits. Concerning the edits, I would prefer if these are reverted, alone for the reason that the source appears to be still "in press"; we should not cite unpublished literature. --Jens Lallensack (talk)
It is not a personal attack if they are making stuff up. Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "incompetent editor" is a clear personal attack. We need to avoid that at all costs, otherwise we will be in a very weak position should a major dispute arise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the attacks, and replaced it with "disruptive editing". I've gone and reverted almost all of 4444hhhhs's edits on gomphotheres. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I would call their position of Stegodon a "major taxonomic shift" and Notiomastodon being an elephantid is pretty huge, but the paper does not commit to any implications of the former and the latter certainly isn't rewriting whole families worth of taxonomy for sure. Worth implementing the findings in the text of relevant articles, though, and taking a neutral stance on Notiomastodon. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you've got somethings mixed up, the paper does not state that Notiomastodon is an elephantid, but rather they state that it is a sister taxon to Elephantidae, which is the has been the consensus taxonomic position for gomphotheres for a long time, and not really a shakeup. As for placing Stegodon within living elephants, that's obviously unusual, but nothing we should change taxonomy about unless this becomes the broad consensus among workers. Stegodon also went extinct only about 10,000 years ago, so it's likely that we will be seeing molecular results from them in the coming decades. The gomphothere article arguably needs massive cleanup to discuss the broad history of the concept, but that's a lot of work and I don't have a lot of experience of the proboscidean literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WellnhopterusEdit

So today, we finally got a formal description of Quetzalcoatlus sp. (it's now called Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni)[1] In the same paper, specimen TMM 42489-2 was named as a new genus of short-snouted azhdarchid, Wellnhopterus. But there's a problem: that specimen was already named four months ago as the tapejarid Javelinadactylus. Looks like Andres and Campos named the same specimen independently, like another Barilium/Torilion situation. What do we do about this? Atlantis536 (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The Principle of priority was made for situations like this. Because it was published first Javelinadactylus is the correct name. No opinion about the taxonomic classification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Are the formal publishing dates consistent with Javelinadactylus having priority? Who knows, either one of them might end up being formally published next year, for example. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Javelinadactylus has been formally published and not just in press it clearly has taxonomic priority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
But of course, let's wait for the literature to catch on before we redirect stuff. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt it should be redirected. A bit surprised they didn't name the Q. sp. as a new genus... FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should be redirected, just merge any information in Wellnhopterus into Javelinadactylus and address the study in Javelinadactylus. Hiroizmeh (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure that Javelinadactylus doesn't have priority as it doesn't have a valid zoobank entry while Wellnhopterus does, so Wellnhopterus is technically the correct name while not being published first. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe the ICZN states a ZooBank registration as necessary for a name to be valid and available, just a valid publication, which Javelinadactylus possesses in priority. Hiroizmeh (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Whichever name it ends up as, we should make the taxobox more ambiguous, as each paper has a different higher level classification. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and redirected Wellnhopterus because it's pointless to have two articles on the same topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe a valid printed publication is needed if just publishing takes riority, but zoobank registration is needed for online-only publications which the Javelinadactylus description paper is. If the Javelinadactylus paper was printed it would have priority, but by the looks of it, it wasn't, and neither does the zoobank link work, making it invalid. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter really what the current article title is. If 'Wellnhopterus is judged the valid name later, then we can just move the page. We do not need two identical articles on the same topic, that is not useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the article title to the specimen number, TMM 42489-2, because this is for now the most neutral title until the nomenclatural issues are resolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Javelina azhdarchid" or similar which it was referred to before it was named make more sense? It's about a taxon, after all. The current name is nonsensical to most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The specimen is what it's really about, otherwise we are running into WP:SYNTH issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The animal has been referred to as "Javelina azhdarchid" in the literature.[21][22][23] FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree. I've moved Javelinadactylus to "Javelina azhdarchid". Having two articles on the same material is pointless, Wellnhopterus should be merged. This material has been discussed prior to the naming of these two anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree they should be merged. Another issue is of course the difference in classification, since the Javelinadactylus paper considers it a thalassodromine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's Darren Naish's take on the situation:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If, as Naish is implying, the publication of Javelinadactylus was rushed out Aetogate style (does anybody else remember Aetogate?) to beat them to the punch then that's pretty shitty. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That's the word going around twitter at the moment, yes. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If, as has been claimed on twitter, the specimen wasn't even viewed in person by Campos when he wrote the paper, then that's just shoddy science. We will just have to wait and see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Naish also since added to the blog post above that "I am reliably informed by Tyler Greenfield that Wellnhopterus brevirostris is now considered officially published, whereas Javelinadactylus sagebieli is still classed as an “advance online publication” and is thus not an “available publication” according to Article 9.9 of the ICZN. The name Wellnhopterus is thus the one we should use." FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Mortimer leans to the other side in the comments and Naish seems to agree things are uncertain at the moment. I think we're definitely right to stick with the neutral page name for now. Related note—shouldn't the page be called "Javelina azdarchoid" if we're trying to be neutral here? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Problem is also that Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology is just incredibly slow. The Wellnhopterus paper was first submitted to the journal on 01 Nov 2017! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Article 9.9 of the ICZN covers preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication [25]. I think what it is intended to cover are preprints and online "in press" publications. The Javelinadactylus paper was fully published online prior to the release of the Wellnhopterus paper, so I would take what Tyler Greenfield (who is a paleontology student who has no experience of actual taxonomc disputes) says with a massive grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, that's something I was confused about, how according to Naish, Greenfield calss the Javelinadactylus paper an "advanced preprint". ICZN articles 21.8.2&3 discuss "separates", which I was thinking could be what they meant to say. Apparently, a separate as defined in the ICZN glossary is basically a distributed/advanced portion of a preprint, which I don't believe the Javelinadactylus paper is either. I am not sure what Greenfield was trying to say, since as far as I can tell, Javelinadactylus has benn 100% validly published since July and is not an "advance online publication." Hiroizmeh (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I can attest on a personal note that Greenfield is well read on nomenclatural rules; he's even published four papers relating to nomenclatural corrections. Article 9 of the ICZN as you've linked is quite explicitly about publications that do not count as published. I do not see anywhere in Article 8 or Article 9 that indicates that preliminary online publications for papers to be published physically are considered the same as electronically published works (which are the ones that hinge on a Zoobank entry). Biologia published physically and this online version is an advance. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The Article 9.9 links to article 21.8.3, which states Some works are accessible online in preliminary versions before the publication date of the final version. Such advance electronic access does not advance the date of publication of a work, as preliminary versions are not published. That's pretty clearly referring to "in press" articles, not published electronic-only publications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and the "Javelinadactylus" paper is the former. Biologia publishes physically and this an advance online version. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The Javelinadactylus paper is clearly not "preliminary", but fully published online in its final form, with a 2021 date. As for whether that counts for the ICZN, who fuckings knows, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If it is going to be published physically with a Volume and Issue but does not as yet have those that certainly sounds like it would be considered in press, i.e. preliminary. So it might be in its final form in terms of text, but is not fully published, which is what matters here. In which case the thusfar cited lines of the ICZN code are quite clear. Also note that it doesn't have an article identifier, which a validly published electronic article would possess in its citation. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Interesting comment by Christian Krammerer in response to Greenfield in the TetZoo comments: This is not the stated viewpoint of the Commission. ICZN Commissioner Frank-Thorsten Krell has addressed this very situation (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274372707_A_mixed_bag_when_are_early_online_publications_available_for_nomenclatural_purposes), and things like volume number and pagination are explicitly stated to not be missing content that renders a paper "preliminary"; i.e. they are not necessary to establish the Version of Record from which point a name becomes available. The Version of Record is defined as follows: "A fixed version of a journal article that has been made available by any organization that acts as a publisher by formally and exclusively declaring the article ‘published’. This includes any ‘early release’ article that is formally identified as being published even before the compilation of a volume issue and assignment of associated metadata, as long as it is citable via some permanent identifier(s). This does not include any ‘early release’ article that has not yet been ‘fixed’ by processes that are still to be applied, such as copy-editing, proof corrections, layout, and typesetting." The Campos (2021) paper fulfills all of those criteria. I know it sucks, but Javelinadactylus is the senior name for this taxon. (Between "Wellnhopterus" and "Ingridia", it's been really bad luck for ol' Peter). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, it's very annoying that everything hinges on the definition of "preliminary", something never specified in the code itself and instead apparently reliant on being specified by an external Comissioner. Hence why we're left with situations like ours where two parties can read the application of the code entirely differently in this situation. Regardless, I suspect if Javelinadactylus is indeed considered to have priority the ethical concerns will either lead to prevailing usage ignoring this or a petition being opened to suppress it. I doubt this debacle is over by any means. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
If you recall Aetogate (which if you can't there are plenty of archives on it at SVPOW and TetZoo and other places), there were essentially no consequences for Spencer Lucas and the names were not suppressed. I think the same results are likely in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
There's basically been a collective agreement to avoid Ajancingenia, though. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
As well as Kulindapteryx and Daurosaurus, and Galveosaurus was ignored even prior to people realizing it actually didn't have priority anyways. There is not a clear cut method to follow here, we should wait to see what the "first reviser" uses as the name, and then follow the consensus regardless of whether we believe it is right in the eyes of the code or SVP ethics. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"Javelina azdarchoid", or even "Javelina neoazdarchian" is the most specific classification that can be made while still remaining neutral, and I'd say a good name, although FunkMonk's argument for it being called "Javelina azdarchid" because it's been called that numerous times in the scientific literature is a good argument as well. I'd personally say either one is fine for different reasons, but I guess you can try to hold a vote or try to reach a consensus on what you guys decide. Hiroizmeh (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't thought of the point of what it's been referred to; in that case I concur with FunkMonk's argument and think that, given it's an article title, we should follow the actual common name (Javelina azdarchid) rather than making up what we think the best would be ourselves. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Cabrochu who has implied that they are Christopher Brochu, a Professor of Paleontology at the University of Iowa has been repeatedly adding an uncited interpretation of the ICZN taxonomy to the Javelina azhdarchid article. After it has been repeatedly removed, he seems to have taken it rather personally with me at my talkpage. I feel very uncomfortable, can other people respond to him too? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you handled it pretty well? He also wrote on my talk page, but did not give an answer to my reply. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brian Andres; Wann Langston Jr. (14 December 2021). "Morphology and taxonomy of Quetzalcoatlus Lawson 1975 (Pterodactyloidea: Azhdarchoidea)". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 41 (sup1): 142. doi:10.1080/02724634.2021.1907587. ISSN 0272-4634. Retrieved 8 December 2021.

Reforme the Inostrancevia pageEdit

While doing my research on gorgonopsians, I noticed a very strange thing: It seems that the article dedicated for Inostrancevia is strangely little developed. I mean, it is one the best known gorgonopsian to the public, with the peculiarity that it often cited as one of the best-knows animals of the Paleozoic (To tell you, he even appeared in several media that mention him), but the dedicated page seems to be very crowded. For comparison, the article on the related genus Viatkogorgon (which is a gorgonopsian almost unknown to the public) has a labeled article while it is known only by a single complete skeleton, Inostrancevia has two almost complete (which is a miracle for a gorgonopsian, because we usually only find skulls). If there are users who have good sources for this animal, I think we can get a well-polled article, even a labeled article, like the one on Viatkogorgon. (Amirani1746 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC))

Yes, but as usual with any article, someone has to spend the time to do it. Viatkogorgon was expanded because it is a relatively simple taxon to write about. That is not the case for Inostrancevia, which has a huge, complex literature, and is therefore much harder to write about. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus also has an enormous and complex literature, yet this did not prevent it from obtaining a labeled article. It's quite possible to get the same thing with Inostrancevia I think... (Amirani1746 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC))
Tyrannosaurus, as one of the most famous extinct animals, is covered by many recent, popular, English language sources, whereas Inostrancevia is mainly discussed in obscure historical technical articles, many of them in Russian, not really comparable at all. Anyhow, nothing stops you or anyone else from expanding the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject CollaborationEdit

I know there's a formal nomination page for these but it doesn't get much use so I figured I'd propose this here to catch more eyes. With it being one of the absolute most famous and important pterosaur taxa and an absolute truckload of new data dropping with the release of the monograph yesterday, I can't help but imagine that Quetzalcoatlus would make a perfect candidate for the first WikiProject Palaeontology collab in a while. Any interest? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That could be (for the lack of a better word, fun) to work on, along with maybe Inostrancevia.
And this brings up a question I've had that doesn't really have to do with this, but I guess I'll ask here because I don't want to make a whole new section for it. @FunkMonk and Hemiauchenia: (maybe they can give an explanation) What happened to the formal procedure for organizing collaborations on articles within WP:PALEO? Did what LittleLazyLass mentioned just... fall out of use? Hiroizmeh (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It's still there[26], but I think those who worked on the last collab, Acamptonectes, were a little burned out after that dragged out. But I think it's still the best place to get support for things like these. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll put in a formal nomination there, then. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DunkleosteoideaEdit

Hello, WikiProject,

This page was changed from a redirect to an article by a new editor and I was hoping folks from here could look it over since it won't go through the standard new page review. Many thanks in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It sure looks pretty similar to Dunkleosteidae, which it was clearly copied from... I guess the question is whether it needs its own page. Currently, it doesn't really look like it. Cougroyalty (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no listed difference in taxic composition so this seems like an obvious merge unless there's non-dunkleosteid dunkleosteoids that aren't listed here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions)
The cladogram at Brachythoraci appears to show some. So technically, yeah, they could be distinct. Cougroyalty (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The Brachythoraci cladogram shows Dunkleostoidea to only include Dunkleosteidae and Panxiosteidae, but I know that Panxiosteidae is a pretty unstable clade (I think someone a few years back put it under Coccosteomorphi instead), and the only publication since 2017 I'm seeing even mention Dunkleosteoidea is [27] which says it's paraphyletic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a pretty close-and-shut redirect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

HarrisonavisEdit

Could someone check whether this genus is currently treated as a synonym of Phoenicopterus, as suggested in PBDB [28]? If yes, the article should be redirected there. If no, article and box should be updated to monospecific genus & cover the single species. I don't know where to look for an authoritative take on the synonymy status of paleotaxa. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

They're separate per Mayr (2009) [29] and this seems to have been followed by recent scholarship [30]. The article is a mess though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Will clean up a little then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Morrison mergerEdit

Greetings all, I've come to the talk page to ask for some opinions on a suggestion i made yesterday to merge the article List of dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation into Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation. Seen as the discussion on the talk page of the latter has been silent for almost 24 hours i thought it best to take it here. Cheers, -TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)·

Draft:Gehlingia (fossil)Edit

Hi, Draft:Gehlingia (fossil) is sitting in draft and although I believe it notable it could really do with extra sources. Can anyone find any additional sources, and do people think this would survive AfD and thus just be accepted? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a McMenamin taxon. He is considered a crank generally but may be more reliable for Ediacaran/Cambrian taxa. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lythronaxargestes - if he is not a respected/trusted source and more of a crank it does not sound like this should be accepted as stands. KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
KylieTastic - that's not what I meant, sorry. This article is within the area where McMenamin is likely more credible. I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to assess if this article meets the higher bar that is necessary for McMenamin research. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The taxon is almost unmentioned in non McMenamin written literature, (having only been referenced twice). It's really borderline. I agree with LA about the marginal nature of McMenamin's work, it appears there is a lot of self-citation, and not a lot of citation by actual Ediacaran researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
On a related note that I might as well bring up here, another McMenamin taxon that recently got a page is Shenzianyuloma. It was published in an online-only journal without a Zoobank registration, and so is not an available name. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:TelecrexEdit

Another single source article waiting at AfC is Draft:Telecrex if anyone has any input on that. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • It has been accepted by another reviewer KylieTastic (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we work to change unreliable reference of some pages?Edit

There are many articles where some potentially untrustworthy websites are used as sources. "Prehistoric wildlife" [31] is a very famous website that always appear at the top of the search, but the information is not always reliable. For example, on this page[32], Jaekelopterus, that is a pterygotid, and it is explained in the paper too, is reconstructed as a Mixopterus-like eurypterid. Other than that, I feel that that website often exaggerate the size and write a size that is not in the source. (Example: Dinopithecus, Bandringa) Palaeos.com[33] is a website that details classifications in paleontology, but the information is generally outdated and hasn't been updated much in recent years. Also, some pages (for example this [34]) use the skeletal diagram by the infamous David Peters, so I don't think it's very reliable. And list of fossil amphibian sizes in Anglis.net [35] is used as a reference on several pages. However, apparently it is a private website and there is no source of information, so it is difficult to trust it. As for books, old books, especially "The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals.", Are considered uncertain and outdated as sources and may need to be switched to new sources. Should these websites be removed from the bibliography and replaced with more reliable paper information? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I've done a few passes of removing all instances of Prehistoric Wildlife. I would say feel free to replace any further cites to it that you come across. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that! How should we see the pages that instances are removed? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversial publication dates of scientific papersEdit

There are many scientific papers that are announced in one year and published in the next or even in a few years. I believe that we need a clear consensus on what to do with such papers (or is it already there?). Just a random example: which name is correct, Eptalofosuchus Marinho et al., 2021 or Eptalofosuchus Marinho et al., 2022 (paper appeared on the Internet in 2021, but was included in a volume of Cretaceous Research published in January 2022[36])? And here's another case. The article describing the Papiliovenator was published in Cretaceous Research in 2021, but formally it is part of volume 130, which will be published in February 2022 [37]. Does this mean that the name Papiliovenator is not valid at the time of signing? HFoxii (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantis536 has returned the category "Fossil taxa described in 2021" to articles Eptalofosuchus and Yanjisuchus (instead of "Fossil taxa described in 2022"). How correct is this? Technically, these two genera were described in 2022. HFoxii (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I restored the dates to the years they first appeared online as I believe that to be a long-standing tradition; for example, Pilmatueia is part of the category "Fossil taxa described in 2018" even though it was formally described in 2019, and Tralkasaurus is part of "Fossil taxa described in 2019" even thought it was described in 2020.Atlantis536 (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The matter of such papers was discussed in the past, e.g. it was one of the issues discussed in this thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_12#Attention_needed_at_2019_in_paleontology_and_2018_in_paleontology, though of course the solution suggested there is in no way a binding policy. A clear consensus would indeed be welcome.--188.147.34.98 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I should say this again, big thanks to the Poland based anonymous user who has tirelessly updated these lists for the last half decade. My opinion is that they should be included in the year that they were actually described, Rather than the year the the volume ostensibly came out. The reasons why I think this are the same as in the Wellnhopterus/Javelinadactylus discussion. I don't have any objections to the previous compromise where the taxa were included in both lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
And while you're here, Polish paleontology master, I suggest you create an account. With such a monumental task as collecting every minutia about every little new paper under the paleontological sun, I suggest it would be best for you to use a single account so we can keep track of your changes from a single place, instead of having to view the contributions of thousands of IP addresses that change multiple times a day in order to get the whole picture. That way, we'd also have a kind of paleontology paper newsletter! Atlantis536 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to thank the anonymous editor. I am satisfied with the compromise according to which taxa should be included in both lists should not be changed. However, taxa cannot have two publication dates and we should be guided by ICZN, not personal preference. In addition, due consideration should be given to articles where new taxa have not been described. Currently, no one applies the compromise applicable to taxa to them. HFoxii (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The wording "Announced in X; the final version of the article naming it was published in Y" was phrased that way specifically to avoid authoritative statements regarding which year is the year of the publication, which carry the risk of being OR. As for papers which do not name new taxa, the view expressed in the previous discussion seems to be that the date of first (usually online) publication should be preferred. I can add that such papers are not relevant to the issues of nomenclatural priority, and I'm not sure the rules of ICZN regarding the date of publication even apply to them.--Macrochelys (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Years in PaleontologyEdit

On the Years in Paleontology pages; I think it would be a good idea to have newly named clades/nomenclatural acts other than genera and species presented in a table similar to the latter, or at least separated from the 'research' sections and in one place as a list. Thoughts? Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Sometimes new clades are mentioned in the Research section, such as Azhdarchomorpha and Alanqidae, but strangely, not when the paper that names the clades also names a taxon; for example Ypupiara is mentioned but not Unenlagiinia. My idea is to mention clades named simultaneously as taxa together; for example, "Ypupiara - A unenlagiinae dromaeosaurid. The type species is Y. lopai. The authors also name the new clade Unenlagiinia." Atlantis536 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Good idea. There should be at least some distinction and guarantee that clade names are listed. I didn't even know that 'Unenlagiinia' existed, thus kind of proving my point.
      Maybe we could do something like this (using 2021 in archosaur paleontology as an example):

New taxaEdit

Higher LevelEdit

Name Novelty Status Authors Notes

a

clade nov.

in press

x, x, & x

b

fam. nov.

valid

a et al.

Genera and speciesEdit

Name Novelty Status Authors Age Type locality Country Notes Images

Arackar[1]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Rubilar-Rogers et al.

Late Cretaceous (CampanianMaastrichtian)

Hornitos Formation

  Chile

A lithostrotian titanosaur sauropod. The type species is A. licanantay.

Arrudatitan[2]

Gen. et comb. nov

Valid

Silva Junior et al.

Late Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian)

Adamantina Formation

  Brazil

A titanosaur sauropod; a new genus for "Aeolosaurus" maximus.

Australotitan[3]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

Hocknull et al.

Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian-? Turonian)

Winton Formation

  Australia

A titanosaur sauropod. The type species is A. cooperensis.

Berthasaura[4]

Gen. et sp. nov

Valid

De Souza et al.

Early Cretaceous (Aptian-Albian)

Goio-Erê Formation

  Brazil

A noasaurid theropod. The type species is B. leopoldinae.

 
Looks good so far. I imagine we should add definitions as reference for future researchers, something like this (using Unenlagiinia as an example): Atlantis536 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Name Novelty Status Authors Definition Notes

Unenlagiinia

clade nov.

in press

Brum et al.

The most inclusive clade including Unenlagia comahuensis and Halszkaraptor escuilliei but not Microraptor zhaoianus or Dromaeosaurus albertensis.

Synonymous with Unenlagiidae in some topologies, e.g. Hartman et al. 2019

DiscussionEdit

The concern I have with this is that these lists may be unwieldy to maintain. In addition to new higher-level nomenclatural acts, it seems quite arbitrary to not include, e.g., re-definitions of existing groups. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel it would be useful to have, and its certainly not that much more to keep track of than new genera and individual studies that already are.
Redefinitions of existing clades could be presented something like this:
| Neornithischia | Clade redef. | Valid | Madzia et al. | <Definition> | <Notes> |
.*In fact, the Novelty Status would then be either Clade nov. or Clade redef. (or something sounding a little better).
I don't feel like this would be hard to maintain (honestly, we don't even need to necessarily have a table, it could just be a list), except for large review papers like Madzia et al. that are loaded with new clade definitions.
I feel like it would be a good idea from here on. I'd be willing to edit the 2021-further back years in paleontology pages, just wanted everyone else's input. Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 17:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont feel this is needed as a separate table section, (and I will note its very dinosaur/archosaur unique) We aren't here to provide definitions for future researchers, we are here to provide information to a broad general audience. Additionally most clades are not enforced by ICZN nomenclature, and are often erected willy-nilly. Redefinitions, new clade definitions etc should be covered under the research headers in prose form, while rank-based new taxa that include new genera or species should be covered in the tables, as has happened for the past 12 years.--Kevmin § 17:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rubilar-Rogers D, Vargas AO, Riga BG, Soto-Acuña S, Alarcón-Muñoz J, Iriarte-Díaz J, Arévalo C, Gutstein CS (2021). "Arackar licanantay gen. et sp. nov. a new lithostrotian (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of the Atacama Region, northern Chile". Cretaceous Research. 124: Article 104802. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104802. S2CID 233780252.
  2. ^ Silva Junior JC, Martinelli AG, Iori FV, Marinho TS, Hechenleitner EM, Langer MC (2021). "Reassessment of Aeolosaurus maximus, a titanosaur dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of Southeastern Brazil". Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology. in press: 1–9. doi:10.1080/08912963.2021.1920016. S2CID 235526860.
  3. ^ Hocknull SA, Wilkinson M, Lawrence RA, Konstantinov V, Mackenzie S, Mackenzie R (2021). "A new giant sauropod, Australotitan cooperensis gen. et sp. nov., from the mid-Cretaceous of Australia". PeerJ. 9: e11317. doi:10.7717/peerj.11317. PMC 8191491. PMID 34164230.
  4. ^ de Souza GA, Soares MB, Weinschütz LC, Wilner E, Lopes RT, de Araújo OM, Kellner AW (2021). "The first edentulous ceratosaur from South America". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): Article number 22281. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01312-4. PMC 8602317. PMID 34795306.

Waukesha butterfly animalEdit

I feel this is not a taxon that should have an article yet. Most of it is very synth, and we have typically avoided articles on undescribed organisms. I would suggest merging this into Waukesha Biota until it actually gets a formal description. @Hiroizmeh, Feline Hymnic, Fossiladder13, and Awkwafaba:.--Kevmin § 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A redirect (maybe merge) to Waukesha Biota seems appropriate. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok that would make sense, but the whole reason I created this is so that people could learn about this organism. As far as I know there are very few pages on the internet that mention the creature. I dunno about this, but if others think it is a good idea, you guys can merge it Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

With the redirects in place, your prose will still be there for people looking, so you dont need to worry that they wont find it.--Kevmin § 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If there is no other discussion I will tag the article with a merge template.--Kevmin § 19:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

V. ivachnenkoi or V. ivakhnenkoi ?Edit

Hello or good evening, to come back to the gorgonopsians, I noticed an anomaly about the species name of Viatkogorgon: some sources (sometimes very serious) describe the animal under the name of V. ivakhenkoi, but other sources describe it as V. ivachnenkoi (including Wikipedia). Would it be the result of a misunderstanding between sources, or simply of a synonymous taxon indicating in fact the same species? Apart from the fact that the paleontologist who named the animal did so to honor his college which bears the name of Ivakhenko, it will not surprise me that the first proposal is the right one, but I still hope to have answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirani1746 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Amirani1746: Russian names can be romanised in multiple ways, Ivakhnenko and Ivachnenko are just different spellings. I don't have access to the paper that originally named the species, but according to Google Scholar, a 2004 paper by the same author spells it as V. ivachnenkoi. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TaphotaxonEdit

While working through redlinks and potential redlinks in the El Paso Formation article, I came across Nuia as a particular kind of fossil found in the formation. It turns out that this is likely not a valid taxon, but is what Spencer G. Lucas describes as a taphotaxon, a distinctive form produced during diagenesis that does not actually reflect any taxonomic distinction. Nuia is probably a kind of distinctive cylindrical oolite formed around various species of threadlike cyanobacteria.

Has the concept of a taphotaxon actually gotten any traction in the paleontology community? Should there be an article on taphotaxons? How about Nuia?

Relevant references:

  • Toomey, Donald Francis (1967). "Additional Occurrences and Extension of Stratigraphic Range of the Problematical Micro-Organism Nuia". Journal of Paleontology. 41 (6): 1457–1460. JSTOR 1302191.
  • Lucas, Spencer G. (2001). "Taphotaxon". 34: 30. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Spincer, Ben R. (May 1998). "Oolitized fragments of filamentous calcimicrobes and the pseudofossil affinity of Nuia Maslov from the Upper Cambrian rocks of central Texas". Journal of Paleontology. 72 (3): 577–584. doi:10.1017/S0022336000024355.
  • Vachard, Daniel; Clausen, Sébastien; Palafox, Juan José; Buitrón, Blanca Estela; Devaere, Léa; Hayart, Valentin; Régnier, Sylvie (July 2017). "Lower Ordovician microfacies and microfossils from Cerro San Pedro (San Pedro de la Cueva, Sonora, Mexico), as a westernmost outcrop of the newly defined Nuia Province". Facies. 63 (3): 18. doi:10.1007/s10347-017-0497-9.

Appreciate any suggestions what to write about Nuia or taphotaxons. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a topic suited for the pseudofossil article as a subtype thereof. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That sounds not unreasonable. However, taphotaxons as defined by Lucas can be trace fossils or body fossils; they're altered during diagenesis in a way that is distinctive but is not taxonomically significant. In the case of Nuia, there's a real cyanobacteria remnant there, but it has a distinctive oolite around it that does not always form but can form for diverse species. I suppose since Nuia refers to the oolite rather than the fossil, it could be characterized as a kind of pseudofossil. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

timelines of xxxx graphsEdit

I have been watching/thinking about these for a while. These graphs, added to random articles in the early 2010s by @Abyssal: are massive, not being maintained (for most instances) and fall into the realm of wp:OR. I want to see if there is a general consensus towards keeping or removing them.

This one is from Centrosaurinae and shows how dominating it can be, while not actually imparting important details. --Kevmin § 19:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

21st century in paleontology20th century in paleontology19th century in paleontology2030s in paleontology2020s in paleontology2010s in paleontology2000s in paleontology1990s in paleontology1980s in paleontology1970s in paleontology1960s in paleontology1950s in paleontology1940s in paleontology1930s in paleontology1920s in paleontology1910s in paleontology1900s in paleontology1890s in paleontology1880s in paleontology1870s in paleontology1860s in paleontologyMenefeeceratopsCrittendenceratopsYehuecauhceratopsMachairoceratopsWendiceratopsNasutoceratopsXenoceratopsCoronosaurusSpinopsSinoceratopsRubeosaurusMedusaceratopsDiabloceratopsAlbertaceratopsEiniosaurusAchelousaurusPachyrhinosaurusAvaceratopsStyracosaurusMonocloniusCentrosaurusCentrosaurus21st century in paleontology20th century in paleontology19th century in paleontology2030s in paleontology2020s in paleontology2010s in paleontology2000s in paleontology1990s in paleontology1980s in paleontology1970s in paleontology1960s in paleontology1950s in paleontology1940s in paleontology1930s in paleontology1920s in paleontology1910s in paleontology1900s in paleontology1890s in paleontology1880s in paleontology1870s in paleontology1860s in paleontology
@Kevmin: I agree with removing them, they just take up space, and they look pretty ugly too. Any useful information they may contain should instead be covered in the article text. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that is a hideous way to present that information. I thought this was going to be about the timelines in e.g. Pomacentridae that show the fossil range of genera in a family; and I guess those timelines are also what Kevmin wanted to discuss?
But this particular timeline (and others?) is showing the dates that genera were DESCRIBED. That information could easily be presented by adding the taxonomic authority+date to a list of subtaxa; any article on a higher taxon should already have a list of subtaxa. The timeline format is hard to parse. When was Monoclonius described? Sometime in the 19th/70s; it takes me a bit to translate that to 1870's, and the exact year requires some guessing.
I don't think any further discussion is needed for removing any timelines of DESCRIPTION dates. A timeline is a totally inappropriate way to present that information. I'm also in favor of removing the timelines of FOSSIL RANGEs, but perhaps further discussion on that is warranted. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I've recently changed my stance on them from absolutely delete them all to they are acceptable in some places. The use of age ranges on the Dinosaur article both looks nice and is informative, and I would consider replicating something like that on other major pages, like ages of maniraptoran clades or similar. The individual date of description timelines are not worth having anywhere accept the "History of _ research" pages, for example I removed the ones from Nodosauridae and Ankylosauridae and instead put it on the Timeline of ankylosaur research article, which I don't know if I support as a distinct page, but I didn't want to simply remove all the timelines without saving the work put into them. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Plantdrew I had forgotten that this timeline structure had also been inserted into articles around the same time as the other, and I agree they should also be removed where they have been inserted. it looks like the major addtion period was in the DEC 2013 range here.--Kevmin § 01:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback on it (the timeline in Dinosaur) Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
And if any more input on this discussion matters, my opinion is that geological timelines of fossil ranges are useful to help visualize information of that type, and I agree that timelines of genus descriptions are rather trivial and not that important to even include. Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with everyone here that these are unwieldy and not particularly useful on most pages, and should be removed in most cases. In the cases where the description dates of taxa is relevant information, there's surely a better way to do it, such as a table. Like IJReid, I support keeping at least some of the geological range ones. I don't see how these timelines fall under WP:OR, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The dinosaur timeline is a good one. Most of the geological range ones I've noticed before are on fish families, which typically only include extant genera, and don't have any sources (Pomacentridae has at least 4 genera known only from fossils, and one extant genus also known from fossils, which is the only one shown in the timeline). I think with Pomacentridae, geological ranges could just be mentioned in text rather than a timeline. But dinosaur shows that timelines can be done well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This should incorporate ghost lineages and other uncertainty with different shades of colours. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Really, what would be ideal in my opinion, if we could figure out how to create it with the tools Wikipedia provides us with, would be a time-calibrated cladogram that combines both the geological range information and phylogenetic relationships. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Jts1882 is this possible at all? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at some of the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests and I think what could work is, like how the trees incorporate one branch composed of two separate branches to enable different branch lengths for two sisters, what could be done is to have a branch have one daughter branch that is coded to be thicker with the |style or |thickness parameter (whichever one it is, can't remember exactly at this moment) to represent knwon geological range. Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Something like this:
paren
ghost
geological

1

((50px))
((50px))
((100px))
ghost
geological

2

((100px))
((100px))


1

parent

1

2

Hiroizmeh (Talk | Contributions) 00:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

UCMP photo databaseEdit

I recently discovered that the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) has a photo database chock full of CC BY 3.0 fossil images (for example: [38]). There's already over 27,000 photos available[39] and I think they're still in the process of uploading their collection. Here's a custom query form to search by Linnean rank and other parameters: [40]. I think this could be a great source for any fossil taxon based on UCMP specimens. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice, but I wonder how we can download the full res images that you see when you zoom in? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems possible to just right-click and save? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the photo, but the "view full size" option, if it appears, seems to have the same resolution as the zoom browser option. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the full size button, cool! FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)