Talk:Oculudentavis

Disputed affinities

Note that an Chinese-language editorial [1] has been published by the IVPP arguing that the anatomy of Oculudentavis is more consistent with lepidosaurs, and informal arguments have been made elsewhere along the same lines (e.g. [2]). Not sure if this is citable yet, but these objections will definitely be in the literature at some point down the line. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The amazing thing is David Peters said the same thing (and got ridiculed because, well, he's David Peters):[3] FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peters was one of many people who suggested it was not an avialan within hours of the originally paper, I don't recall any ridicule of the idea it was a lepidosaur. Instead he was ridiculed for thinking it was somehow a stem-pterosaur near Cosesaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about the comments replying to his in that comments section... Anyhow, I wonder whether we should use Mark Witton's blog when there are plenty of journal and news articles that report on the amber controversy. He's not exactly an authority on that issue, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

He's a quite reliable scientist who has not said anything contrasting with the other sources, while also relating the issue directly to Oculudentavis and summarizing the situation in an manner not restricted by paywalls. It seems like his comments in the wake of the paper have been a major force in reinvigorated the discussion of the ethical issues surrounding Burmese amber, along with the NYT article. I think they should both get top billing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

As it stands we have this sentence:

• "The genus name combines the Latin words for "eye", "tooth", and "bird", while the species name "khaungraae" is a patro(matro)nym recognizing Khaung Ra, who donated the piece of amber to the Hupoge Amber Museum for study.<ref name=":0" />"

Can someone with access to the type description please flesh this out with the full derivations? We need something along the lines of:

• "The genus name was coined as a combination of the Latin(old? new? neo?) word "xxx" which translates as "eye" "yyy", the Latin(old? new? neo?) for "tooth" and avis (which is not actually latin as I recall?) which mean bird".--Kevmin § 01:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not the first person to note that the etymology is a bit broken, David Marjanovic also said that here:[4]. That said, here is the full quote from Xing et al. (2020) providing the name Oculudentavis: "Etymology. The generic name Oculudentavis is derived from the Latin oculus (eye), dentes (teeth) and avis (bird). The species name khaungraae is from Khaung Ra, who donated the specimen to the Hupoge Amber Museum." I have access to the full paper, and this is what it provides for the etymology. It may be a name stemming from poor knowledge of Latin grammar, but that's not a rare occurrence in paleontology. I'm a bit confused by what you're asking. Should we provide some unsourced alternative with correct grammar, or continue with the name and etymology provided by the authors, which is at this point the valid binomial name for whatever this animal is. I'm doing the latter as other taxonomists have, what do you want? And please sign your comments, Kevmin.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Kevmin's comment is signed - the signature just got wrapped into the bullet point. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The genus name Oculudentavis was created as a combination of the three Latin words oculus, dentes, and avis, which translate to "eye". "teeth" and "bird" respectively. The specific name is matronym honoring Khaung Ra who donated the piece of amber to the Hupoge Amber Museum for study.

Thats what we were needing, so we can explain what the derivation of the etymology is from. We should always avoid the xxx yyy name mean "Smiths massive thunder thigh frog", as it creates false impressions that "Smiths massive thunder thigh frog" is an actual name used.--Kevmin § 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a matronym. Oculudentavis, whether a bird or a lizard, is not the son or daughter of Khaung Ra!--MWAK (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Species epithets named after a person are regularly referred to as patronym/matronyms. --Kevmin § 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in my experience. Anyway, it's an incorrect use and should not be imitated on Wikipedia...--MWAK (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

From species description: "A scientific name in honor of a person or persons is a known as a taxonomic patronym or patronymic" (with citations to an entomology encyclopedia and a mammalogy dictionary). A quick search also finds the term used in this sense by the International Ornithological Committee and several articles published in scientific journals (I only link two here as examples). Regardless of the original and more widespread definition, I think it's fair to say that it has taken on this alternate meaning in the taxonomy community. Albertonykus (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Given its inherent silliness, I still wouldn't imitate it :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm neutral on whether it should be used here; it's certainly not an essential piece of information. My point was simply that it is indeed an established use in some circles. In fact, the disambiguation page for "patronymic" mentions it as well. Albertonykus (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential source

Science published an extensive news feature about the Burmese amber fossils and the lead author's acquisition of them: [5] . Might be useful as a source here. Modest Genius ^talk 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Verb tense

When talking about the skull, nearly all the tense is past tense.

Does the skull no longer exist?

If the skull does exist, the article needs a "present tense" re-write.

Also, why isn't there a photo or pic of either the skull or of the skull encased in amber? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing how the skull of Oculudentavis would have appeared in life. The skull does exist, but not as it existed some 99 million years ago. We cannot include a photograph because none have the appropriate license; we do not have the ability to make images appear out of thin air. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

birds not dinosaurs

I'm no expert in this but an avid follower of these things: first many thanks to those who compose pages like this, which are absolutely fascinating! My jib: " the smallest known living dinosaur." referring to the bee-humming bird. I realize that birds are considered the closest surviving relatives of dinosaurs, but to categorically designate them as dinosaurs (other than as a metaphor, or for the purposes of illustration) is likely to cause confusion. I haven't made an edit, because I'm not qualified, but something along the lines of "the smallest known of the birds, which are considered the living descendants of dinosaurs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backep1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem. Birds are not just the closest living relatives or descendants of the dinosaurs. Modern scientific consensus is that they are the last surviving members of the maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs and are therefore dinosaurs themselves. In particular, scientifically, if you are descended from a lineage, you are automatically a member of that lineage. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the source itself refers to it as a dinosaur in its title, so it's not something we made up. There is of course the issue of whether it is even a bird, which makes that blurb more problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the user is talking about the bee hummingbird, but of course the fact that we must go by what the reliable sources say applies equally in both cases. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Birds are descended from dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus was also descended from dinosaurs. So were Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Brachiosaurus, etc. Any animal with a dinosaurian ancestor is a dinosaur. Dinosauria is not an arbitrary category of prehistoric reptiles, it is a diverse and expansive branch of life, with birds as the only living members. There is no arbitrary point at which a dinosaur descendant should stop being called a dinosaur. Whales are specialized descendants of mammals, but we still call them mammals. We're descended from humans, but that doesn't mean we're not humans. It's the same situation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We're descended from fish, but we don't call ourselves fish. The article is directed (I hope!) at the general public, and I would think that what the public understands by birds/dinosaurs should prevail, not scientific usage. What about "the smallest known living member of dinosauria"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backep1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC) And we don't call whales mammals: we call them whales. We say they are mammals, describing a characteristic of them, or the grouping to which they belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backep1 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"the grouping to which they belong"

Well, you've got it! There is no difference here between the senses in which "dinosaur" and "mammal" are used. As you can see in the article for fish, though, that there is no corresponding rigorous cladistic definition for this group.

And I hope you realize that this is a science article above all, not a "popular consciousness" article. There is no justifiable reason to unnecessarily oversimplify a scientifically accurate statement that is perfectly understandable in context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that your comparisons between "fish and humans" and "dinosaurs and birds" are not equivalent. There is no clade called "Fish" (ie. a group which contains all animals we recognise as fish to the exclusion of all other life) but there is a clade called "Dinosauria" (a group which contains all dinosaurs (inc. birds) to the exclusion of all other life). We humans are not fish, but we ARE osteichthyans, part of clade Osteichthyes ("bony fishes") along with the other tetrapods, our "fish ancestors" and all the other fish with bony skeletons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozraptor4 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We are fish.--MWAK (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fish" is a paraphyletic grouping of vertebrates that does not include tetropods. While we used to have fish-like traits earlier on in our evolutionary history, we are not fish now. I suggest you take a look at the page for fish, it's really fascinating stuff! Luxquine (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read fish: "Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep this article?

According to a comment on Tom Holtz's Facebook page (quoted on the DML), "because the paper is Retracted, it no longer exists in the record, and the name is now vanished."

These are pretty exceptional circumstances... should this article be kept around? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, we still have Archaeoraptor; whether the name is valid or not, it is still a rather notable subject. The question is whether the subject of the article will be the taxon itself or the controversy surrounding it... Since another specimen supposedly exists, there is a chance the authors may redescribe the animal and give it a new (more appropriate) name, in which case we would just change the title. But I wonder whether this scenario is even possible, and whether Oculudentavis won't just remain the valid name for this unarguably distinct taxon in any case? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We may want to remove the bird project tag, though... FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on DML discussions the ICZN would probably need to make a ruling... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

New morphology paper

I see a new paper is out on Oculudentavis morphology and describing a second species (the second specimen?) as Oculudentavis naga. The page here will need updating to reflect this when someone with paper access can get to it. The paper is Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND so a case could be made for use of its images here on en.wiki, even if they are not uploaded to commons.--Kevmin § 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated article. SlvrHwk, we need File:Oculudentavis Size Comparison.svg to be relabelled (and maybe the text could be made larger as well...). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'll update it as soon as I get the chance. SlvrHwk (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated! SlvrHwk (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

New paper

Freely licensed images of O. naga [6] Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)