Talk:Pentacentron

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pentacentron sternhartae fossil

• ... that researchers suggest Pentacentron fossil fruits (pictured) may belong to a different plant genus entirely? Source: "There is also a reasonable possibility that the leaves of T.hopkinsii or Tetracentron sp. of Pigg et al. (2007) were borne by the same plant as the P. sternhartae infructescences treated here" (Manchester et al 2018, pg 675)

• Reviewed: Lake Estancia

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 16:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

• @Kevmin: New enough (moved from userspace to mainspace on 29 July, same day as this nomination, although the original draft was August 2019), long enough (3389 characters), within policy (copyvio check is OK, article is well referenced). QPQ is done, image is freely licenced. I think the hook could be improved, perhaps mention that it is extinct, and link to Tetracentron hopkinsii with a few words on why they might be the same? "Researchers suggest" probably isn't needed it the hook either. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peel keep in mind there is the 200 character limit on hook length, so I dont want to make the hook too verbose. I worry that linking to T. hopkinsii my make i more confusing, since they are currently treated as separate taxa, and if connected fruits- leaves are found at some point, then its likely that the species will be combined as Pentacentron hopkinsii recognizing that T. hopkinsii was described first, but the species is correctly placed in Pentacentron.--Kevmin § 18:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Understood. Could you suggest a suitable alternative hook, please? Bear in mind that most people that read it won't have an in-depth understanding of the topic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: it will help me if you are ale to elaborate on what you find lacking in the current hook.--Kevmin § 19:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I suggest removing "researchers support", expanding on what "fossil fruits" means, and explaining why it might belong to a different plant genus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I understand that's what you would like in a suggested alt, but I dont understand what is wrong with the current hook as it stands. The point of a hook is to make people interested enough to click on the link, spelling everything out in a rather overlong hook will not do that.--Kevmin § 16:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I think it's better if the hooks are at least semi self-contained, so people that read it but don't click through (which is most people that access the main page) get the basic understanding of the point. How about proposing an ALT1 and I'll approve them both, and we let the editor that sets up the DYK template decide between them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, thats not how DYK hooks have ever been, and try to summarize as you are asking will put the hook well above the character limit.--Kevmin § 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel and Kevmin: Would rephasing the hook to say "fossilized fruit" instead of "fossil fruit" make the context clearer? I have to agree that the current hook as suggested is rather technical since readers may not even know what genus it's supposed to be in in the first place. As an alternative, we could go for a hook that focuses on the fossil fruit part in particular, since fossilized fruits sound like a surprising or unusual thing:

ALT1 ... that the extinct flowering plant genus Pentacentron (specimen pictured) is known only from fossilized fruits?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The species is Pentacentron sternhartae, the genus is Pentacentron, so the alt wording is actually incorrect with how its worded. Additionally it seems like a large portion of the fossil species I nominate get re-hooked to xxx species is only known from (organ fossil) or (one locality). Thus i purposely try to avoid that if I can with a nomination.--Kevmin § 02:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Revised ALT1. Given that concerns have been raised with ALT0, a new one may need to be formulated anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the original hook would be unclear to a generalist reader, but in the spirit of Kevmin's objection to a generic fossil hook, I think the original could be reworded to something like Alt2 "...that fossils identified as Pentacentron sternhartae (pictured) may actually be the fruits of another fossil species? CMD (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think CMD's suggestion goes in the right direction; ALT1 is also OK but I can see why Kevmin wants to avoid 'known only'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The new wording seems to address the original clarity concerns. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel good about the Alt2 hook as it keeps the concept of the original hook and will be mysterious enough to bring people in.--Kevmin § 18:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think this is ready with ALT2, copied below for clarity:

ALT2 "...that fossils identified as Pentacentron sternhartae (pictured) may actually be the fruits of another fossil species?

Thanks @Kevmin, Chipmunkdavis, and Narutolovehinata5:. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Are we saying this might not actually exist as a separate species?

Kevmin, the dyk hook seems to be indicating that, but after reading the article I'm confused because we don't clearly state that. If it's true, I think we need to make it clearer in the section and lead somehow; if it is actually likely this doesn't exist, I'd argue it would be the most important thing we need to say about it. Right now we say in the section:

Additionally the species Trochodendron drachukii is known from related Kamloops group shales at the McAbee Fossil Beds near Cache Creek, British Columbia. Manchester et al 2018 noted that Tr. drachukii is likely the fruits of Tr. nastae, while Pe. sternhartae are likely the fruits of Te. hopkinsii. If fossils of the fruits and foliage in attachment are found, that would bring the species count down to three whole plant taxa.

Maybe we change that to something like

Additionally the species Trochodendron drachukii is known from related Kamloops group shales at the McAbee Fossil Beds near Cache Creek, British Columbia. Manchester et al 2018 noted that Tr. drachukii is likely the fruits of Tr. nastae, while Pe. sternhartae are likely the fruits of Te. hopkinsii, and that Pe. sternharae may not exist as a species. If fossils of the fruits and foliage in attachment are found, proving that hypothesis, that would bring the species count down to three whole plant taxa.

And then make it clear in the lead, too. Would that change be accurate? —valereee (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee It DOES exist as a species, as the article and the descriptive paper state. However, if fossils are eventually recovered with Pentacentron sternhartae (described from isolated fruit fossils) physically attached to Tetracentron hopkinsii (described from isolated fossil leaves), then the species will be combined under a single name (likely Pentacentron hopkinsii). This is how organ fossil taxa are treated in paleobotany. They are both currently valid taxa and will be treated as such until a "rosetta stone fossil" is found. At no point are the describing authors saying the species "doesn't exist". Paleobotanists treat whole plant species as different from organ taxa due to the rarity of connected parts being fossilized together. Saying that Pentacentron does not/may not exist is false.--Kevmin § 19:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, hm. My concern is that nonexpert readers, like me, are going to see the hook, come to the article, and be confused, but of course I don't have the expertise to understand how we can prevent that (or if we actually need to lol). Pinging Cwmhiraeth as she may have some insight. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I know little about fossil species, but what Kevmin is saying sounds reasonable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both, I'll leave as is, then! —valereee (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)