Talk:Kulindadromeus

Links

Are all of these redlinks necessary or notable? We should probably remove a few of these. ~Lord Marcellus 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. For some reason, whenever a palaeontology article is made, the Names of the describers and various genera are always linked, whether or not they do or should have a page. I think only scientists and genera/species/clades with articles should be linked.Capra walie (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I removed the links to the palaeontologists that didn't have articles and the geographic regions (neither of these should be considered notable) but kept the redlinks to the two genera from the same formation. ~Lord Marcellus 17:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Geographic regions and geological formations are not notable? Or is this just because they are located in Siberia ("your region is not notable, it's too large" :o)? And, obviously, all genera must be linked, as they are all valid article subjects or redirects!--MWAK (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Point is that if they don't have articles, why should there be a link? Last time I checked a link is to forward you to somewhere else, not to point out notability. Having links to stuff that doesn't have a page is pointless and defeats the point of having one.Capra walie (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The point of redlinks is to encourage people to create missing articles. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For genera I can understand, but I don't think every single person that ever worked on a paper needs an article. Sure, that sentence is inflated, but you get my point. And honestly most of the time the articles created have almost no more information then is given by the article that originally had the redlink. Is it really helping to have tons of stubs that consist of "[insert name here] was a genus/species of extinct [insert clade here].", or at least not much more, maybe a taxobox and a image if it's lucky. Capra walie (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

At least three or four sites have been using the same Kulindadromeus image. Does that mean it qualifies as fair use if I upload it? ~Lord Marcellus 02:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• No it would still require permission from the artist or proof of some kind of commons licence. Don't worry about it in any case, I'm working on a reconstruction for Wikipedia specifically, it should be up on the page tomorrow. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It just means that the image is part of a press release they all got from the palaeontologists. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Nice image. ~Lord Marcellus 16:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I found some free Kulindadromeus images from the last Dino Expo in Japan, but there are some issues with them. This skeleton seems completely made up[1], so it isn't really taxobox material at least, though a nice illustration, but then there's this image, which shows actual fossils or casts of them, plotted in on a skeletal diagram:[2] The problem here is that the diagram is owned by the artist, so a photographer can't release the rights to photos of them. So not sure what to do there, perhaps paint the drawing out or something? There was also a cool model[3] (though it has claws on the fourth and fifth fingers), but we can't use that here, due to lack of freedom of panorama in Japan. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Feathers in Archosaurmorpha

Feathers in Pterosauria is certainly not evidence that all Archosauromorpha either had feathers or secondarily lost them. While with the apparent dormant feather gene in alligators, feathers ancestral to Archosauria can be assumed, all Archosauromorpha is unlikely and has no support. ~Lord Marcellus 04:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well not impossible you are right that it's a dubious assumption. Or can someone bring on the feathered protorosaurs? Capra walie (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While that may be true, it's not relevant with respect to what the article says - our job as editors is simply to accurately reflect what the source material says. Godefroit's paper states: "In any case, it indicates that those protofeather-like structures were probably widespread in Dinosauria, possibly even in the earliest members of the clade. Further, the ability to form simple monofilaments and more complex compound structures is potentially nested within the archosauromorph clade, as exemplified by Longisquama, pterosaurs, ornithischians, and theropods (including birds)." I slightly changed the wording of the article to better reflect this meaning. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cosesaurus, a basal archosauromorph, was also described with filaments, though this needs to be re-examined. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't Peters done that ;o)? Ferahgo the Assassin, my version certainly needed to be corrected. The urge to make a strong statement got the better of me... Also, "nested within the archosauromorph clade" is of course rather imprecise. It vaguely suggests it is either a synapomorphy of Archosauromorpha, or a synapomorphy of some a bit more derived clade.--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it our job to find the middle ground, not just re-interpret a single paper? Capra walie (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a middle ground when the taxon hasn't yet been analyzed by other scientists. We can't really include original synthesis from sources that don't mention Kulindadromeus in-context. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the distribution and origin of feathers certainly has, and they generally don't have indication of feathers at the base of archosaruomorpha. So for now saying basal to Ornithodira, and potentially much earlier, is the best way to do this. Capra walie (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to state it is something like "With known feather-like structures in pterosaurs, there is evidence for it being basal to Ornithodira. Furthermore, evidence from dormant feather genes in alligators shows the trait may be basal to Archosauria, and with disputed protofeathers in basal archosauromorphs like Longisquama, perhaps the entire group of Archosauromorpha. ~Lord Marcellus 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait now. Protofeathers are not disputed in Longisquama, they are 100% certainly modified pre-feather scales. Replace "with disputed protofeathers in basal archosauromophs like Longisquama, perhaps the entire group of Archosauromopha." with "possible to have appeared as far back as basal archosauromorphs, as some distinctive archosaurian integument features have appeared this far back. Evidence currently however only likely points to basal Ornithodira or Archosauria.". Capra walie (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"they are 100% certainly modified pre-feather scales" I'm not sure we can say there is a difference between "modified pre-feather scale" and "feather-related structure", since feathers themselves may be modified pre-feather scales, genetically speaking. Just because the structures in Longisquama are obviously not related to true feathers doesn't mean they aren't part of the same complex of epidermal structures from which feathers arose. Sort of like a side-branch on the way to protofeathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case we must avoid suggesting the source claims something it does not. The paper doesn't mention feather genes in alligators. As regards Longisquama: the critter is one big dispute :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, all that's really known about Longisquama 's cladistic relations is that it's some kind of diapsid reptile, but past that, nothin'. But as Matt said, feathers in birds may be modified crocodilian-esque scales in terms of genetics. And if the large dorsal structures present in Longisquama are a sideline of the evolution of feathers, that would have to make Longisquama an archosaur somewhere between Crocodylomorpha and Dinosauria to make some amount of sense. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, given what's known of crocodilian genetics, it could potentially (though more unlikely) be a stem-archosaurian closer to crocs+birds than to lizards. OR the long scales could simply have nothing to do with feathers and it could be a stem-diapsid. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Stub

Does this article still qualify as a stub? ~Lord Marcellus 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Capra walie (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Daurosaurus and Kulindapteryx

These two genera redirect here, but Kulindadromeus would be a junior synonym if they are the same thing. Clearly, these should be separate articles. ~Lord Marcellus 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See the DML link in the article. It appears most palaeontologists are ignoring the paper. Hear also the part from 23:11 here: http://tetzoo.com/podcast/2014/8/1/episode-29-we-hope-you-like-superheroes-and-not-genetics FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was also a discussion about this issue here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that whether people ignore papers is irrelevant to the validity of a name :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Old discussion, but it is relevant; since Kulindadromeus is being used far more than Daurosaurus, it's more probable that Kulindadromeus will become a nomen protectum and Daurosaurus will become a nomen oblitum senior synonym; so the ignoring of Daurosaurus is absolutely relevant in the validity of a name; Tyrannosaurus, if we go by the "first name" rule, should have been deemed as a junior synonym of Manospondylus and thus become a nomen oblitum; but the ICZN will override it's own rules if it will cause disarray in cladistical science; and I haven't heard of anybody calling Kulindadromeus a junior synonym of Daurosaurus and saying the latter is the proper name. And considering the authors of the original paper are saying Daurosaurus is a senior synonym of Kulindadromeus, but also saying that, since the names are based on the same type specimens, Daurosaurus is, like Kulindapteryx, another sad case of taxonomic name gun-jumping. The difference between this and, say, Raymond Hoser's classification is that the namers of Daurosaurus and Kulindapteryx are legitimate scientists who may have had the impression they were naming new dinosaurs instead of simply describing parts of another animal's type specimen. So this is sort of like Apatosaurus and "Brontosaurus", where two people thought they were naming different genera, but it turned out they weren't. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Daurosaurus will become a nomen oblitum senior synonym" Nitpick: nomen oblitum means a name not used after the year 1899. Since these names did not exist until well after 1899, it is not possible for them to become nomena oblita. They'd have to become nomena rejecta after an ICZN petition. (but it's not clear to me that they are actually senior synonyms anyway, are they even in ZooBank yet?). Manospondylus is not a nomen oblitum, contrary to popular belief, because such an opinion has never been published. As of right now, it's technically the valid senior synonym for Tyrannosaurus--it just gets ignored. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake on the "nomen oblitum" part. But it's pretty likely that they'll end up being suppressed in favor of Kulindadromeus when someone publishes on the issue, since that is what most people know the specimen by; at least if we use the same rulings T.rex has (that it suppresses all synonyms, senior or not), so renaming the article to Kulindapteryx or Daurosaurus now seems like jumping the gun on this, and we'll inevitably need to revert it back to Kulindadromeus when a publisher decides to name it and keep Kulindadromeus as a nomen conservadum, making Kulindapteryx and Daurosaurus nomen rejecta senior synonyms. And after a quick Google search...

• Kulindadromeus has 37,700 results.
• Kulindapteryx has 2,200 results.
• Daurosaurus has 2,090 results.

So, going by Google results, Kulindadromeus is the most used name, making it a nomen conservadum by default, like Tyrannosaurus. I would advise against moving the article to either other name, but simply redirect Daurosaurus and Kulindapteryx to this article. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Check also note 1 here, in Jaime Headden's blog: However this sorts out, the majority of workers who must deal with these consider Godefroit et al. the “right claim,” and use their name accordingly; Wikipedia gives the illusion this is settled, and takes a side very firmly, even lumping Lepidocheirosaurus into Kulindadromeus, along with Kulindapteryx and Daurosaurus, essentially committing “taxonomic activism.”:[4] What do to? FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that these alternative names must to be invalidated by some authority, the name of Kulindadromeus is the most used by the scientific literature and the media, and probably make separate articles for every one is not useful. So, I think that is better make a statement in the article about the complicated taxonomic situation of the Kulinda ornithischians (by the way, since that Headden had published a scientific article, his blog articles could be considered as a valid source?) --Rextron (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)