Jump to content

Talk:Coloborhynchus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Species

[edit]

Frey et. al. (2003) suggest that Anhanguera may be a synonym of Coloborhynchus. If so, then all species of Anhanguera would be sunk into Coloborhynchus.

E. Frey, D. M. Martill, and M.-C. Buchy. 2003. A new crested ornithocheirid from the Lower Cretaceous of northeastern Brazil and the unusual death of an unusual pterosaur. In E. Buffetaut, J.-M. Mazin (eds.), Evolution and Palaeobiology of Pterosaurs, Geological Society of London, Special Publications 217:55-63.68.4.61.168 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

It is in press, but it does seem that it will be published soon? As opposed to something on bioRxiv. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say when, though. This[3] paper we took a Spinosaurus image from has been a pre-print since 2016! Pinging JurassicClassic767 too, who has also begun making edits following this paper. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, it seems that paper was never intended for PeerJ the journal itself, but for a book... Nut I still wonder if we have any precedents for this? Genera published in preprints only? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there is a difference between PeerJ Preprints and an in-press APP paper: a PeerJ Preprint is not peer-reviewed, an in-press paper has already been accepted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm really against implementing some of these changes. But confusingly, the new paper's cladogram also mentions a "Nicorhynchus smaugi" gen. et sp. nov., which is not mentioned anywhere else in the paper... So it seems it might not be in its final form. Whatever it is, was it the originally intended type species of Nicorhynchus instead of capito, which is only referred to as comb. nov. in the cladogram, but is treated as the type species in the rest of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, good catch. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'll ask at the DML thread... Anyhow, the paper leaves a lot of work, many reassigned species that need to be redirected, including their synonyms, and pictures that need recategorisation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I also noticed this, which implies the authors got paywalled papers through Sci-Hub: "We also thank Alexandra Elbakyan for “breaking the barriers of science”, which allows us to access several articles that would not be possible under other conditions". FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, for now, I think it's probably best to just add Uktenadactylus rodriguesae, since it's a new species, and not reassigned. I don't really know about Nicorhynchus and Aerodraco, both of them were created to contain species that belonged to other genera; for example, N. fluviferox has been recovered as a species of Coloborhynchus in two studies[4][5], A. sedgwickii has always been recovered as a species Camposipterus, so, like I said, it's probably just best to leave everything as is (though meantioning this 2020 study in the articles could be worthy). JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, as a side mention, the pterosaurs Tropeognathus, Siroccopteryx, Mythunga, and Ferrodraco have been recovered within the Anhangueridae in this 2020 study, now look at Longrich et al. (2018), Jacobs et al. (2019), and Pentland et al. (2019) for example, all of them recover some (if not all) of these genera within Ornithocheiridae, meaning that this new study is entirely different, so it's probably still best to leave everything as it is. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two or three competing pterosaur phylogenies used by different workers, mainly one used in Brazil and another in the Anglosphere. So the overlying taxonomy will probably not be solved for years, there will just be two parallel systems (similar to what's going on with Spinosaurus). But that doesn't mean they can't agree on genus and species taxonomy, of course, but we'll just have to wait and see. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, taxonomy can sure be confusing! Oh, but should we create Nicorhynchus and Aerodraco, or should we wait for more papers? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we always create new articles for new genera. The question is whether we should remove the species in question from their previous genus article taxoboxes. I think we could maybe just add question marks or something, and state in the text these species have been moved to new genera by so and so workers. We need to reflect that there is not necessarily a single truth. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The authors answered on the Dinosaur Mailing List, and it was a mistake, the specimen in question is what they elsewhere refer to as Nicorhynchus cf. capito. The answer: "Thank you so much for advertising us about that mistake. We have just contacted the editorial technicians in order to solve this problem. Due to the different versions of such figure during the proofing process, it may be mislaid from one of the original versions that we proposed such name for NHMUK PV R481. As an example, see the complete strict consensus in the SOM or in BH's Twitter thread about our fresh publication: https://twitter.com/pterosaurios/status/1309506970576203779 In any case, as Tyler noted above, we do not longer consider NHMUK PV R481 as a different species and it remains as Nycorhynchus cf. capito. Due to its poor preservation, it is not possible to affirm that NHMUK PV R481 is a different species of Nicorhynchus capito. Just new specimens from CG could shed light on that issue. Cheers, Borja & Rodrigo". FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some other relevant comments from David Marjanovic on the DML: "The name "N. smaugi" only occurs as a label of a cladogram branch in fig. 10. There is no diagnosis and no type specimen; the name is thus unavailable under both Art. 13.1 and Art. 16.4."; "'In press' refers to the literal printing press that will be used to produce the dead-tree edition, which is irrelevant because [the paper has been registered in ZooBank]."; "[...] what we're talking about here is clearly not an unformatted accepted manuscript. And even such things are not "separates or preprints" [...]" Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was nice to get that clarified. It'll be interesting to see whether the journal does fix the figure or not... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Holgado, the figure has been corrected and "Nicorhynchus smaugi" is no more. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Pretty interesting interplay between Wikipedia and the DML, hehe. Holgado offered to help here on Wikipedia, if we wanted some articles reviewed. Could be fun to get one of those old British ornithocheirids featured... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did to capito and fluviferox, I just added question marks in the Colobo article. I'll try to create pages for Nicorhynchus and Aerodraco, but I honestly don't have much time as I did back in the summer vacation. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan! I'll be uploading images from the paper. I made a stub for Nicorhynchus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, who actually considers the two species in question part of Coloborhynchus? If no reason papers do, I think we can remove them from the taxobox. Considering fluviferox was named as a species of Coloborhynchus just last year, we might assume some still consider them part of that genus.... See this blog post from 2009 and its comments for somethoughts by the relevant researchers about how messy the taxonomy of these things is (Dave Hone said "probably the worst bit of pterosaur taxonomy" about the situation):[6] FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can probably leave fluviferox. Capito on the other hand, well, only a few studies mention it, and it's questionable I think, so we can probably remove it? The thing about Ornithocheiridae and Anhangueridae is that the members are just so similar that they can be considered one large family, but later analysis by Andres, or perhaps Kellner have made them separate, so now it's just a huge mess, with many studies agreeing on one thing, and others with another. Oh, and also, thanks for creating Nicorhynchus! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks to you and Lythron for improving it! We still need the Aerodraco article, and I'll leave the honours to whoever wants to do it... FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siroccopteryx

[edit]

Should probably be split off? FunkMonk (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far I know, the crest in the snout and teeth are different both from Coloborhynchus and Anhanguera. If another genera can have their articles, I don't se why not Siroccopteryx, like in another wikipedias.--Rextron (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since it is handled like a valid name in the new paper, and in many others, if one looks at Google scholar. It also seems Coloborhynchus is considered monotypic in the new paper. "Lee (1994) revalidated Coloborhynchus, and Unwin (2001) not only considered it a valid genus, but also referred additional species to the genus. Rodrigues and Kellner (2008), noting several unique characters of Coloborhynchus clavirostris, restricted the genus to the type species. This view is followed here."[7] FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this note it seems even Coloborhynchus has been left monotypic, and most species moved to Anhanguera. But judging on the history of research, this will probably be contested in the future. Should we make changes according to the new paper anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I start a Siroccopteryx article from a translation of the Spanish version, surely it need additional edition. About of the species of Coloborhynchus, surely their taxonomic status will in flux in the near future, then probably is better restrict the editions to note the lack of consensus in the authors and their taxonomic opinions.--Rextron (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be too hasty to make any changes to ornithocheirids/anhanguerida that can't be easily undone or easily made to present two totally mutually exclusive taxonomies. Kellner has published a new paper, sure. In a month or two Unwin will publish one saying everything in Kellner's taxonomy is total rubbish. Since this kind of taxonomy is subjective and genericometers don't exist, this will go on until a majority of pteorsaur researchers join the club and agree genera are fake, and simply make *everything* monotypic. In my opinion the best solution right now is to keep all ornithocheirid/anhanguerid articles at the species level, whether monotypic or not. Note that according to Kellner, most everything is Anhanguera (the Brazilian one!). According to Unwin, most everything is Coloborhynchus (the British one!). Again, genera are subjective, so this is a debate that can never be objectively resolved. Make a species-level article for each species, and flip a coin for which genus it's in. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied, maybe we should keep the discussion here?) Yeah, I understand the point about constant reshuffling of species, but since the last revision was more than ten years ago, I don't think it is likely to change any time soon? Anyway, I agree that all the uncertainly placed species (robustus, piscator, spielbergi, etc.) without their own genus names should be kept separate, even the many "Pterodactylus" species, such as P. daviesii, which probably belong in new genera. But I don't understand why the type species of a genus should be split off from the genus article (as was the case with Tropeognathus, Ornithoceirus and Coloborhynchus)? They are surely identical however way you look at it? All info will be duplicate, and those articles will be redundant, since nothing can be said about the type species that cannot also be said about the genus. And there is no chance that O simus and C. clavirostris will be placed in genera other than ones they were initially placed in. Tropeognathus mesembrinus is another case, but then we do have a unique genus article to put it in. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So to make the above mess clear, my concern isn't that we have separate articles for species, but that we have separate articles for type species of genera (consisting only of duplicate info), that are never likely to be moved anywhere else. I see the problem with the Ornithocheirus type species maybe not being O. simus, but then again, we won't have problems with reshuffling it, unless it is found to belong to its own separate genus (Criorhynchus?), in which case we just spin that one off? It seems to be such a far reaching discussion that we should maybe bring it up at the palaeo project? And just for the record, it isn't my intention to collide with anyone over this, but discussion is good! FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the most relevant question is whether the information is found under a header where it is expected to belong, rather than where the sometimes Byzantine Wikipedia guidelines insist it should be? I would expect the type species to be discussed under the genus for extinct groups. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted my merge of Ornithocheirus simus into the genus article, since there is uncertainty over what the type species actually is. But Coloborhynchus and Tropeognathus both have undisputed type species, so I'm not sure those should be split off? FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One way I can think of to avoid problems with naming separate articles is to merge all these species with the Ornithocheiridae article, maybe making them subheadings under a "Species" section. But then the article would become very long. Smokeybjb (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do have stuff like species of Allosaurus, which also covers dubious names and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's not a fact that any of these are monotypic. Kellner currently thinks Coloborhynchus is monotypic, others place many species Kellner assigns to Anhanguera there. I don't think we should be taking sides. The article Coloborhynhcus would ideally discuss the controversy and discuss which species are classified in that genus and by whom along with its history. The type species article can discuss the actual animal. I think it's safe to have a single article for Tropeognathus though, since the opinions are either that it's a synonym of Ornithocheirus or it's a valid genus containing one species. Erring on the side of splitting seems like it will make for less work later. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was too quick with the monotypic business, but as far as I understand, there is no question about what the type species is? And should we create articles for the several species which were considered valid in the new paper, but without being assigned to any genera (‘Ornithocheirus’ capito, ‘Pterodactylus’ daviesii, etc.)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably the best bet, though note these will need manual taxoboxes so they aren't included in the taxonomy of their incorrect "genus". See Coelosaurus antiquus for an example. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with C. clavirostris

[edit]

Since this is the type species of the genus, why should it, and not the referred species, be a separate article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and merge it here soon; as the type species of the genus, it is the only species that can never be assigned to another genus, Coloborhynchus pretty much is . clavirostris. It is better to keep assigned species seperate, if any. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coloborhynchus&oldid=1195586561"