Talk:Palaeopteryx

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palaeopteryx article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birds Low‑importance

Palaeopteryx is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

References

This site gives the taxonomic data which might be useful [1] . --HappyCamper 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paper has some comments on the taxon: http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/3/364 - it requires GeoScience World access, but it is also on JSTOR. Also, material is contained in Olson's 1985 "Fossil Record of Birds". This is probably a nomen dubium. Dysmorodrepanis 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "List of informally named dinosaurs"

KEPT, NO MERGE

Kept based on a majority consensus. Despite its very ambiguous status, it is considered to have a notable-enough status to be kept with enough academic sources. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Palaeopteryx should not be its own article and instead integrated as a section on the list. This is because of the following reasons

- It is a nomen nudum, being described in the Japanese magazine Anima without listing of diagnostic characteristics (ICZN Article 13.1.1)

- There is not a lot of information on the specimens or detailed analysis of its phylogenetic position

- It is a chimera, the synsacrum belonging to Mesadactylus

References

- Jensen, 1981. [A new oldest bird?] Anima (Tokyo). 1981, 33-39. [in Japanese]

- Molnar, 1985. Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a survey of proposed early or ancestral birds. in Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds). The Beginnings of Birds. Eichstatt, Germany: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 209-217.

-Jensen and Padian, 1989. Small Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs from the Uncomphagre fauna (Brushy Basin Member, Morrison Formation: ?Tithonian), Late Jurassic, Western Colorado. Journal of Paleontology. 63(3), 364-373. AFH (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unlike most entries on the list of informally named dinosaurs, the name Palaeopteryx has been intentionally used in numerous scholarly articles and is clearly notable, even if it's of little taxonomic value. Being of uncertain phylogenetic position or having material incorrectly assigned to it doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It's a more worthwhile article to have than Ponerosteus, for instance. Furthermore, I am not convinced that Palaeopteryx is a nomen nudum in the first place. I haven't read Jensen (1981a), Jensen (1981b), or Molnar (1985), but none of the sources I have access to (Jensen and Padian 1989, Padian 1998, Norell & Makovicky 2004) explicitly indicate that the name is not available. Jensen & Padian (1989) refer to a specimen as its holotype; nomina nuda do not have holotypes. Padian (1998) says he had "advocated suppressing it"; nomina nuda do not need to be surpressed. Norell & Makovicky (2004) calls it a nomen dubium, not a nomen nudum. Not being properly diagnosed, as Jensen & Padian (1989) say, does not necessarily imply that it altogether fails article 13.1. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per reasons explained above by Ornithopsis. A lack of information on fossil material and an unclear phylogenetic position are not valid reasons to merge a page. Even if Palaeopteryx is informally named, the subject itself can still have a page in addition to a listing at informally named dinosaurs (Archaeoraptor and Ubirajara, for example) As long as the subject is notable (which it seems to be) and there are sources to support it (there are, although there are more that could be added), I think the page should remain. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even though I would normally support a nomen nudum at this level of research being merged, Palaeopteryx has been used in scholarly articles often enough that it has the notability to warrant its own article. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]