Talk:The Origin of Birds

The book online

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/temp-2010-09-01/xJCDkbzDhfBDeamiwErwAnstjcbpgvuaEatkIvDhDlkgzjtokcCGdafGhqef/heilmann1926b.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very cool that this has made its way online. However, I don't think we can link to it in the article (as a "further reading" entry or anything else) because it was published after 1923, and to my knowledge isn't yet in the public domain. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Only problem would be if we hosted it here (which we won't), but simply linking to an external source isn't an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought so also at first, but looking into it more I came across this: [1] "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Based on that, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bummer... FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Origin of Birds (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Nice to see the work that has gone into this article. Having little access to many of the cited sources I will be forced to accept good faith on correct citation and interpretation, although I hope to be able to go through some of the sources in due time. Some initial comments below, will add more in the coming days.

Sources

• Published secondary commentaries and reviews of the book would be particularly nice to have (like Ries CJ, already well used) to avoid any concerns associated with OR by synthesis (not that there are any statements that represent original synthesis) - here are some additional sources that may be worth examining : [2] Nieuwland 2004 Auk-English translation Heilmann obit Reviews
  • Christopher Jacob J. Ries Angels, Demons, Birds and Dinosaurs: Creativity, Meaning and Truth in the Life, Art and Science of Gerhard Heilmann (1859-1946). Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 35, No. 1., pp. 69-91. (got this from here - let me know if you need it)

Found it through my institution, thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• • The Danish journal pieces are on the Internet Archive - some parts [3] [4] [5] (I added them as external links for the article)
  • Reliability - Lessem, Don (1992). Dinosaurs Rediscovered. Simon & Schuster. p. 82. - is this a childrens book ? I have checked notes on the author and while the content is not in question, it would be better to back up with a more scholarly source.

The Lessem source isn't a children's book, but I can understand why one wouldn't consider it reliable, as "Dino Don" isn't exactly the height of scholarly research. I've replaced it with a more current and scholarly text. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)

• formatting and standard - it would be good if the citation templates are used here - perhaps two sections - one for notes and the other for the actual references would be worth having especially since multiple pages from the same references are being used a lot. (An example of this style is in Flight feather- if you are happy with it but are daunted by the templates, i will be happy to help)

Thanks for the offer to help. I'm saving the reference overhaul for last; it seems like it might be easier to do once I've done everything else. Once I finish making the other suggested changes I'll get started on it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestions and the additional sources. I'll look through them this evening when I get home and add any relevant information. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Content

• The Auk paper above suggests that R W Shufeldt was involved in editing and translating the Danish original. Was this the way it finally was ? It was not.
• "..from thecodonts, a group of archosaurs that predated the dinosaurs." - is there a way to replace "predated" which can be misread ?
• the section "Summary" may perhaps be better called as "Book outline" so that the subsections are clearer (I note that the subsection title cases are retained - as is - and obviously does not need to follow the WP section title capitalization convention)
• "...rejects the possibility of all living groups of reptiles as potential ancestors for modern birds, including crocodilians and in addition to pterosaurs and several groups of dinosaurs" - double "and" and emphasis on pterosaurs and dinosaur groups is unclear.
• "Publication" - the publication section misses out the role of R W Shufeldt (and his Norwegian wife) - in the early recognition of the work. I added some notes on this to the Gerhard Heilmann article. Also the current text gives the appearance of calm within the Danish establishment, Ries gives some background to the bitterness of Winge, Stamm and others. The role of Otto Helms - the physician-naturalist journal editor - may also be worthy of mention.

I've now fleshed out the Publication and Edition sections considerably as per your advice: please let me know how it looks at this point. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good now. Shyamal (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "legwing" - I noticed that many authors prefer the phrase "hindlimb wing" - if retained, it would be better with a hyphen.

Do you have a preference between "leg-wing", "hindlimb wing", and "pelvic wing"? Pelvic wing seems to be used more than hindlimb wing, but leg-wing would be fine too. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"leg-wing" seems fine if we assume they were bipedal. Shyamal (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Editions" - according to Ries (ISR paper) the first English edition trimmed out many of the "personal attacks" that were present in the Danish journal series. He also apparently removed several illustrations with transformational series. The interactions with D'Arcy Thompson at this stage may be worth mentioning.

Done. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• ... other authors later described certain features of Archaeopteryx as "miniature versions of Deinonychus. - this is not clear - I imagine that the "certain features" needs to be removed but not sure.

Fixed this, made it more accurate to the source. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No way I could have guessed that one was about the "hand" ! Reads fine now. Shyamal (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The arboreal model is shared both by paleontologists who accept the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, and by the minority who still believe birds to have evolved from a non-dinosaurian group of reptiles, exemplifying the influence Heilmann's research has continued to have well into the modern day." I edited some of the sentences before this - and this one is tricky. Apart from the risk of appearing as if the paleontologists are arboreal there is a problem in the logic and conclusion. Evolution of a mode of locomotion is clearly independent of evolutionary histories and so the overlap of classifications of paleontologists seems unsurprising and does not seem like a particularly good example of Heilmann's influence given that the paragraph starts by saying it was already popular in his time.

Attempted to fix this, but if you think it's still not relevant or strong enough to the focus of the article, then maybe the last bit is better left off entirely. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Shyamal (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The last paragraph on Beebe's vindication is perhaps drifting away from the focus of this article - the areas of focus should ideally be on the book, its history, its contents/ the author's ideas in context, their origins and impact.

I'm not sure how to best go about fixing this. I think that the last paragraph is helpful given the context of the rest of the section - it provides a synopsis of how these then-competing theories played out in modern times, and gives the article a sense of "closure". Do you have any more specific suggestions about the paragraph? If not, I'd grudgingly say it might be best to just get rid of it. It's not strictly necessary. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have access to the reference that supports "...and an animal representing the true Proavis had now been found" - if there are alternative references supporting the idea that Microraptor is the best candidate for Heilmann's Proavis, I will happy to let this be. Unfortunately Wikipedia seems to be suggesting the same about Longisquama. My personal leaning is for taking it out, but if you can include any useful points from the associated references, it may serve useful for any one else researching the topic. Shyamal (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to do away with the last part of the last sentence, and agree that saying "the true Proavis has now been found" and "birds had passed through a "Tetrapteryx" stage in their evolution" is too strong and unsupported, and it's not really the goal of this article to get into the nuances of that particular debate. I think the rest of the final paragraph is accurate; the discovery of Microraptor definitely did revive interest in Beebe's work, which had been largely disregarded by the scientific community due to Heilmann. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interestingly, GH's reconstruction of Proavis is claimed to be inspired by Tetrapteryx by Per Christiansen, Niels Bonde (2004) Body plumage in Archaeopteryx: a review, and new evidence from the Berlin specimen C. R. Palevol 3 :99–118 (PDF) - maybe good to check the date of the Proavis illustration.

I added a line about this and cited the source. It's a good one - I could find very few sources that discussed Beebe, Heilmann's Proavis and Microraptor in the same context. I also found that Heilmann's Proavis illustrations date to 1916; this was mentioned in the Ries AoNH review. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Opposite from the arboreal hypothesis is the idea that birds evolved from running bird ancestors, known as the cursorial (or ground up) hypothesis. This scenario may have involved ancient birds jumping or running along the ground and briefly becoming airborne, perhaps to avoid obstacles or catch insects." - I think GH may have had only two competing ideas to examine in his time, but using "opposite" may not be ideal today given that there are other intermediate ideas such as "Wing assisted incline running".

PS- I have made it "Competing with the ...", hope that is ok with you. Shyamal (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "birds had passed through a "Tetrapteryx" stage in their evolution," - this is a strong statement and does not seem to be supported. Heilmann's dismissal of Beebe was wrong - but deriving therefore that all of Beebe's ideas were right is perhaps inaccurate. Also note the underlying Haeckelian idea of recapitulation, which itself is still under scrutiny. - Christiansen and Bonde (2004) for instance merely speculate: "Could such a pattern be yet another case of recapitulation or is it just fortuitous? We prefer the former, which supports Haeckel’s theories"
• Gaylord Simpson's review comments on the book may be worth including. (Simpson, G. G., 1926 The origin of birds; by Gerhard Heilmann. American journal of science 5: 453–454. - have only seen a quote in Ries (2007))

I'm not able to find this review online anywhere, including through my institution. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work. Passed all the GA criteria.

Overall status

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

To be pointed out?

I didn't read this book... but just in case: 20 years before its publication (thus, in 1906) was published in the magazine Knowledge and Scientific News (London) an article titled the same ("The Origin of Birds"), by Englishman William Plane Pycraft. First of all I just discovered, in Commons, the Franz Nopcsa vision of "Pro-Avis" (1907), which lead me to discover the existence of the 1906 Pycroft article, and also that the term "Pro-Avis", in fact, was not coined by Heilmann but by Pycroft (in 1906, then). Just see the article Proavis, which user MWAC and I have recently created. Kintaro (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Huxley's article doesn't clearly propose an ancestor-descendent relationship between dinosaurs and birds.

He emphasizes parallel evolution between later therapods and birds, which leaves open common descent from triassic dinosaurs or, like Heilman would propose, from other archosaurs. See especially pp. 74-75. 96.255.9.115 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)