Talk:Oculudentavis

Disputed affinities

Note that an Chinese-language editorial [1] has been published by the IVPP arguing that the anatomy of Oculudentavis is more consistent with lepidosaurs, and informal arguments have been made elsewhere along the same lines (e.g. [2]). Not sure if this is citable yet, but these objections will definitely be in the literature at some point down the line. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The amazing thing is David Peters said the same thing (and got ridiculed because, well, he's David Peters):[3] FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peters was one of many people who suggested it was not an avialan within hours of the originally paper, I don't recall any ridicule of the idea it was a lepidosaur. Instead he was ridiculed for thinking it was somehow a stem-pterosaur near Cosesaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about the comments replying to his in that comments section... Anyhow, I wonder whether we should use Mark Witton's blog when there are plenty of journal and news articles that report on the amber controversy. He's not exactly an authority on that issue, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

He's a quite reliable scientist who has not said anything contrasting with the other sources, while also relating the issue directly to Oculudentavis and summarizing the situation in an manner not restricted by paywalls. It seems like his comments in the wake of the paper have been a major force in reinvigorated the discussion of the ethical issues surrounding Burmese amber, along with the NYT article. I think they should both get top billing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

As it stands we have this sentence:

• "The genus name combines the Latin words for "eye", "tooth", and "bird", while the species name "khaungraae" is a patro(matro)nym recognizing Khaung Ra, who donated the piece of amber to the Hupoge Amber Museum for study.<ref name=":0" />"

Can someone with access to the type description please flesh this out with the full derivations? We need something along the lines of:

• "The genus name was coined as a combination of the Latin(old? new? neo?) word "xxx" which translates as "eye" "yyy", the Latin(old? new? neo?) for "tooth" and avis (which is not actually latin as I recall?) which mean bird".--Kevmin § 01:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not the first person to note that the etymology is a bit broken, David Marjanovic also said that here:[4]. That said, here is the full quote from Xing et al. (2020) providing the name Oculudentavis: "Etymology. The generic name Oculudentavis is derived from the Latin oculus (eye), dentes (teeth) and avis (bird). The species name khaungraae is from Khaung Ra, who donated the specimen to the Hupoge Amber Museum." I have access to the full paper, and this is what it provides for the etymology. It may be a name stemming from poor knowledge of Latin grammar, but that's not a rare occurrence in paleontology. I'm a bit confused by what you're asking. Should we provide some unsourced alternative with correct grammar, or continue with the name and etymology provided by the authors, which is at this point the valid binomial name for whatever this animal is. I'm doing the latter as other taxonomists have, what do you want? And please sign your comments, Kevmin.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Kevmin's comment is signed - the signature just got wrapped into the bullet point. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The genus name Oculudentavis was created as a combination of the three Latin words oculus, dentes, and avis, which translate to "eye". "teeth" and "bird" respectively. The specific name is matronym honoring Khaung Ra who donated the piece of amber to the Hupoge Amber Museum for study.

Thats what we were needing, so we can explain what the derivation of the etymology is from. We should always avoid the xxx yyy name mean "Smiths massive thunder thigh frog", as it creates false impressions that "Smiths massive thunder thigh frog" is an actual name used.--Kevmin § 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a matronym. Oculudentavis, whether a bird or a lizard, is not the son or daughter of Khaung Ra!--MWAK (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Species epithets named after a person are regularly referred to as patronym/matronyms. --Kevmin § 22:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in my experience. Anyway, it's an incorrect use and should not be imitated on Wikipedia...--MWAK (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential source

Science published an extensive news feature about the Burmese amber fossils and the lead author's acquisition of them: [5] . Might be useful as a source here. Modest Genius ^talk 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Verb tense

When talking about the skull, nearly all the tense is past tense.

Does the skull no longer exist?

If the skull does exist, the article needs a "present tense" re-write.

Also, why isn't there a photo or pic of either the skull or of the skull encased in amber? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing how the skull of Oculudentavis would have appeared in life. The skull does exist, but not as it existed some 99 million years ago. We cannot include a photograph because none have the appropriate license; we do not have the ability to make images appear out of thin air. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

birds not dinosaurs

I'm no expert in this but an avid follower of these things: first many thanks to those who compose pages like this, which are absolutely fascinating! My jib: " the smallest known living dinosaur." referring to the bee-humming bird. I realize that birds are considered the closest surviving relatives of dinosaurs, but to categorically designate them as dinosaurs (other than as a metaphor, or for the purposes of illustration) is likely to cause confusion. I haven't made an edit, because I'm not qualified, but something along the lines of "the smallest known of the birds, which are considered the living descendants of dinosaurs".