Talk:Darwinius

Support for merger with Ida (fossil)

I support the merger with the above article in the lines of Lucy (fossil)--Sulfis (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, since there is only one specimen of Darwinius, which is "Ida", whereas there are plenty of Australopithecus fossils other than Lucy. Once (or if) more Darwinius specimens are found, it might make sense to give "Ida" its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I got it wrong. You are right FunkMonk, I should not have mentioned Lucy. I meant to keep the contents in that style. Did not word it correctly. --Sulfis (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• NO WAY. This is a huge find and is getting major media and scientific community attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• of course, Ida (fossil) should be merged into this article. It is pointless to keep the articles separate when they are going to discuss the exact same thing Darwinius masillae is a species known only from a single fossil, hence anything in the article on the fossil will be relevant to the article on the species and vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the fossil itself is an earthshaking scientific find. the circumstances of its find, and significant scientific studies of this specific fossil will go in this article. findings about the species as deduced by scientists will go in the main article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I searched wikipedia for Ida to find information about this specific fossil, not information about the species. As a completely random user, I would like this to be a separate article. Zaglabarg (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But the thing is, everything known about the species is known from "Ida", since it is the only specimen of the species, as well as the genus. Splitting it up doesn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A prominent fossil section within the article should be enough, I think.--Sulfis (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Support merging, with redirect. Anything that would belong in the article about the specimen, also belongs here, as long as it's the only specimen that's been found. Let's keep things in one place. Anyone interested in the specimen would then be redirected here (or to a subsection here, if that's more appropriate). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. I too came to the Wiki to look for info concerning the specimen and the finding of it. I'm not necessarily interested in info about the species. However, this article should have a section on the specimen "Ida" and its story.

• In any case, it seems Darwinius/Ida is overhyped, take a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge, at present they are one and the same. There is also no telling if the individual fossil will become as famous as Lucy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge per above. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge as above. If more fossils are found and if the type is still considered as historically important as Lucy when all the media hype dies down, then it should be split. At this point there's nothing you can say about "Ida" that can't also be said about the genus Darwinius in general. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Lucy (Australopithecus) and Australopithecus afarensis are separate articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh. There are other fossils of Australopithecus afarensis, which explains why they have separate articles. Then I'm OK with a redirect for now, and if they find more fossils of Darwinius masillae, we can go back to having separate articles. I change my vote to support merge, but I don't want to erase what I already wrote.Grundle2600 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge into this article of Ida fossil and Ida (fossil), separate articles not needed until more specimens found. Worth noting that the species name was to celebrate Darwin's bicentenary, according to the BBC News item: will add this at the start. Science Daily has good coverage, the overhyping is commented on by John Wilkins, "There is no missing link : Evolving Thoughts"., as well as "A Discovery That Will Change Everything (!!!) ... Or Not : Laelaps". and PZ: "Darwinius masillae : Pharyngula".. . . dave souza, talk 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge There is no information about the species not relevant to the fossil and vice versa. J04n(talk page) 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge People who are interested in the specimen and its history are not necessarily interested in a lot of info concerning the species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.187 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • this is just nonsense. All "oppose" votes apparently fail to appreciate that there is only a single specimen for this species. As soon as a second specimen is discovered, a {{split}} will become arguable. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to implement the merger. I have been careful not to lose any relevant info, which was easy, since the Ida article was nearly to 100% duplicating material covered here already anyway. (note that the Germans have come to the same conclusion[1])--dab (𒁳) 08:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it would be better to combine the two, but not completely. I think the most logical thing would be to have Ida as a subcategory of this topic. That would be a way to list the story of Ida and give the details of the species. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Need to delete "Ida (fossil)".--Freedomuser (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a fake

section imported from Talk:Ida (fossil)

You guys do know this fossil is probably a fake. Real experts have had a hard time getting a look at it, despite it being supposedly found in the 80s. It's been in a private collection all this time. It just smells of someone faking it to make money by selling it to private collectors. And even if it was real, calling it the missing link is HUGELY misleading. Read this BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057465.stm for a little evidence behind some of what I say. -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the prehistoric trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.187 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say I have my doubts on this too. This is an almost too-good-to-be-true find, but it was allegedly found back in 1983 and hidden away in a collection since. There is simply no way of verifying anything related to the discovery context now. For all intents and purposes, this is just something that was found on somebody's attic. A little scepticism would be in order. On top of that, this fossil is first presented to the public not in a scholarly manner, but on a tabloid .com website sponsored by TV corps giving us dumbed-down drivel. In combination, this certainly does raise a couple of red flags. Also, the journalists seem determined to tout this as "the missing link". Well, it is a transitional fossil, between monkeys and lemurs, and not related to the human species in particular. We already have the actual "missing link" in the Darwinian sense, between humans and non-humans. It is known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it's a fake, save the faked parts in the American section which are properly described as such and disregarded. The hype is excessive and I've added cited questioning of the adequacy of the research to date. . dave souza, talk 09:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The fossil is most decidedly real. Take a look of other fossils from the Messel pit, and you will see it fits right in. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's even easy to fake something of that sort. X-Rays look pretty realistic to me. Please, Oopsie, explain how you imagined they would do! --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The link OOPSIE posted shows some doubt on the interpretation of the fossil, not its authencity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is hardly fake, nothing indicates that, but it might be hyped up to a lot more than it is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that media buzz increases the selling price, so the owners are only acting according to their best interests in arranging for coordinated media and scientific publicity, with the tabloids leading. If they published it discreetly and allowed the experts to debate back and forth for a month, how many newspapers would be interested in covering "old news"? I certainly don't know this happened, but I suppose that if they threw on a few hundred thousand or more in seed money to increase coverage of their commodity in the news it would be money well spent. I've seen news stations dedicating segments to "news" about local restaurants and magic magnetic bracelets... for someone to take money to cover this story would be unusually good behavior for them. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You pretend that this fossil was first presented to the public not in a scholarly manner ??? That's totally wrong, this finding was submitted to the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE on March 19, was accepted for publication nearly two months later on May 12, and was officially published one week later and only then it made it to the general public news, or "tabloids" as you call them. Of course in the scientific publication there isn't any mention of this being "the missing link", that was indeed a journalist invention to sex up a bit the story, which by itself is already quite extraordinary and doesn't benefit from any of this "help".Link to the PLoS ONE paper. Sophos II (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have the impression that the authors pushed the "embargo" a little more than usual,[2] causing discussions to emerge in the media before people had read the paper, but I could be wrong. I don't doubt that it is a grand discovery, but there are many grand discoveries, and not all of them end up being sold in the media as the "Lost Ark". The commercial speculation in fossils distorts how the science plays out, which annoys me, but I don't deny that there is real science involved here, and quite a bit of it. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree skepticism is needed in this case. It's being highly promoted and the fact that they just now pull it out of a collection just makes it worse. I believe it's real but to say its the missing link is pushing it. I find it amazing that when they discovered that mitochondrial DNA indicates that we came from one or argued by some few women that they didn't blast that all over the news like this fossil. It's kinda scary what they try to push and what the media tries to hold back on.Mcelite (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, skepticism is greatly needed in all of these cases. I've done research into each of the "missing link" fossils found and every one of them had some glaring issues with each of them that made them more debatable about their origin. I don't recall which one, but I remember one of them was a monkey's skeleton with a human's knee cap that was found near the rest. From the articles I read on Ida, one glaring issue that has to be looked at is that it was discovered a few decades ago, then "set in polyester resin" [3] and hung on a collector's wall... was there anyone official to watch this process to make sure no fossils were altered? Who's to say it wasn't a practical joke that they swapped out a human child's foot bone (the only real indicator of the species change)?

This needs to be closely investigated to find the truth for sure. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Masillamys sp. fossil from the Messel Pit fossil site

But not by us. If it is announced that it is a fake, sure, it shold go in the article. But as for now, there's nothing that unique about the fossil, here's another fossil from the same formation, a rodent, the way it is preserved is practically identical. In any case, the authors themselves acknowledge that some parts of the counterslab are fabricated, and show which exact parts with a radiograph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would care to look up on the fossils of the Messel pit, you would see that putting the fossil in resin is the only way to preserve them, and has been done with all the other fossils from the site. The Messel pit contain oil shale with a high water content. The water needs to be replaced, or the fossil simply crumbles up. Scientists had given up on the site and left it to amateur collectors as no-one knew how to preserve the fossils, and it was the amateurs that discovered how to preserve them. When the "transfer technique" was acknowledged by science, the pit was closed to amateurs, and an amnesty was put on existing fossil collections, hoping the best fossils would find their way back to museums.

I actually work at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo that bought the fossil (yes, I have seen it), and I can tell you there is no way the museum would pay half a million dollars for a fake. Jørn Hurum and his team spent a month with X-raying the fossil to make sure it was authentic before closing the deal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very informative and good to know. The suggestion that it had been bought on the basis of photographs did seem odd, and it makes sense that careful examination was carried out before payment. The main area of contention seems to be the overblown claims in some of the presentation and reported by the media. . dave souza, talk 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say Dr. Hurum is very good at working the media to create interest. Some of you may know of Predator X, another of his projects. He's a lot of fun to be around. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Scepticism is beneficial, but authority of the source is demanded nevertheless

With all due respect, I find it below standard that Wikipedia cites the criticism of the presentation and overall quality of a scientific paper by referring to a personal blog of a University student. If the claim is that the paper did not receieve proportionate peer-review, does this mean that blogs instead do? Is the citation of «Poor, poor Ida, Or: "Overselling an Adapid"» really in place here? I bet that more authoritative reviews will soon come out in the open, and until then the criticism be removed. --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs set a good standard, in contrast to the coverage in Sky.com and, sadly, the Grauniad, which are also cited. Laelaps is particularly well respected. If coverage is restricted to peer reviewed papers, there would not be the hype about "missing link" and "human ancestor". . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

«If coverage is restricted to peer reviewed papers, there would not be the hype about "missing link" and "human ancestor"». Well, that is not the question I posed, isn't it? And two wrongs wouldn't make a right anyway. Besides, the media aren't scientifically authoritative, yet they still are relevant sources. The same sources that are often cited as "explaining" that at LHC at Cern they will reproduce the Big Bang or find "God's particle".

Anyaway, going back to my question. I take it that Laelaps is particularly well respected for original Science, I admit my ignorance. I'll submit the question to others for confirmation. --Gibbzmann (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If we want to do this properly, we need to base the "what it is" section entirely on scholarly, peer-reviewed literature, and all media hype about missing links and what not would belong to a separate section dedicated to "impact on mainstream popular culture". Academics losing it and rambling about holy grails and lost arks of course also go to the pop culture section.

The problem here is that the authors of the paper are associated with the media hubbub: according to the scienceblogs entry criticized by Gibbzmann Even though the authors of the paper deny making any such statement, the promotional materials they are associated with (most notably the "Revealing The Link" website) play up this angle to a ridiculous degree. and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. ... I am sickened by the way in which a cable network has bastardized a legitimately fascinating scientific discovery, with the scientists themselves going along with it every step of the way.

In this sense, the scienceblogs article is mostly attacking the article authors not for the quality of their paper, but for their involvement in the misleading sensationalist presentation in the popular press. Since this will belong in the "publicity" section rather than the section discussing the significance of the find, I see no problem with using the scienceblogs reference. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I haven't "critized the scienceblogs entry" at all. I haven't produced a single statement about the merit of the criticism, which for me in principle could be the most enlightened ever conceived in Science history. The question was rather the relevance of the source to Wikipedia (I'm for now suspending my judgement). By the way, that "the scienceblogs article is mostly attacking the article authors not for the quality of their paper" is contradicted by the following standing statements: "This shoddy scholarship is matched by a weak attempt to show that Darwinius has more anthropoid-like traits. [...] The hypothesis [...] does not have strong support. The authors [...] did not undertake a full, rigorous cladistic analysis to support their claims. [The authors stressed the significance of this fossil] without undertaking the requisite research to support their hypothesis. [...] The overall poor quality of the paper, [...] I honestly have to wonder why it was allowed to be published in such a state." So much for NOT attacking the quality of a paper (I guess the word poor associated with quality is a compliment, such as shoddy associated with scholarship). --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ironic. Se the next thread. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gibbzmann, I am aware of the statement you have produced. I have in fact reacted to it. The question isn't so much what is in the blog entry, but what we are using it for here. To save you the bother of reading and understanding my reply above, I will summarize: As long as we cite scienceblogs in the Publicitiy section only, we are, in my opinion, fine. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK dab, I'll accept your proposition, although I find it a bit borderline to include in the publicity section a statement regarding "lack of adequate research in the published paper". --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

phylogenetically ancestral or extinct

If this speciment is phylogenetically ancestral then cannot be extinct in the terms of cladistic. Forcing extinction is plain POV . The term under words missing link emphasisn the ancestry of this speciment. 71.201.243.179 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is some dispute about whether it has been clearly established this is an ancestorial form "and a lack of adequate research in the published paper to back claims that it is an ancestor of the earliest anthropoids.[4]" Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So why about all talk about? About some millions years ago dead rat with well preserved tail ? 71.201.243.179 (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ironic, Nil Einne. I've just been told (see above) that reference [4] does not represent a standing scientific "dispute" but merely a matching reference for misleading or exagerated media coverage, and now I learn that [4] is an authoritative source for rebutting the scientific claim which is object of the page (thus justifying modifications of the text regarding the merit of the finding). By the way, I would note that the very existence of the Wikipedia page on this scientific issue is justified by the claims made by those authors. If anybody is unhappy, the best way would be to cite the paper itself which in fact proposes and does not represent as a fact that Darwinius is ancestral. As an aside, I'd also say I find a bit exaggerated that the erroneous origin of the phrase "missing link" in certain circumstances should be held as an established fact, rather than a legitimate point of view. In fact, I see it not so outrageous that, should my lineage go extint soon, I'm still a potential missing link between Australopitheci and whatever descendants my brothers will have for millions of years to come. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blame Charles Lyell, he invented the term (as I recall). Does it actually propose it? see below. . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As to the point of extinction: If the Darwinius masillae turn out to be ancestral monkeys (and thus man), the species is still extinct in that there are no D. masillae as such alive today. If so, it represent a chronospecies, it's extinction is not POV. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead

Tim Arango (May 19, 2009). "Seeking a Missing Link, and a Mass Audience | theledger.com | The Ledger | Lakeland, FL". Retrieved 2009-05-20. draws attention to the PLoSOne paper paragraph which concludes "Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids." This shows suitable caution about the question of whether this species might be ancestral to anthropoids, but the assertion of ancestry is all over the news coverage and has been fuelled by statements made by the scientists concerned. We could cite that source and the paper for a statement that "the paper does not advocate Darwinius as ancestral to primates and hence humans" at the start of the section in the lead which currently begins with "Ida is a specimen of an extinct, phylogenetically ancestral primate species that lived 47 million years ago". Seem reasonable? . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, cause that has 47 million years which is bassed on Carbon Dating which is unreliable. Everything from fire to the sun to every and any heat source can greatly affect the findings. Not to mention the fact that there have been previously thought extinct animals that have been found. Don't ask me for examples as they are all latin to me(instead of greek :P), either way can't pronounce, spell, or come close to it. Instead maybe try, "Ida is a speciment of a primate species believed to be a phylog... ancestral primate which lived about 47 million years ago." -Fell Skyhawk (forgot to sign in) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.35.102 (talk)

Ecuse me, but "a phylogenetically ancestral primate species" is gbberish. First of all, it is tautological. You cannot be ancestral without being phylogenetically ancestral, so the adjective is redundant. Secondly, you can only be ancestral to something, you cannot simply be "ancestral". You are either a primate or ancestral to primates, but you cannot be ancestral to primates and a primate at the same time. Whichever it is, the article needs to make up its mind what it is going to state. From Dave's quote, it seems the relevant claim would be "an early primate ancestral to the Simiiformes", but at the same time it appears that this is only conjectured, and not claimed with any confidence. --dab (𒁳) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the entire phrase starting with "Note that" and ending with "anthropoids" may be included in the part that deals with enthusiastic statements by the media, preceded by a linking phrase of the type «However, the authors themselves note that "Darwinius masillae... anthropods". It is a common practice to make such cautious statements, but nevertheless the hypothesis ("could represent a stem group") is outlined clearly, and as such should not be omitted from the entire phrase arbitrarily (as if the authors had missed that this could indeed be the case). --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am completely confused at this point. Is it, or is it not disputed that Darwinius is an Adapid? Then why does the infobox list it as a Notharctid? If the classification as an Adapid is undisputed, the implied point is that the classification of Adapids, and indeed of Adapiformes as Strepsirrhini? If the classification as an Adapid is undisputed, the lead should just say "Darwinius is a genus of Adapidae" and save the taxonomical intricacies for further down. The "ancestral to humans" thing, and thus the market value of all this, does of course depend on Darwinius not being a member of the Strepsirrhini. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How can it even begin to be disputed, if the dispute hasn't even started? My opinion is that one has to stand by whatever is stated in (and can be safely deducted by) the paper, and eventually add in parentheses something like "(proposed)", given that the scientific community will have to reach a consensus on correct (likely) classification in any case. --Gibbzmann (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

look the point is that Darwinius is claimed as a subset of the Adapiformes and the Adapiformes are claimed as a subset of the Strepsirrhini. From this it would automatically follow that Darwinius isn't ancestral to the simians. Do you see the problem now? If the paper suggests that Darwinius is Adapiform and at the same time suggests it may be ancestral to the simians it is -- implicitly or explicitly -- disputing that the Adapiformes are Strepsirrhini. So far, this article doesn't point this out to the reader at all, you have to click your way through the variuos taxonomy articles to even notice the problem. This should be fixed, and the article should state in no uncertain term whatever is the taxonomical implication here. Fixing this is much more important than collecting more journalistic trite and soundbites from Sir Attenborough. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the paper do not believe that Adapiformes is a subset of Strepsirrhini. This is a new claim nobody has supported or refuted yet. Give it a year, then add a section on any potential controversy that crops up. What would be appropriate for now would be along the lines of "contrary to traditionally held views on the phylogeny of early primates, the authors conclude that Adapiformes are actually more closely related to modern simians than to lemurs and their relatives." Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

good. then this is the main upshotof this entire story. Cutting away all the media hype and the blatantly obvious attempts to make a quick buck marketing this fossil, the signficance of this find is the doubt it cast on the relation of Adapiformes and Strepsirrhini. We should state as much in the article lead. --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For context, Carl Zimmer got email responses from "two prominent primatologists–John Fleagle of SUNY Stony Brook and Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum" who suggest that this isn't really such a new revelation. It includes a brief analysis of what is claimed in the paper. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Protect/semi-protect?

There might be cause to protect this page for a little while. It's been vandalised quite a lot today. Lfh (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you mean semiprotect, I assume. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly I do. Whichever is more appropriate. Just for as long as the story remains front-page news. Lfh (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Page requires immediate semi-protection. --Hibernian (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, there's really not that much vandalism (surprisingly). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could this page be un-semi-protected please. As Julian mentioned, there didn't seem to be a huge amount of vandalism and the article is on the front page so I think should only be protected in the most extreme circumstances. Protecting for a week is certainly completely excessive. Any admins watching? GDallimore (Talk) 10:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily funny

"This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists"

would imply that the Deluge actually happened, that Earth is 6000 years old and that there was no evolution. God forbid!! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you don't actually know what the "Lost Ark" is, do you. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA. Wow. The ignorance of the original poster is also apparent in the notion that using a figure of speech somehow verifies the existence of God.

• Personally, I think that line is funny, too. Whether it's referring to the Ark of the Covenant (like Indiana Jones looked for) or the Ark that Noah built (which was wood, so it would have deteriorated centuries if not millenia ago). Making a Biblical reference with an evolutionary (or other commonly considered "anti-Biblical" topic) kind of makes me giggle a bit. ;-) Burleigh2 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

guys, Rursus was being ironical. He was just confusing Noah's ark with the ark of the covenant. The latter was certainly a historical artefact, but we are talking about a piece of furniture of 3,000 years ago. It is possible to dig up furniture of the Late Bronze Age if you are lucky, but to go and find the one specific chest you were looking for would be spectacular. This is exactly what the comparison was intended to say. It is lucky to find a near-complete fossil of 50 Mya, but it is spectacular luck if that fossil turns out to be the one you would have wished to find most. As such, the Lost Ark comparison is perfectly valid, and has nothing to do with proving or disproving theism or creationism. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Title in italics?

Why is the title/heading of the article in italics? eu.stefan (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, don't know. that's kind of odd. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a feature in the {{Taxobox}} template. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine in the taxobox, but the problem is that the title of the article is italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. A feature in the infobox causes the title to be italicized. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. How is it turned off? As far as I've seen, genus and species names in article titles are never italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can bring it up at the template's talk page; however, while I'm no expert, I assume that feature was implemented for a reason. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was a previous discussion here regarding the matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like the italics disappear when the "| name =" field is added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. The name field overrides the automatic formatting. I'm curious why you say the title shouldn't be italicised. Binomial names are always italicised in the scientific literature. The lack of italicised titles in the past was not as a result of consensus for such presentation - it was due to technical limitations. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mgiganteus just re-italized the title name, but where was there a consensus for that? I can't recall seeing any other articles about extinct animals with binominal or genus names being italized. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's likely because it's a relatively new feature and few editors know about it. See the link Juliancolton provided for a discussion on this subject. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the binomial name, even as title, should be italicized. This is the standard for binomial names of all organisms in the literature; surely it should be followed in Wikipedia? Agathman (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I un-italicized the title (is that even a word?) without reading this discussion. I mentioned something about this in the Puijila talk page. After all, Puijila is hard on the eyes before the italics are even added. I don't object to italicizing page names, so long as all scientific names in all articles are italicized. A lot of articles, be them dinosaurs, tricodonts, icthyosaurs, etc., don't have their titles italicized. BTW, there are far more non-italicized article names then their are italicized ones. It will be a major undertaking if it were to be done. It seems that only the well-publicized names are italicized, such as Puijila (previously mentioned), and Darwinius. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember some dinosaur article titles being italized long ago, but they were quickly changed back again, so it's not exactly new to be able to do it, but new that it should somehow be the norm.. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

While this is somewhat not-related to the topic, if these article names are italicized, there are thousands more that are un-italicized. Their are plays and game titles that should also be italicized but are not. Having the italicization in the title doesn't seem like such a great idea to me, no matter what naming conventions or binomial names are. Article names are article names. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not consistent across Wikipedia. It does appear to be policy to italicize genus and species, even in article titles, though. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles. Why not italicize here, and resolve to make such changes elsewhere for consistency when possible? Agathman (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an odd logic that because the feature is new and is still being applied across Wikipedia (a job that will take some time) we shouldn't change articles because other articles haven't been changed yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

we have many many articles with binominal names as titles, from Fusobacterium necrophorum to Homo erectus and it doesn't seem like many of them are italicized. It is silly to have an infobox tempate that randomly italicizes a small number of such titles. It there is a wiki-wide decision hat these titles should be italicized, it should be done properly and systematically. --dab (𒁳) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason most of these titles are not italicised is because the taxoboxes include the "| name =" field, which was recently made redundant. When this field is removed, the template automatically includes the article name at the top of the taxobox and italicises the title. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It would still be a major undertaking to do this for all' articles that require italic titles. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but I don't see this as a reason not to follow established procedure for scientific naming. Most could probably be dealt with by a bot anyway.--Kevmin (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

this is what I am saying. If we really want this, we need to send in the bots with the task of "if the article title is equal to the binominal name, italicize it". This is up to the Tree of Life people, but they should either do it all the way or not at all. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to a Lemur

I hate the line "The creature appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur but had opposable thumbs" in the opening section. There are many differences noted later on, but the differing ankle bone as a key indicator is missing from there as well. Although it is to linked back to lemur type creatures, I feel that line on its own downplays what makes this find so significant, in a definitive way before the article can explain it. Anyone else agree? perhaps "with some signifant differences" or similar? The people who first saw it would not have thought what that line says imo. It is not a lemur with opposable thumbs, even superficially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The comparison is inapt to begin with, since, I believe, Lemurs have opposable thumbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.79.71 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. Editing now then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Royle (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lemurs have slightly different skull. 89.146.65.170 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

something unclear to someone: 'multiregional' versus 'out of Africa'

there are indisputable facts: (if you should read more follow wiki-links (eventually ask for sources))

1. The Ida fossil was found only 250 km away from Neanderthal See map
2. Neanderthal find had big impact on media.
3. The Felthofer1 discovery was 2 years before C Darvin published in 1859 book On the Origin of Species
4. Media claim the Ida fossil is important to understand Anthropogenesis#Models of human evolution
5. The Ida discovery was published in 200 anniversary of C Darvin. (Media also try to honor his achievements)
6. The Africa at 47 Mya ago was separated by sea.
7. The separation period was for millions years of until Africa collided with Europe due to plate tectonic. See map in Paleogene
8. The Ida fossil lay in territory of Europe. The plate which form Europe today.
9. Nobody found so early 47 Mya fossil of primate in Africa.
10. The human evolution did not only take place in Africa.
11. The human evolution is long process. Is certain that some stages of human evolution take place outside of Africa.
12. The human evolution take places in many regions out of Africa.
13. There is ongoing dispute between evolutionist about models of human evolution.

All the above facts of knowledge was put into 3 sentences, below:

The Ida fossil was found only 250 km away from another specimen, a milestone of anthropogenesis, found at Neanderthal.[4] . The evolutionary path of 47 million years from Dearvinus to Neanderthal if crossed Africa was at least for period of 25 million years separated till tectonic plates bridged the sea in Paleogene. The evolutionary path is not as recent and as the fossil show is more multiregional.

But deleted here with comments about limits of perceptibility. 71.201.243.179 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• IIRC, the current version of the multiregional theory of human evolution claims that the various groups of humans living today evolved in different parts of the Old World only a couple million years ago from Homo erectus that left Africa.

The multiregional theory has nothing to do with Darwinius. The comparison with Neanderthals is one of historical significans, not of evolution of man. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I live about 250 km away from Darwinius, and the distance between me and Darwinius is almost exactly the same as the distance between Neanderthal and Darwinius. If we mentino Neanderthal here, we should also mention me, and everyone else closer than 250 km to the site. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I changed the etymology to reflect the type paper, which does not mention creature or specify which messel is being honored. The genus name is "Derivatio nominis. Honoring Charles Darwin on the occasion of his 200th birthday." and the species "Derivatio nominis. Masilla= Messel in the Codex of the Lorsch monastery, 800 AD." --Kevmin (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When a fossil genus is monospecific...

... isn't the title of the article supposed to be the genus, and not the species? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the general policy of Wikiproject Paleontology has been to keep extinct taxa articles to genus and higher do to the fluidity of species numbers, with many genera having questionable species. However given the media frenzy surrounding the specimen it would require consensus to move it to Genus.--Kevmin (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved. And even if there had been more species, I'm in favour of having them all merged into the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Unomi (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. I should also mention that this topic was also brought up on the talk page of Puijila and Otodus.

support a move to Darwinius. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is an official policy of Wikipeoject Dinosaurs, not, as far as I know, Wikiproject Paleontology in general. But if you all want to follow suit, I do think it's a good policy. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Publicity stunt

Looks like archeologist have found out how to work the media. The media hype is exaggerated. I thought "missing link in human evolution" would be an ape or a hominid. Rather this is a missing link between prosimians and simians. Let’s Not Go Ape Over Ida, has compiled some useful critiques of this exaggerated media hype. The finding is important, but the people involved are clearly trying to cash in. Already there is a book out in all the book stores. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be rather pedantic, the scientists who study these fossils are Paleontologists not archaeologists. The use of the term missing link is typical of media sources and unfortunate, but its IS a transitional form in the primate tree so the implied meaning is not totally wrong.--Kevmin (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article mention Homo sapiens and human evolution. It has got as much to do with human evolution as cottontop tamarin evolution or mongoose lemur evolution, yet neither of these get a mention. Nurg (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

because Hurum and friends are trying to sell this to human television, not mongoose television. I agree that all the pathetic hype surrounding this needs to be constrained to the "publicity" section at the bottom of the article. This is an important find for the reconstructino of early primate phylogeny, but it has nothing to do with human evolution in particular. Anything relevant to the specifics of human evolution takes place within Hominini, beginning some 8 Mya. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia doesn't need to ape Hurum. Nurg (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin name of the species

Shouldn't the name be Darwinii Masilla, instead of Darwinius Masillae? Mmcarvalho 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

well, maybe Darwinius masilla? The genus is in the nominative -- we aren't Homini sapiens. The genus name is Darwinius. It may be interesting to find out whether there are any other genera named after people. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is Masillae because Masillae is the genitive of Masilla, while Darwinius is correctly given in the nominative. It means "Darwinius of Masilla" (or from Masilla) or, rather, in English "Darwinian of Messel" (Darwinian becoming a noun). --Gibbzmann (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

the proper Latin for "the Darwinian of Messel" would be Darwinius masillensis. The genitive in the second member is dubious. You encounter such genitives in species named after people, i.e. Europolemur kelleri "Keller's Europolemur", but this is a different case. The name makes it sound as if Masilla was a person, "Masilla's Darwinian". --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, there's nothing controversial here. Whatever you assert the more correct way would be, it's beyond doubt that literally "Darwnius Masillae" means "Darwinius of Masilla" (the only controversial bit being whether Masilla is the mother or wife, or a place). The genitive is genitive in Latin, as in any other language, and therefore any confusion is just a failure to translate; the only alternative would be that Masillae is plural, and subjective, so a second subject distinct from the first, which wouldn't make any sense of any sort. There's no "sounds as if" here, just as "John of New York" means "of New York", and "John of Greta" means "of Greta". I would also doubt it's incorrect anyway, but that's not mine to judge (there are examples in Latin in which the geographical origin is treated as genitive, the same way "John the newyorker" and "John of New York" are both understandable). Finallly, being of Messel is not an active action, and therefore it would rather be "Darwinius masillus" or "masillanus" (whatever), and not "masillensis" (and not in upper case). --Gibbzmann (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was answering Mmcarvalho's question. I wasn't proposing we insert the claim that it is bad Latin in the article text, nor was I saying anything is "controversial" here. I am not sure what purpose your posting is supposed to serve, and not for the first time on this talkpage. Masillensis would be the most likely Latin for "of Masilla", compare Massiliensis from Massilia[5]. Masillanus, as it were building on Romanus would be arguable but dubious. I am not saying this is a "controversy". It would be nice for paleontologists to get their Latin right, but obviously paleontologists aren't philologists, and apparently aren't expected to consult philologists before naming new speies. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Porconsul nyanzae, and many more, are examples of the same practice, the authors didn't invent anything. There are indeed other practices, equally correct. However, apart from lack of homogeneity, I'm not aware of outright mistakes. Maybe, sometimes it's concordance that is lost. And, I was responding to Mmcarvalho too. --Gibbzmann (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwinius Masillae means Darwin of Messel. It gives the animal found in Lake Messel the name of Darwin. This is similar to the hypothetical case a fossil of a unknown species of donkey were found in London and named Darwin of London. Frankly, I do not think this is honoring Darwin. Although still a bad name, Messelian of Darwin (Darwinii Masillensis, parhaps) would be better. Mmcarvalho 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.146.203 (talk)

Semi-protected after nine anon edits in two hours?

Did someone have an itchy trigger finger w.r.t. semi-protection? Unless my hand-crafted cut/paste list failed me, I count ten anon edits to the article in the two hours before semi-protection was applied, with no anon changes in the nearly 50 minutes before the protection:

1. cur) (prev) 21:53, 20 May 2009 [[::User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] (talk · contribs) m (12,692 bytes) (Protected Darwinius masillae: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC))))
2. (cur) (prev) 21:02, 20 May 2009 70.106.82.210 (talk) (12,618 bytes) (→Discovery and publication)
3. (cur) (prev) 20:56, 20 May 2009 67.71.181.78 (talk) (12,619 bytes)
4. (cur) (prev) 20:42, 20 May 2009 98.221.129.232 (talk) (12,695 bytes)
5. (cur) (prev) 20:41, 20 May 2009 66.154.147.129 (talk) (12,685 bytes) (→Type specimen)
6. (cur) (prev) 20:40, 20 May 2009 71.203.225.60 (talk) (12,680 bytes) (→Notes)
7. (cur) (prev) 20:31, 20 May 2009 71.203.225.60 (talk) (12,555 bytes) (→Type specimen)
8. (cur) (prev) 20:26, 20 May 2009 89.181.47.48 (talk) (12,537 bytes)
9. (cur) (prev) 20:10, 20 May 2009 190.49.44.58 (talk) (12,568 bytes)
10. (cur) (prev) 20:09, 20 May 2009 190.49.44.58 (talk) (12,566 bytes)

70.106.82.210 just tweaked some wording, and one or two others were changes that at least superficially could be considered legitimate (e.g. 190.49.44.58 changed a year). Several of the rest fit the category of content disputes, a distinction significant to WP policy. But even if you assume all ten were vandalism, isn't that too light a reversion load to justify semi-protection?

Perhaps there were a lot of non-autoconfirmed users causing vandalism (as opposed to content disputes)—I didn't research that. But if that wasn't the case, in Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection, I read the following:

...administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are:

• Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.
• Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.

Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes. (use of bold is mine).

I was in on some of the early clean up (Special:Contributions/67.100.222.146) so the semi-protection didn't affect me, but as someone who tries to contribute without logging in I'm concerned about this. Thanks. 67.100.125.164 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree that semi-protection of new articles such as this one are a bad idea. Semiprotection is useful for (a) articles that are subject to a trolling campaign, e.g. by a banned user refusing to give up, and (b) long-standing, well-developed articles that tend to be degraded by the occasional drive-by anon. Neither case applies here. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But I must say that the threshold for new accounts is very low, and the time it took 67.100.125.164 to write the above claim would have been sufficient to create a throw-away account able to edit this article. After all, the truly anonymous editors are those using throwaway accounts. IPs are anonymous for the purposes of the Wikipedia community, but they are at the same time a direct link to your real-life identity. --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the semi was correct because it was subject to quite a large number of vandalism edits, unfortunately for those good IP edits. I did just notice though that the length probably was a bit too long and changed it to a day. Hopefully by then the vandalism will have stopped. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since it seems several people agree with my comments above, I've made this request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Darwinius_masillae_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a valid genus and species

Don't know the standard for blogs being cited here but this is from Discover and is ubiquitous on paleo blogs/boards/sites/probably Twitter and Oprah right now. Darwinius is not validly published according to the ICZN. [6] Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like it is going to be a very interesting discussion in the days to come. This find is simply too well publicised and too important to ignore the implications. Thanks for the link, Dinoguy2! Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Couple follow-up links from the Discover blog: Official word from the ICZN is Darwinius does not exist yet and Science held hostage Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern over a single specimen

Burleigh2 has put the following text, or some variant of it, into the article at least five times now, and it has been removed by various editors:

"Another concern is that while other evolutionary steps have many more examples, this species is currently known only from a single fossil specimen."

I heartily approve the removal of this statement. It's not referenced, having only a single specimen for a species isn't that rare, and I don't know what is meant by "evolutionary steps" -- sounds like the Great chain of being to me. Anyway, can we go on record with a consensus about this? Agathman (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense and definitely sounds like the author is mistaken about the nature of evolution. Remove immediately! Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, re-removed it and was beaten to the edit in removing creationist fringe "criticism" which is against WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies that I can't find the link source at the moment. I'm also new to Wiki and wasn't aware of how much should be done in the "talk" section and how much should be in the article. Part of the source was going by the dictionary's definition of "Species" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species that points to a group of beings that are the same, not a single occurrence of a single unusual being... that's more reminiscent of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutation I will be searching for the initial reference to back it up if the dictionary's basis to that source isn't enough. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition is a simplification of the reality of taxonomy, in that it refers only to living modern species. Most fossil taxa are known from only one to a few specimens. It has been common practice since the earliest days of paleontology to name species for a single specimen or, more often then not, a single partial specimen.--Kevmin (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "single fossil concern" is a non-issue. And that it is obvious that this is the case. A more meaningful question would be, how can they be sure their fossil shouldn't be classified under the Europolemur genus. --dab (𒁳) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A primate or a lizard?

Does anyone know of a source which can be used in this article to explain exactly how/why the fossil is identified as a primate, and not a lizard of some sort? - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The PLOS article (see ref 1 in the article) goes into considerable detail on its affiliation with the Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini, specific groups within the primates. There won't be anything in there specifically saying "here's why we don't think it's a lizard," because it's too obvious. The simplest way of telling is that reptiles have simple conical teeth; mammals have varied teeth, many of which have multiple cusps. The molars of Darwinius have multiple cusps and roots, typical of mammals, as you can see in the illustrations in the PLOS article. Agathman (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of problems with article

I spotted a couple of problems with the article while reviewing it that I do not know how to fix. There isn't necessarily anything wrong, it's just that there appear to be important details missing. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks.

Firstly, in the lead, it talks about the two slabs being separated and not reassembled again until 2006, but the article itself does not discuss this - it discusses Hurum's purchase of one section, but no mention is made of the other that I can find.

Secondly, in the radiograph picture it refers to "fabricated parts of the counter-slab", but this is not referred to in the main text. Words like "fabricated" need some qualification to avoid misinterpretation by those who would seek to damage the credibility of the fossil.

Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "fabricated" is used in the paper itself: "All of plate A and parts 1 and 2 on plate B (enclosed in dashed lines) are genuine; remainder of plate B was fabricated during preparation." and "Relative positions and museum numbers as in Figure 1. Radiographs show that all of plate A is genuine, while cranium, thorax, upper arms (part 1), and lumbus, pelvis, base of tail, and upper legs (part 2) of plate B are genuine."

This article could be a lot longer, by the way, remember, the paper has a Wikipedia compatible license, so we can basically copy text from it without altering it. All the problems you address are clarified in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I haven't read the paper and wasn't planning on doing so. So, someone who has should clear up the problems I've noted was what I was suggesting. The wikipedia article should be internally complete without needing to read the paper. GDallimore (Talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the section on the history of the fossil, hope it goes some way toward answering what you pointed out. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

primate genesis

re this, I admit the paragraph was somewhat gratuitous, but its background is the Attenborough video clip here which for all in the world sounds as if the significance of this was about connecting primates with non-primates. So, the blanked paragraph isn't strictly necessary, but it doesn't do any harm I can see either. --dab (𒁳) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a non-sequitor though with no context. It's also editorialising to have the article editors reply directly to a perceived misconception. Rather, if such a misconception does exist, and someone responds to it in print, then we can report that. As it stands, you can't even cite the fact that it has no bearing on primate genesis, because nobody has said that it does or doesn't, so there's nothing cite. Nobody has said it has bearing on the origin of dogs either, and we shouldn't point that fact out. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have just stated, Attenborough is on record as saying that it does. Although that was orally in an interview, and I suppose he would have no problem with putting this more accurately. I am not sure how you can claim that "nobody said so" when I just have given you the link. If you are trying to say that I didn't phrase this explicitly as being in reference to the Attenborough interview, then fair enough. But rather than going to the tedious "however" clauses, I thought it would be easiest to just state it like it is unexcitedly. I am not saying there is any "controversy" here, I am just saying that some clarification on this point may be necessary. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your point but it sounds pretty clearly like Attenborough misspoke. We can't be sure he wasn't including lemurs among 'the rest of the mammals', especially since the other side of the 'link' was "monkeys and apes." Sounds to me like he was trying to simplify Anthropoid vs Streptorhine for general audiences down to "monkey and apes" + "other mammals." Still, even if that's what he meant, my point stands that it's not our place to correct him here, and his comments seem too ambiguous to even include at all really. He may not be saying anything that isn't said more clearly in the actual paper. At best, we could write "contrary to Attenboroughs comments in a video sound bite, the authors conclude... etc." Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My humble opinion is that we already have living fossils in Lemurs, old world monkeys and new world monkeys. The similarities between lemurs and old world monkeys are remarkably obvious, so much so that any creature linking them shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Nonetheless, it appears there has been an active debate over which lineage is ancestral to the anthropoids [7]. This particular article, Why Ida fossil is not the missing link contends that Ida is even more primitive than lemurs, and cannot be the link between prosimians and simians. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

Can we be sure this is named after Charles Darwin. After all, there must be hundreds of species named 'Darwin' that have nothing to do with an obscure foreign scientist. Why, I have some of them in my garden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.88 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Derivatio nominis: Honoring Charles Darwin on the occasion of his 200th birthday."[8] Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"an obscure foreign scientist" - you are kidding!!