From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dinosaurs (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism charges[edit]

Given the suspicion of plagiarism surrounding Easter (2013) and the possibility of retraction, shouldn't this page be temporarily reverted back to the old name as a safety? I am not sure how the ICZN works in terms of papers that name new taxa if the paper is retracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand, even if the accusations are true, since the name is valid (=not preoccupied) and the publication is valid (published officially), the genus is valid as well. Rnnsh (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I noticed the similarities to the theropod database entry before I read Andrea Cau blog. Because both the theropod database and Easter (2013) referenced Barsbold (1981), I thought that both copied the data from there (not plagiarism if referenced), so her explanation for that issue seems logical... Rnnsh (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No. The discussion on the Theropod Database is in fact a novel work and is not stemming from Barsbold. Much of the phrasing in Easter's paper is quite identical to it -- put them side by side and you will find the flow of sections, ideas, etc are pretty much completely in line. Given your interpretation, that would mean the paper is still plagiarism, but from Barsbold. ;-) (of course, it isn't, it plagiarizes TTD quite heavily). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form." (from Plagiarism, see what I did here? ;) ) So, under my interpretation (which is wrong according to Cau, I haven't read Barsbold (1981)) it's not plagiarism, because Easter (2013) gave the credit to Barsbold. In any case, the generic name is valid... Rnnsh (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It IS plagiarism because it copies idea for idea from The Theropod Database, in some cases, even using the same words but re-arranging them, the same citations, etc. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF S/HE CITES BARSBOLD OR NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WASN'T WHETHER BARSBOLD WAS BEING PLAGIARIZED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I specifically wrote "under my interpretation" [in reply to your comment that "Given your interpretation, that would mean the paper is still plagiarism, but from Barsbold", which isn't correct]. Of course it IS plagiarism, but only because the data at The Theropod Database wasn't copied from Barsbold (1981). Rnnsh (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No explanation has been given either for why the author stole figures from "The Dinosauria", a widely known resource which almost every paleontologist and amateur owns a copy, and did not attribute. Also, the author has claimed elsewhere to have travelled and seen many collections, yet none are mentioned in this paper.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is moot. Plagiarized or not, the taxonomy was validly published as far as the ICZN is concerned. Taxonomic vandalism happens all the time. Just google Raymond Hoser. We're stuck with it. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What happens if the paper is retracted and/or the ICZN is petitioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK retraction doesn't have an effect, but from what I'm reading the paper will NOT be retracted, rather a correction will be published crediting Mortimer etc. If the ICZN is petitioned they could in theory place the name on the official list of nomena rejecta, but I seriously doubt that would happen. There is no requirement that original authors get first dibs at renaming, and Barsbold had over 20 years to do so with no action taken. Furthermore, the name itself was not plagiarized, just the accompanying description, which is not something the ICZN is concerned with. Species pre-occupied, species needs new name, species gets new name. The paper could (and looks like it should) have been three sentences long. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I could have waited longer for a paper published ethically, rather than one that plagiarized more than 55% of the text, especially knowing AMNH is working on "Ingenia". Further, it appears the author may have lied regarding the involvement of Barsbold. The editors made it sound as though Barsbold approved the situation (and Easter claimed this collaboration elsewhere), while Easter's public posts most recently indicate that it was not the case. This paper needs retracted, the entire situation is a mess, and the last thing Zootaxa needs is ANOTHER plagiarized paper.
Sad but true... (it's more like 95%) Hopefully, real paleontologists will learn their lesson (if they care about that), and deal with taxonomic issues like that quicker. They can even name new taxa in appendices of other papers (not to waste money for publishing), so what's the problem then? Rnnsh (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is paleontologists, like most researchers, have to split time between minor projects, major projects, teaching or other work-related obligations as part of their 'normal' job. It isn't just an issue of a few specimen, it's many specimens with an increasingly complicated taxonomy. All of the material needed reworked and it wasn't/isn't clear how many of the name-bearing specimens might belong to other species, one species, etc. Think how long GIN 100/42 has gone without a name. Taxonomy isn't simple, even for living taxa. My bigger concern is for a paper like this with obvious plagiarism, theft of figures, dubious circumstances around it (Easter has been modifying his/her story regarding attachments with Barsbold or not), etc. to go unpunished with just having an erratum published. That basically grants a double publication for actions that should be rendered null. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Head/Crest(lack of-) of Ingenia[edit]

After doublechecking the heads of ingenia are: The holotype, contains the braincase and lower jaw, no indication pro or against a crest. Reffered skulls are speculative, none have ever been compared to the type material in such a way that refferal is grounded in facts, but rather named "Ingenia sp" out of convenience. These should not be counted as part of Ingenia yanshini as they could really be anything still.

There is a new skull reffered to Ingenia, (i'm not sure if its reffered down to species level), but its not described as of what I know, so untill it is, it would be best, in a scientific sense, to leave out visual descriptions of the skull (except for the braincase and lower jaw..) untill further descriptions are available.

Ingenia urban legend[edit]

There was a rumor that "Ingenia" was named after the InGen cloning technique deployed in Jurassici Park, but this rumor proved to be incorrect. [1]


Ingenia was named 7 years prior to the publication of Jurassic Park by scientists working in the Soviet Union with, presumably, little access to Western techno-thriller novels. So... yeah. An unlikely rumor ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Status of Ingenia[edit]

Is there a paper in press that will provide a replacement name for "Ingenia"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


Should "Ingenia" be in italics in this article even when it is not a valid name for this genus? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the convention is here, and oddly enough I can't find anything about typeface in the online version of the ICZN. It doesn't mention anything about italics in the section on junior homonyms. My guess would be that a junior homonym gets italics as long as it was properly made available and is not a nomen nudum. The way to set it apart from the senior homonym is by tagging with the authority, so Ingenia (Barsbold 1981) vs. Ingenia. On the other hand, Theropod Database uses quoted and no italics around genera that are likely to be reclassified. I'll ask around... Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, this should probably be mentioned on Wikipedia:DINO#Dinosaur_taxa_naming_conventions, so it's consistent across articles. I'm thinking of "Ischyrosaurus" and how we list preoccupied names on the list of dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
From Mike Keesey on DinoForum,
"In light of all this, the ICZN-recommended way to write these would be Ingenia yanshini Barsbold 1981 and Allosaurus tendagurensis Janensch 1925. You may also adopt a typographical sign (such as quotation marks) or a qualifying abbreviation (maybe "ex."?) to indicate misassignment if you wish, but that falls outside the purview of the ICZN."
I used "A." tendagurensis as an example of a misassigned species that hadn't been given a new genus name yet. So, it looks like the title should probably either be "Ingenia", with both italics and quotes, or Ingenia Barsbold 1981. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ingenia Barsbold 1981 seems unwieldy to me; if those are the choices, I'd prefer "Ingenia". Whichever format is decided on, we'll have to do this cross the board (and update the List of dinosaurs, which currently states that preoccupied names will not appear italicized on the list). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I vote for "Ingenia". Adheres to the rules (all valid names in italics) while the quotes are pretty obvious shorthand for the fact the name isn't correct when applied to this particular animal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, looks the nicest. FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright then. I'll start updating. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just moved this article, but the quotation marks are in italics too. Any way to change this? FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The article itself doesn't need to be moved; in fact, in past discussions, it's been agreed that including punctuation in the article's name creates an article which is an unlikely search term. Few users are going to search WP (or Google) using italics or quotation marks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, probably doesn't need to be moved unless somebody creates an article on the nematode. In which case we'll need to move this to Ingenia (dinosaur). Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)