Pachystruthio 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
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
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 17 May 2008 by reviewer
Acer (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Georgia and
Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be
added to this article.
Requested move 27 June 2019
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Yes, that's the study published yesterday that has sparked the news coverage. But Zelenkov et al. only says that "These three late Cenozoic eastern European taxa are thus giant birds that are notably different from modern and extinct Struthio in morphology. Hence, given the close ages of the localities, absolute size similarities, and generally low diversity of giant flightless birds in continental deposits (and in Europe in particular), it is plausible to classify S. dmanisensis, S. transcaucasicus, and S. (P.) pannonicus within the genus Pachystruthio, although the specific identity of these taxa remains to be confirmed. ... Affinities of Pachystruthio are unclear, and its referral to the order Struthioniformes remains to be confirmed." Should we start an RM to get more input? SamSailor06:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The combination Pachystruthio dmanisensis comb. nov. is introduced in the paper as a nomenclatural act. However, it seems that neither Pachystruthio nor P. dmanisensis have been registered in ZooBank, and the paper does not provide a diagnosis for the unique characteristics of the genus or the species. I do not have access to Kretzoi (1954) - "Ostrich and camel remains from the Central Danube basin", but if it describes Pachystruthio as a subgenus and also does not include a differential diagnosis, then it seems like P. dmanisensis is an invalid nomen nudum under ICZN regulations. There is a history of nomina nuda with articles on WP, but this is a tricky technical situation, and I agree that further input would be helpful.
2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (
talk)
06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Why would Pachystruthio be a nomen nudum? It presumably was established validly in the 1954 paper, so this latest is just a genus reassignment that the ICZN doesn't have any bearing over.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It does not. Article 43.1 explicitly states that subgenera and genera are automatically established simultaneously, so Pachystruthio was established as an available genus in 1954 by Kretzoi. Therefore, elevating a subgenus to a genus is a matter of taxonomy, not nomenclature, and so a Zoobank registration is no more required here than when, for example, synonymizing taxa.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
00:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that the type species of Pachystruthio appears to be Struthio pannonicus, not Struthio dmansiensis. Struthio dmansiensis is neither the type nor only species of Pachystruthio.Ornithopsis (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You're right. The most reasonable course of action would be to retarget Struthio dmanisensis, Struthio transcaucasicus, and Struthio pannonicus to Pachystruthio, but considering Pachystruthio does not exist I think this move would be equivalent.
2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (
talk)
17:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
What do you mean, Pachystruthio does not exist? 00:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ornithopsis (
talk •
contribs)
I created a redirect for
Pachystruthio dmanisensis to
Struthio dmanisensis earlier today when I read about the new find in the newspapers and came to look it up. It seems that Pachystuthio is a subgenus or synonym of Struthio (see
List_of_fossil_bird_genera#Struthioniformes). My feeling is that this new report is a primary source and that any change in the formal taxonomy should await a secondary source. It's also not clear if the Pachystuthio would be monotypic as other species might get transfered. Jts1882 |
talk10:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It's worth considering that in a topic as obscure as this, it is potentially unlikely that a secondary source will provide a clear answer any time soon.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
00:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - In cases like this should we only rely on scientific papers from peer-reviewed journals? Most of the press[1][2][3][4] seems to have no problem using the term Pachystruthio dmanisensis and I wonder of this should bear any weight on the decision or if they are automatically superseded when scientific literature is available.
PraiseVivec (
talk)
13:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, the scientific name must be sourced from scientific articles. This is where the Wikipedia distinction between reliable primary (
WP:PRIMARY) and secondary (
WP:SECONDARY) sources gets murky. The primary source will be peer-reviewed, but we should not make significant changes based only on primary sources. However, a secondary source might not be peer reviewed. What would be helpful here is some sort of commentary on the article (e.g. as Nature and Science often do). As for the press, they are just following what the authors of the paper say, so I don't think that carries much weight. My hunch (which counts for nothing) is that the new genus assignment will eventually get accepted. When it is will be the time to make the page move. Jts1882 |
talk13:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Move Despite the waffling in the media, the new combination has been validly made by the journal article, and the commentary about the relationship is not about the species placement in the genus, but about the genus placement in relation to the family. The on-line databases will not show a change yet, as the article has only just been published.--
Kevmin§16:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Move - The info is from a peer-reviewed study, whether or not it got a large amount of media attention. Family should just be
incertae sedis and Order can be "?Struthioniformes", as per the paper's classification. --
Geekgecko (
talk)
02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment The placement in Pachystruthio is provisionally (according to the paper Pachystruthio is marked with a ?). Fact is that Pachystruthio (created as subgenus by Kretzoi in 1954) is not monotypic and so you have to create lemmata for all three species that are currently in this genus. --
Melly42 (
talk)
11:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose based on
WP:PSTS. We have a primary source making a tentative proposal, with uncertain placement of the new genus. The change should await a reliable secondary source, which should be forthcoming if the proposal has merit as it appear to have. Jts1882 |
talk06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Move With poorly-known taxa such as this, it is perhaps unlikely that a good secondary source will satisfactorily address the issue any time soon. In the general case, I think that requiring confirmation by secondary sources can be unneccesarily restrictive in cases of paleontological taxonomy. The case for a Pachystruthio page is at least as good as the case for a Brontosaurus page, for instance. I would suggest, however, that this may be a case where separate genus and species pages are warranted in order to slightly better cover our bases with uncertain taxonomy.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
12:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.