Talk:Dinornis

Dinornis

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was someone has already made the move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Aren't we supposed to name Genus pages after the Latin word, not the common name? I propose that this page gets fixed speednat (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

What is a synonym of what?

The paper on sexual dimorphism[1] refers to D. giganteus and D. novaezealandiae throughout, but in the end we find a rather baffling statement: "The following taxonomy is now advocated: family, Dinornithidae (Bonaparte); genus, Dinornis (Owen); species, D. novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (North Island Dinornis) and D. robustus Owen, 1846 (South Island Dinornis). The species D. giganteus and D. struthoides are placed in the synonymy of D. novaezealandiae." So what does this mean? Usually D. robustus is listed as a synonym of D. novaezealandiae. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Still extant"

Seeing as we are having a minor spate of survival claims based on grainy photos cum TV sensationalism again, let me restate the current status quo:

Moas by universal consensus are regarded as an extinct clade. What recurring arguments to the contrary exist are summarized at Moa#Claims of moa survival. None of these justify changing the general judgement from "extinct" to "extant". Any foray in that direction would have to produce a large body of reliable evidence, and the case needs to be made here, on the article's talk page, and generate consensus for a change. Repeated unilateral attempts to alter the page based on a minority opinion are rapidly becoming disruptive; stop it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, any such changes should be reverted on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"...by universal consensus are regarded as an extinct clade." - please cite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.124.132 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

- David, D., & Prince, P. Vanished species. Popular Culture Ink, 1989.

- Tennyson, A. J. D., & Martinson, P. Extinct birds of New Zealand. Te Papa Press, 2006.

- Hume, J. P., & Walters, M. Extinct birds. A&C Black, 2012.

- Milberg, P., & Tyrberg, T. (1993). Naïve birds and noble savages‐a review of man‐caused prehistoric extinctions of island birds. Ecography, 16(3), 229-250.

- Holdaway, R. N.; Jacomb, C. (2000). "Rapid Extinction of the Moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): Model, Test, and Implications". Science. 287 (5461): 2250–2254. doi:10.1126/science.287.5461.2250. PMID 10731144.

- Bunce, M., Worthy, T. H., Phillips, M. J., Holdaway, R. N., Willerslev, E., Haile, J., ... & Cooper, A. (2009). The evolutionary history of the extinct ratite moa and New Zealand Neogene paleogeography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(49), 20646-20651.

- Nicolas J. Rawlence, Jessica L. Metcalf, Jamie R. Wood, Trevor H. Worthy, Jeremy J. Austin, Alan Cooper. The effect of climate and environmental change on the megafaunal moa of New Zealand in the absence of humans. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2012; DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.07.004

- Rawlence, N. J., & Cooper, A. (2013). Youngest reported radiocarbon age of a moa (Aves: Dinornithiformes) dated from a natural site in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 43(2), 100-107.

- Allentoft, M. E., Heller, R., Oskam, C. L., Lorenzen, E. D., Hale, M. L., Gilbert, M. T. P., ... & Bunce, M. (2014). Extinct New Zealand megafauna were not in decline before human colonization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(13), 4922-4927.

- Perry, G. L., Wheeler, A. B., Wood, J. R., & Wilmshurst, J. M. (2014). A high-precision chronology for the rapid extinction of New Zealand moa (Aves, Dinornithiformes). Quaternary Science Reviews, 105, 126-135.

• That took me three minutes to find, because 99.9% of all published research on the topic agrees on the fact of extinction (I do have the books, the papers are all online). That's what we call "universal consensus". Can we lay this charade to rest now please? And incidentally, do stop the repeated attempts at subterfuge by inventing credentials and references - it's getting a little cringeworthy --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Image legend "D. struthoides skeleton, now known to be a male Dinornis, not a distinct species"

Can someone with subject knowledge please take some time, check my edit from yesterday, which was reverted twice, and re-do it? This legend reads like "golden poodle skeleton, now known to be a male dog, not a distinct species". People found a skeleton, thought it was a new species, named it "Dinornis struthoides", but later it turned out that it was a male "Dinornis novezealandiae". A species "Dinornis struthoides" never existed. All this can be seen from the image file description and the article. (I do not understand why people checking the pending changes revert things not clearly vandalism if they are not familiar with the subject.)--2A02:908:5A4:B000:7581:26F0:9620:9EB6 (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Valid point, I've changed the caption and moved the image to a more appropriate section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)