Talk:Epidendrosaurus

Synonym "issue"

I'll quit this little edit war for the moment, but I feel like we're giving undue wight to an issue that has never even been addressed in any published literature. Several people have treated these two as synonyms, but as far as I know, it has never been discussed and the two specimens have never been compared in any published form. The issue of the extremely different tail lengths, and the differences in the sclerotic rings (made of several bones in Scansor but one solid piece in Epi) really need to be addressed. Not to mention that the provenance of Scansor is totally unknown, having been bought at a fossil show. Basically, this issue does not exist in the lit yet, and moving it to a prominent spot in the intro rather than a note in the taxonomy section seems like jumping the gun.

Same thing for Cryptovolans, by the way. I think people are being far too cautious with this nomenclature lately, by the way. After a few studies find M. gui, M. zaoianus, and C. pauli in a polytmy relative to other microraptorians, what's so bad about just synonymizing the darn things and getting it out there? Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You may never see anything about Scanoriopteryx or Cryptovolans in the literature. We probably agree that this sucks, because the fossils themselves are exquisite. Still, it is likely that the specimens will never be compared directly, and everyone will just switch to synonymizing them without explaining why. Here's why. One way that paleontologists maintain their reputations is to not comment on the record about fossils of troubling legal status. Otherwise, they may comment only on condition that the fossils be returned, etc. In this case, the fact that paleontologists as diametrically opposed as Padian and Feduccia are moving ahead with treating them as synonyms (in print) should show you that it is indisputable. Those two have only ever agreed on one thing - and this was it. Many researchers won't even use the names "Cryptovolans" or "Scansoriopteryx". They just treat those two as if they were never discovered, because citing them would be professionally unethical and would legitimize the self - published, bombastic, and poor - quality descriptions that Czerkas gave them. But, sure enough, our Wikipedia articles take sides; we treat them as different genera, even giving them different illustrations. Wikipedia has a lot of power in terms of propagating ideas, and that carries responsibility. One reason it is citicized is that it may amplify poorly supported ideas and imply that they are of equal merit to contradictory, very well supported, ideas.

I didn't really understand your point about "cautious nomenclature". What would be gotten out there exactly?

But, I concede one point. I moved the Epidendro thing down to Taxonomy.Jbrougham (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The cautious nomenclature thing--It's my understanding that these species consistantly come out together in cladograms. Normally, even without looking at the specimen or even addressing them directly, this would be ample ground for a quick synonymization of M. z., M. g., and C. p. (or at least the creation of new combination Microraptor pauli). But this has never been done, which seems odd to me in these days where lumping phylogenetically indistinct taxa is pretty popular. Or has Cryptovolans never even been coded into published cladograms? I may just be thinking of Mortimer's.

Incidentally, who is in possession of Czerkas' specimens? If nobody is studying them, it is pretty unethical for Czerkas not to just give them back to the Chinese government... It's a real shame if they never see the light of print again. Especially Pterorhynchus :( Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where the fossils are. Last I heard, Czerkas promised to repatriate them after his traveling show was done. I agree with you completely that it would be better to put an M. pauli in the cladograms. Some researchers probably will, maybe they will even synonymize it at a species level, i don't know. I suspect that several of the top researchers will just consider the specimen untouchable. They will probably also say that it wouldn't affect the cladogram anyway since, as you say, M. pauli would just be a third Microraptor species. Jbrougham (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Looks like the exhibit is still going around.[1] Guess I'll have to be patient... Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

bird?

Well, It looks like a bird, closest relative of Archeopteryx, & more advanced. I'm starting to think it's a bird. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What definition of "bird" are you using, to begin with? Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Flight

Could Epidendrosaurus fly? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but without good adult specimens it's impossible to tell. The scientists who described Epi thought it was unlikely, since flying birds have short hands while Epi's are long. The scientists who described close relative/synonym Scansoriopteryx left the possibility open. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it known for certain whether it could glide? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, did it have a keel? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the sternum was preserved, so unknown if it had a keel. Gliding is the same situation as flying--we don't know enough to be able to tell. Unfortunately, scansors have barely been studied at all so far. For pretty much any question you can think to ask about them, the answer will be "we don't know" ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)