Talk:Ichthyoconodon

Restoration

The wing membranes strike me as unnecessary speculation. It would be more parsimonious to reconstruct it similar to other volaticotheres instead of having it convergently evolve an enlarged digit supporting a membrane as with pterosaurs. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, I doubt that it needs anything beyond an image of the fossil at all. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a highly speculative detail, I'll grant you that (however, notice that the image was designed in that the "finger" could also be interpreted as a styliform, something omnipresent in gliding tetrapods from colugos to Yi). However, there still needs to be n accounting for the marine location of the teeth (remember, no erosion, no possibility of it having come from upriver), and I think this is a simple detail to call attention to that fact. Otherwise, the animal is designed reasonably, if maybe needing membranes between the toes. Also we do not own the image to the teeth. Falconfly (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of the teeth assigned to Ichthyoconodon by Sigogneau-Russell 1995 are eroded, and I quote: "[MNHN SA 46] is poorly preserved in the sense that the enamel is eroded and that the roots have been crushed." MNHN SA 78 also has eroded enamel, though to a lesser degree, and wear is "more clearly expressed" on the external cingulum. Shuvuuia (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Same study:

"The cusp sharpness of these molars, combined with the preservation of such fragile elements in littoral sediments, led us to believe that they could not have undergone long transportation and, in consequence, that they could have belonged to a piscivorous and aquatic animal."

Ergo, it can be seen that the erosion displayed is minimal, or at least indicative that the tooth was not transported downriver. Falconfly (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a citation which actually specifically supports a volant Ichthyoconodon, which I have been unable to find, depicting it with styliform elements supporting a patagium more extensive than indicated by the Volaticotherium fossil is a violation of WP:OR Ornithopsis (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Mostly informally. The original Gaetano 2011 had an aside discussing this, though admitely I'm having trouble finding the version with them. "Diversity of triconodonts in the Middle Jurassic of Great Britain" also notices something odd about the vast spatio-temporal range of volaticotheres, speciffically in regards to Argentoconodon, but doesn't outright out say anything on volancy. And ultimately there's always going to be the marine location of the Ichthyoconodon teeth. Falconfly (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Gaetano and Rougier 2011 contains no mention of Ichthyoconodon being potentially better-adapted for gliding than indicated by the Volaticotherium specimen (which has no evidence of a wing finger or styliform), or adapted for flight at all, and no other source suggests it. If you cannot provide sources that explicitly state that Ichthyoconodon may have been capable of flight, the illustration with wing fingers or styliforms and all references to it flying are original research and therefore must be removed. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

See the original spanish version (though it also suggests multiple other dispersion mechanisms for the group; also not mentioned in the english text).Falconfly (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This paper does not explicitly state Ichthyoconodon may have been capable of flight. This paper doesn't ever mention flight in the same paragraph Ichthyoconodon. This paper doesn't even seem to mention flight at all, just gliding, and even gliding is never brought up with respect to Ichthyoconodon, only with Argentoconodon and Volaticotherium. Volant Ichthyoconodon is a conclusion reached beyond the published literature; this violates WP:OR and does not belong on Wikipedia. Shuvuuia (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)