Talk:Pachystruthio

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.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Struthio dmanisensis → Pachystruthio – New genus established for existing species. Requesting also creation of Pachystruthio dmanisensis, which should redirect to Pachystruthio as the type and only species. (See below)  2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a good source for the reassignment? Sam Sailor 05:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: [1] 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  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? Sam Sailor 06:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  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)

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)

Does elevating a subgenus to genus rank not require ZooBank registration? 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What do you mean, Pachystruthio does not exist? 00:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithopsis (talk • contribs)

Pachystruthio its a redlink right now, as an article on it as a subgenus was never created.--Kevmin § 02:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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 | talk  10:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally the Kretnoi paper is online here but requires a subscription and knowledge of Hungarian.   Jts1882 | talk  10:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Comment - In cases like this should we only rely on scientific papers from peer-reviewed journals? Most of the press 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)

  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 | talk  13:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It is not proven, that this bird was related to ostrichs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LennBr (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If its relationship to ostriches is not settled, why is it assigned to the genus of ostriches, Struthio? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

References

• Move - standard procedure. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Move - there's no good reason to leave it in Struthio at this point. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

I agree any assigned species should be covered at the genus article, as is standard. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It is standard that species got there own articles and not to merge them all into one genus article --Melly42 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

With extant species, yes, not prehistoric species. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Pachystruthio dmanisensi is official now.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The page's name was changed to Pachystruthio, is confirmed yet? Shouldn't the taxobox be changed as well? LeónHormiga (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment just did--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That is against the instructions. You should not act until the discussion is over. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment But isnt it over, I only see move and you brink up its standard procedure. Oh well I will move it back. --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Move seems like a clear cut case. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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 | talk  06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

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.