Talk:Proavis

Who coined the word Proavis (or Pro-Avis)?

We know it was not Gerhard Heilmann since Franz Nopcsa says in his article "Ideas on the Origin of Flight" (in 1907, page 235):

An effort to condense these hypothetical changes into a drawing is given in text-fig. 82, which might in consequent allusion to Pycraft's analogous reconstruction be called a "Pro-Avis."

So, if on the cited text Nopcsa is not coining himself the term Pro-Avis, the Englishman William Plane Pycraft could have been the one who coined the term, certainly in the late 19th century... how can we suppose that? simply because Pycraft published a series of articles dealing with the origin of feathers in 1894, 1896 and 1910, and, quite likely, Nopcsa is referring to the two first of them:

• Pycraft, W. P. 1894. Wing of Archaeopteryx. Jour. Oxford Univ. Junior Science Club, 1172-176.
• Pycraft, W. P. 1896. The wing of Archaeopteryx. Nat. Sci., London, 8261-166.
• Pycraft, W. P. 1910. A history of birds. London.

I got these references here... but not the articles themselves... how could we get their content? it is in public domain, for sure.

So... Nopcsa, in his 1907 article, is certainly referring directly to a term coined by Pycraft in his 1894 and 1896 articles... or may be not, may be Nopcsa was simply coining himself the term in his 1907 article... Can anybody shed some light on the matter? In any case, at this point, we can argue that Heilmann was not the creator of the term proavis.

Another point I would like to submit to discussion is the following: was the German word Urvogel ('primitive bird', almost litterally Pro-Avis) coined before 1894 and, then, could Pycraft or Nopcsa simply translated it to create the word Pro-Avis? Kintaro (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the word Urvogel was in use before 1894. See e.g. the entry in this dictionary of 1888: http://www.peter-hug.ch/lexikon/Urvogel. However, as Urvogel was very strongly associated with Archaeopteryx itself, the terms in German texts being used interchangeably, such a translation seems unlikely. Also, the Ur~ prefix more precisely means "original" (likewise the Greek ἀρχή means "origin") — so more likely a distinction was intended between this "first bird" and the creature that came "before".--MWAK (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered that Ernst Haeckel used the word Urvögel as a vernacular translation of his Saururae as early as 1879.--MWAK (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your answer was very useful, MWAK, thank you so much. What about those Pycraft articles from the late 19th century? are they, as I suppose, in the public domain? if yes... where could we find them in the internet? any idea? Kintaro (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The best place to look for such publications is the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which contains the 1910 book. Plycraft indeed spoke of "pro-aves", see: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/117317#page/75/mode/1up pages 38-40 (excellently written book, by the way. If only our present authors could do half as well...).--MWAK (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, MWAK, your help was pure GOLD. I really found what I was looking for... here ("Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences"). So... Pycraft coined the term Pro-Aves not in late 1909, when he had finished the writing of A History of Birds (published 1910), but in 1906, when he (for the first time) presented a restoration entitled One of the Pro-Aves. Next year, in 1907, Nopcsa, who had seen the Pycraft restoration, draw his own Pro-Aves, referring to it as Pro-Avis... as we saw, and, only after that, Heilmann changed the word from Pro-Avis or Pro-Aves to Proavis. The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences shed light on where Nopcsa found the word Pro-Avis (he found it in Pycraft's Pro-Aves restoration the previous year, this is what the NY AS Annals state). The "biodiversitylibrary" link that you provided me was precious to me: I could see for the first time the Pycraft 1906 restoration, even if shown on his 1910 book. Since the whole book is in the public domain I created an image file of Pycraft's Pro-Aves, to upload it to Commons. So... I will very soon bring the picture, the data and the references to the article. Thank you a lot my friend. And thank you, too, for starting editing and expanding the article. Kintaro (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way: I think that, in latin, Avis is just the singular form of the plural form Aves. Thus, the name of the taxon is Aves... and Pro-Avis or Pro-Aves are just the same term, but expressed following the singular or the plural. That's why Nopcsa talked about a running Pro-Avis (singular) and Pycraft mentioned one of the Pro-Aves (plural). Cheers. Kintaro (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, aves is indeed the plural of avis. However, we should be careful to conclude from this that Pycraft would have proposed some suprageneric taxon Pro-Aves. The concept was intended to represent some purely hypothetical grade, or succession of grades, of morphological development. As of this evolutionary phase by definition no actual remains were known — otherwise it would not be hypothetical — no formal taxon could be based on it. The use of a hyphen, more or less forbidden for formal taxa, reflects this status of the merely conjectural. This seems to be affirmed by the fact the word is not capitalised. Very likely Pycraft used the plural to avoid the impression he referred to some single genus, a formal Proavis.--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I know it's hypothetical. In my previous message the only taxon I mentioned, as a taxon, is Aves. I spelled the two other terms, which are not taxons, I know, just as they were spelled by the sources (Pycraft spells "Pro-Aves", a plural form, and Nopcsa spells "Pro-Avis", a singular). Both men used capitals and hyphens... and so I did on this article and its talk page. Thank you again for your help, I have now to expand the article and bring some references. Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here again: just wanted to point out that when I wrote refers to a hypothetical extinct species or extinct taxon coined [...] I was meaning that this "extinct taxon" is also hypothetical. I will soon fix this ambiguation. Kintaro (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

revived the interest in direct bird ancestors?

revived the interest in direct bird ancestors? didn't you mean, MWAK, revived the interest in direct dinosaur ancestors? Just in case... Kintaro (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, "direct bird ancestors" should be understood as "the direct ancestors of birds" ("bird" doesn't function here as an adjective but as a noun part), but as it is possibly ambiguous it can better be replaced by the latter, certainly more elegant, phrase!--MWAK (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good! Kintaro (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Images

By the way, wouldn't the image of Heilmann's poaves[1] be nicer in the article than essentially a duplicate of the Nopcsa one? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Heilmann image has, in any case, its rightful place here. But the article isn't finished yet and there might soon be enough room for four drawings!--MWAK (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk is right, and in fact I have thought the same... So I've created a Gallery of images (leaving 1906 Pycroft's "Pro-Aves" restoration heading the article, since it was the first of all of them...). Creating a Gallery of images is just a suggestion. Feel free, guys, to edit and organise the article on your own manner: I trust your judgement. Kintaro (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)