Gymnogyps amplus is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Latest comment: 24 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I am not finding agreement in sources whether this is an accepted taxon or a synonym. I will continue checking sources about this, but what is the authority WikiProject Birds utilizes for extinct taxa? Roboraptor2 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The usual bird authorities don't cover prehistoric taxa, so it's up to what the most recent scientific sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I am still learning the process, so thank you for your patience in advance. This is my first time using the reference template on Wikipedia.
By your advice, I have identified the most recent peer-reviewed source (published 2023) which addresses the discussion on the status of G. amplus and concludes the fossil species to be synonymous to G. californicus.[1] I am finding no further discussion of the fossil species status of G. amplus or a response by the resurrectors, Syverson and Prothero. I am unsure if a solitary article's conclusion of synonymy is enough to suggest merging the fossil species concept with the G. californicus article.
Interesting, if a couple more recent sources with the same conclusion can be found, I think we have ground for adding a merge tag. And thanks for doing the research. It seems the California condor also needs to be updated in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of note, Emslie et al don't actually re-evaluate the fossils in a detailed manner. They have opted to take the stance put forth by Emslie nearly over 35 years prior (in 1988), that size and age are not acceptable reasons for the recognition of the fossils as a Choronospecies, and Emslie et al (2023) notes they are making an argument that is contrary to other avian paleontologists. I wouls hold off on the merge until other taxonomists weigh in on the paper, and instead update the article here to show the differing perspectives of these fossils as valid species, subspecies, or just big California condor.--Kevmin§ 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
