Talk:Paleobiota of the Yixian Formation

The problem with Grallator

I can see the desire to incorporate Grallator into the main table with theropods, however is there a way to change the "Genus" label for this one? Grallator isn't a genus, it's an ichnogenus, representing a footprint shape rather than an type of animal... Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Take note of the color. I've added a key. Abyssal (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sphenorion

Chen et al. 2005 includes a listing for Sphenorion parilis, but I can't find this in other sources and don't know what kind of organism it might be. Any ideas? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Abundance vs. described material

Just a note that Abundance and amount of material formally described are two very different things, specially for the Jehol biota. For example, Norell et al. 2006 note that hundreds of Sinovenator specimens have been recovered. Only two or three of these have been published on, which is what the Weishampel ref is dealing with. Same for Caudipteryx zoui, which is known from dozens of specimens but very few have been described, and Weishampel only lists the three described specimens. Using that ref, it would be best to change the Abundance category to described material, which IMO is better left to individual articles. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Maybe we should just make it clear that there's a large disparity between the total material known and the material described? For instance change the C. zoui entry to read "Known from dozens of specimens,^{[1]Superscript text} but only "[Three] nearly complete skeletons with skull [and a] partial postcranium with feather imprints."^[2] have been formally described in the scientific literature. Abyssal (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'd then have to draw a distinction over what it means to be "described". Azuma 2005, as a quick check of Theropod Database shows, discussed several new specimens of Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, etc., including catelogue numbers and breakdown of known material. It's not exactly an osteology, but it's there in print. The other fact is once a species becoms common enough, the chances that this new material will ever be described approaches zero. There are thousands of Confuciusornis sanctus specimens. Unless one is really exceptional in preservation or preserves something not seen in others (new feather detail, rhamphotheca, they will certainly never be published on. It's becoming this way with Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus as far as I can see. We have images here on Wikipedia of undescribed specimens in museums that may or may not ever see print. There are simply too many of them for someone to "waste time" describing them all. That's why I liked the 'relative abundance' category rather than one that tried to actually enumerate specimens, especially since there are a few papers and books that mention "holy cow this species turns up every time you kick a rock in China" rather than trying to sort all kinds of continuously outdated references to say "we have exactly 2,345 specimens of Confuciusornis, 500 are complete, 1,400 preserve integument, according to [insert list of 300 refs here]". MMartyniuk (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We can include that sort of abundance data in the material column. We don't have to detail every single specimen where it's impractical. I like "Material" more than abundance because you can include that sort of information, but "Abundance" doesn't really allow for situations where all you can do is detail what scraps have been recovered from one specimen. A single specimen doesn't really allow a lot of insight into how common the animal was, or even how abundant its fossils are in the formation. It's not really possible to estimate abundance from a single specimen (which itself may be fagmentary). I say we just list what's been discovered. If hundreds of complete specimens are known, say so, if only half a foot and a femur are known, list that. I think that works fine under a material column. Abyssal (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good to me. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a list or an article?

So far this page appears to be a list. Is there an intention to add text, or should the classification be changed from C to list? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Reconstruction of Sinobaatar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)