[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] REPLY to: Oculudentavis analyzed as a lizard-like animal (free preprint pdf)
Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is now a reply in bioRxiv from the authors of the original description:
>
> Jingmai O'Connor, Lida Xing, Luis Chiappe, Lars Schmitz, Ryan McKellar, Gang
> Li & Qiru Yi (2020)
> Reply to Li et al. "Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur?"
> bioRxiv 2020.06.12.147041 (preprint)
I don't want to delve too much into this can of worms, but I'm
intrigued by one particular statement made by the authors:
"As clearly stated in the etymology (Ref 1), the name _Oculudentavis_
was not derived to mean a bird with
bird-like tooth and eye morphology as described by Li et al., but
rather a bird with a toothed eye,
referring to the dentition below the eye that also occurs, although
less extensively, in
_Ichthyornis_ (Ref 6)."
Unless I overlooked something, the etymology of _Oculudentavis_ was
*not* clearly stated at all by Xing &c (Ref. 1). The original
etymology was given as "The generic name _Oculudentavis_ is derived
from the Latin oculus (eye), dentes (teeth) and avis (bird)."
Further on, I could figure out (sort of) why they came up with the
name; but it wasn't at all "clearly stated" which aspects of "eye"
and/or "tooth" were behind the name.
In this bioRxiv communication, the authors go on to mention that if
_Oculudentavis_ does prove to be not a bird, then it "may be added to
the list of taxa whose names have become
misnomers (e.g., _Oviraptor_, _Piscivorenantiornis_)". _Oviraptor_
and _Piscivorenantiornis_ are examples where the inferred dietary
preferences captured in the names have not withstood future scrutiny.
(_Piscivorenantiornis_ was already a god-awful name, irrespective of
the fish-eating implications). Neither is an example in which the
name reflects an inferred relationship that is no longer regarded as
correct. There are plenty of examples of where this is the case, so
_Oculudentavis_ is hardly a precedent. For example, a lot of
fragmentary pterosaurs were originally regarded as birds, and a few
were named as such (e.g., _Cretornis_, _Eurolimnornis_,
_Paleocursornis_). One of the most embarrassing misnomers is
_Priscavolucris_- from Latin prisca (ancient) and volucris (bird or
other flying creature). Originally regarded (and named) as a bird,
the author later re-identified it as a hybodont shark.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2010/06/priscavolucris-bird-that-is-fish.html__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWZn3LCN_$
(Personally I quite like the name _Priscavolucris_, and it's a shame
it's no longer available for a real fossil bird.) So if
_Oculudentavis_ turns out to be a squamate, then the re-identification
is not nearly as radical as that example of mistaken identity. But
off the top of my head, I can't think of any previous fossil genus
that was originally *named* as a bird, but turned out to be a
lepidosaur.
>
> Free pdf:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.12.147041v1.full.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWQFsQeFe$
>
>
>
> We welcome any new interpretation or alternative hypothesis regarding the
> taxonomic affinity of the enigmatic Oculudentavis khaungraae. However, here
> we demonstrate that Li et al. have failed to provide conclusive evidence for
> the reidentification of HPG-15-3 as a squamate. We analyse this specimen in a
> matrix that includes a broad sample of diapsid reptiles and resolve support
> for this identification only when no avian taxa are included. Regardless of
> whether this peculiar skull belongs to a tiny bird or to a bizarre new group
> of lizards, the holotype of Oculudentavis khaungraae is a very interesting
> and unusual specimen, the discovery of which represents an important
> contribution to palaeontology. Its discovery documents a potential new case
> of convergent evolution in reptiles, while highlighting the importance of
> amber deposits for documenting taxa not recorded in sedimentary deposits.
>
> ******
>
> Also, the bioRxiv preprint of the Li et al. paper has been revised since
> originally posted
>
> Revision history:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v4.article-info__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWbOad7em$
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v4__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWeBvOLiO$
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:30 AM Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> An update (in Chinese):
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Oculudentavis controversy, possible retraction of Nature paper...
>>
>>
>> Authors of original Oculudentavis "tiniest dinosaur" paper may be
>> considering a retraction. The bioRxv preprint paper has been submitted to
>> Nature with the consent of the corresponding author of the original paper.
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.uua.cn/show-8-10299-1.html__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWUvX1hHa$
>>
>>
>> ***
>> The China Science News was informed that the above 6 paleontologists
>> recently obtained high-resolution CT scan data provided by Li Gang (one of
>> the original authors), a researcher at the Institute of High Energy Physics,
>> Chinese Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> After reanalyzing the scan data, it was found that various morphological
>> evidences indicate that the phylogenetic position of Oculudentavis and
>> dinosaurs/birds are highly contradictory, but closer to that of the lizards.
>>
>> The CT scan data proved that Oculudentavis does not have a quadratojugal
>> bone, which is exactly the characteristic of the lizard.
>>
>> Weibo sources said that six doubters had contacted the corresponding author
>> of the original paper for the first time, and the latter had considered
>> retracting the manuscript with Nature Magazine. At the same time, several
>> international research groups are currently submitting questions to the
>> Oculudentavis papers to major journals and preprint platforms.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:58 AM Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The same authors have now posted a more formal preprint (without peer
>>> review) article with their analysis in English:
>>>
>>> Zhiheng Li, Wei Wang, Han Hu, Min Wang, Hongyu Yi & Jing Lu (2020)
>>> Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur?
>>> bioRxiv (preprint)
>>> doi:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWe3eJhF-$
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v1__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWZFJ4QLY$
>>>
>>>
>>> Free pdf:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v1.full.pdf__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWUqjwXxv$
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Recent finding of a fossil, Oculudentavis khaungraae Xing et al. 2020,
>>> entombed in a Late Cretaceous amber was claimed to represent a humming
>>> bird-sized dinosaur. Regardless the intriguing evolutional hypotheses about
>>> the bauplan of Mesozoic dinosaurs (including birds) posited therein, this
>>> enigmatic animal, however, demonstrates various lizard-like morphologies,
>>> which challenge the fundamental morphological gap between Lepidosauria and
>>> Archosauria. Here we reanalyze the original computed tomography scan data
>>> of Oculudentavis. A suit of squamate synapomorphies, including pleurodont
>>> marginal teeth and an open lower temporal fenestra, overwhelmingly support
>>> its squamate affinity, and that the avian or dinosaurian assignment of
>>> Oculudentavis is conclusively rejected.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:25 AM Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Creisler
>>>> bcreisler@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Wang Wei and others have posted an online article in Chinese to critique
>>>> the identification of the fossil skull as that of a "bird." They join
>>>> others (notably Andrea Cau) in pointing out the lizard-like features and
>>>> problems with the methods and analysis used to conclude that the creature
>>>> was a tiny avian dinosaur.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This "article" has been posted as a news story and I'm not sure if IVPP
>>>> will provide an official English translation in the near future. Google
>>>> Translate does an OK job of translating the text, but some of the
>>>> terminology gets slightly garbled. Note that the term "wulong" [black
>>>> dragon] in Chinese can mean an "unexpected mistake." It is also the name
>>>> for "oolong" tea, which is what Google Translate gives. The 'wu' character
>>>> can mean a "crow" as well, so there may be a bit of a pun intended (wulong
>>>> 'crow dragon') in the Chinese article title on the possible
>>>> misidentification of the fossil as a bird.
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> Wang Wei, Zhiheng Li,Hu Yan, Wang Min, Hongyu Yi & Lu Jing (2020)
>>>> The "smallest dinosaur in history" in amber may be the biggest mistake in
>>>> history.
>>>> Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the
>>>> Chinese Academy of Sciences: Popular Science News (2020/03/13)
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://ivpp.cas.cn/kxcb/kpdt/202003/t20200313_5514594.html__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWaYuMIQF$
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>> Online English news item translation summary (with a few mistranslations):
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tellerreport.com/life/2020-03-13---*22the-smallest-dinosaur-to-date*22-sparks-questions-first-author-says-*22look-forward-to-progress-in-discussion*22-.rye6DnoOS8.html__;JSUlJQ!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWRYJCj9U$
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>> Here is the list of problems found by the authors:
>>>>
>>>> Doubts 1. Can the shape of the head prove that it is a bird?
>>>> Doubt 2. Unreasonable Phylogenetic Analysis
>>>> Doubt 3. Birds without antorbital fenestrae?
>>>> Doubt 4. "Birds" with pleurodont teeth?
>>>> Doubt 5. Mysterious quadratojugal bone
>>>> Doubt 6. Scleral bones only found in lizards
>>>> Doubt 7. The bird with the most teeth in history?
>>>> Doubt 8. Body size
>>>> Doubt 9. No feathers?
>>>> Doubt 10. Strange wording and logic chains
>>>> ******
>>>>
>>>> From the text:
>>>>
>>>> We hope that the authors of the paper will respond publicly to these
>>>> questions as soon as possible. At the same time, it is hoped that the
>>>> authors of the paper will quickly release the raw data of CT scans, so
>>>> that other scientists can verify the existing results based on the raw
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, in the absence of reliable evidence, the authors of the cover
>>>> paper in "Nature" identified an amber skull with a large number of lizard
>>>> identification characteristics as a dinosaur/bird very arbitrarily. The
>>>> importance and scientific significance of the interpretation cannot be
>>>> discussed.
>>>>
>>>> ===
>
>
> Virus-free.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avg.com__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!7XbheT75Yz3Cmx_QfTCIn2jWRDIKNjQL57Y5ZJ9u7Aa0NQn9H77IuNxyWdHFH0Sy$
>