Talk:Heyuannia

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heyuannia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311042316/http://www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/heyuannia.htm to http://www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/heyuannia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a pretty interesting development, so we now have the only oviraptorid genus that isn't monospecific? In that case, it seems our life restorations of Heyuannia are probably wrong, since they do show some kind of diminutive crests, which it probably didn't have, going by "Ajancingenia"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, hopefully Citipati sp. nov. gets described soon... As for restorations, I think only Dinoguy's requires fixing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was kinda hoping it would get a mention in that new paper! I'm thinking of removing those restorations (also the one with the eggs) for now, since we already have so many images. I'll copy a cladogram to here to make more space... FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I make another cladogram? The new paper has one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, even better idea! I'll wait with the images until then. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is,^[1] though unfortunately it's got a giant, ugly polytomy... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, for this page at least, we should probably restrict it to Oviraptoridae anyway. The whole thing can maybe be placed in the oviraptorosaur article. Oh, and continuing form the image review page, Ganzhousaurus doesn't really seem to cluster with anything here... FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Oviraptoridae. As for Ganzhousaurus, we could bracket it with Nankangia if necessary... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking good! I'll add it and do some image editing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. And by the way, seems the skull (ZPal Mg-D I/95) in the Headden reconstruction of Ingenia[1] has been referred to Conchoraptor... So I'm not sure if it is known whther Heyuannia had a crest or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The skull bones of the H. huangi type appear to be quite mushed, but I think the original inference that it was crestless is reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajancingenia does not have a skull. The skull that is "has" is the holotype of Conchoraptor (per the new paper). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, another partial skull was referred to Ingenia in 1983 (MPC-D 100/31), but has since been lost... So it could be possible to infer something from it (there are figures left)... But I note both Heyuannia species cluster with Nemegtomaia, which does have a crest... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This very discussion shows what a bad idea it is to merge Ajancingenia with Heyuannia. We are now about to combine the morphologies of two taxa, merely because they have been put into the same genus? While the sinking of Ajancingenia was advised by Cau precisely because "belonging to the same genus" is meaningless anyway?

There are some cogent points to make against a merge:

1. In general, it is unwise to change the lemma structure every time a new taxonomic opinion is published. Let's see whether a scientific convention develops.
2. In this particular case, Ajancingenia was apparently sunk for unscientific (i.e. non-empirical) reasons, namely that Barsbold had not been contacted about the name and the content of the naming paper was partly stolen from Mortimer. This is not relevant for the empirical validity of the taxon (nor, I should add, for the nomenclatural validity of the name).
3. Cau correctly states that generic names are purely conventional. For this very reason however, it is poor scientific practice to classify multiple species into the same genus, as the identical name strongly suggests to the human mind that there is some special connection anyway. You immediately have not been able to resist this suggestion :o).
4. Whatever shall we do when some future analysis shows Ajancingenia and Heyuannia not to be sister species? We would be forced to use scare quotes in a "Heyuannia" yanshini section...--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it may have been a bit too quick, but if the result stabilises, we could have a paragraph stating their differences, as I for example wrote at Stegoceras. But yes, this seems more like the makeshift solution for Megapnosaurus, which was sunk into Coelophysis just to get rid of the name, but which now does not seem to belong to the same genus, unless many other genera are also sunk into it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what now? Do I revert my changes and pretend that nothing has happened? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the changes to this article should be reverted. We have have a situation similar to the one between Tarchia and Minotaurasaurus or Scolosaurus and Oohkotokia, where both articles exist, each reflecting a differing view on the situation. The difference being that they are proposed to be synonyms even at the species level, as far as I understand. Tyrannosaurus/Nanotyrannus and Triceratops/Torosaurus are also similar cases, and the list goes on. The question is when to do a merge or not, and it of course all comes down to when a consensus has emerged (unless the case is very clear cut). FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, they should not be reverted! The nomenclatural acts have happened and should obviously be mentioned. And the study is packed with important information.--MWAK (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper probably says is it yes or no, the article says ajancingenia is a probable synonym or should we split ajancingenia to a independent page again???