Talk:Confuciusornis

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. Dinosaurs Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Birds Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images ). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Confuciusornis]]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|de|Confuciusornis}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

Confuciusornis was named after the great Chinese moral philosopher Confucius (551-479 B.C.).

Laser flourescence imaging of preserved soft-tissue in specimens IVPP V13168 and IVPP V13156 is used to argue for powered flight in Confuciusornis. I'll work on adding the information in the study to the article this weekend. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also has some free images, if any are usable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. Perhaps the image of the propatagium/postpatagium under flourescence compared to chickens would be appropriate under Feathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also a new study[1] in
  Peerj, which has a restoration showing the pattern of the feathers. The journal is usually free, but its attribution of the restoration is a bit cryptic: "The reconstruction in Fig. 6 is by Velizar Simeonovski (authors own the copyright)." So I'm not sure if we can upload it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sounds like they bought the copyright from the artist to be able to publish the artwork in PeerJ. Otherwise I would have expected the copyright note below in the image caption. Furthermore, PeerJ's policies exclude copyrighted content: "Authors cannot use copyrighted material within their article unless that material has also been made available under a similarly liberal license." I would tend to say it is fine to upload the picture, but I'm not entirely sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll bring it up on Commons, there should be some copyright experts there... In the meantime, I wonder if our current restoration is directly wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The artist said the writers owned the copyright, and the first author said I could add it to Wikipedia, so I'll do that soon... FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do 1

please enter your name!

• write section on History of discovery
  Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• write skull section – --FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• write postcranium section
• write section on feathers and soft tissue
• write section on reproduction Y – --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• write section on life history Y --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• write section on sexual dimorphism Y --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• write section on diet – --FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• write section on flight performance
• write section on behavior/gregariousness
• write section on paleoenvironment
  Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• write lead section
  Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• add other significant feathered dinosaur discoveries to paleoecology Y --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• expand info on stratigraphy Y --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• get size estimates for each species if possible
• add more on other species in discovery and naming

…

Discussion

Nice initiative, what would seem to be the largest obstacle in writing this? The many species (what goes where when describing features)? The seemingly huge literature? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a "species" section, either within "Classification" or as an section of its own? Here, we can have a short paragraph per species as an overview, listing the distinctive features. This may help to keep the description section concise. I would still put the research history of the species within the "History of research" section though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I merged the list of Psittacosaurus species into the parent Psittacosaurus article after the FARC, I put the species specific info into description (Species characteristics) and history. Not sure if it really looks good now, but it is at least one way to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now did put together a paper collection, which is for sure not complete but might help to get started right away. If you are interested, please just let me know; I will then send you a Wikimail containing the download-link! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful — and very valuable indeed. I will certainly try to make a relevant contribution, but it might take some time. December is a busy month...--MWAK (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life's currently very busy, so I probably won't get around to editing until Saturday (although I'll have a lot of spare time soon). I'll probably stick to the paleoecology section for this collaboration. First I have a question: Should stratigraphy info be included under paleoenvironment or somewhere else? Another task I might do is convert the size comparison to SVG (probably with a smaller grid and a hand since this guy's pretty small) or just make a new one since I'm not to fond of the position of either animal (should be a dorsal and direct lateral view for optimal readability). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. We usually have stratigraphy covered within the paleoenvironment, and usually only a few sentences at most; this should be only for the background. A new size chart would be nice I think! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which other dinosaurs should I add to the paleoecology section? I was thinking of Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Yutyrannus, and Psittacosaurus. Any others? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have heavily renovated the paleoenvironment section. Feel free to trim it if it is too much. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyedits to the article[2] but besides that I probably wont contribute much. I might give a review at FAC though. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative anatomy section?

I'm wondering how we best deal with the multiple demands of the description section. This article is quite central for the origin of birds; people, including students, will look at this right after looking at Archaeopteryx. To make it as accessible as possible, we need a lot of background, especially a comparison of the important features with the ancestral condition (Archaeopteryx) and the condition seen in Neornithes (modern birds). I was therefore thinking if it would make sense to have a separate section called "Comparative anatomy". This is not what we usually do, but it can serve as a very accessible background section for the description part, allowing us to have a more descriptive account in the "skull" and "postcranium" sections. On the other hand, this might create a bit of redundancy to the "skull" and "postcrania" parts. The next question would be into how much detail we should go for the description part. I'm a fan of keeping it as concise as possible, and therefore as accessible and readable as possible, but on the other hand we would always have the option to source it out into a sub-article like "Anatomy of Confuciusornis" if it really gets too long/reviewers complain. Thoughts? Pinging @MWAK: and @FunkMonk: who are working on the description part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison with Archaeopteryx is possible for the skull, but is there a modern description of the postcrania? Older Chinese literature is prone to make such comparisons, but they had scant knowledge of Archaeopteryx itself. We shouldn't worry too much about redundancy. Simply condense Elzanowski (2018) as much as you see fit! A special chapter can highlight the basal and derived traits separately. Chiappe (1999) is already quite superficial, so abstracting it results automatically in a reasonably concise text for the postcrania.--MWAK (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can only judge if more is needed once the main description sections have been written? FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MWAK: This is not precisely what I meant … probably "Comparative anatomy" is a misleading title for a section, and "Evolution of avian anatomy" would be more suitable. I had basic background information in mind, illustrating the relevance of Confuciusornis for the evolution of birds in general. For example, instead of just writing that it was "crow-sized", which is purely descriptive, we could add that there was a step-wise mineaturization occuring from dinosaurs to today's birds, and on which step Confuciusornis stands. Instead of just writing that teeth were absent, we could add that tooth loss occurred multiple times independently in avian evolution, and that that tooth loss of modern birds only occurred far up the stem lineage, in Neornithes. Same for the other basic features that are discussed in every text book on the evolution of birds (pygostyle; coracoid; sternum; sternal ribs; uncinate processes; carpometacarpus; fusion of metatarsalia; alula), including those that are present in all modern birds but still absent in Confuciusornis. The question if, and to what degree, we want this kind of background information in this article, or if we should focus on Confuciusornis only without comparing with the basal and derived conditions in birds, instead referring to Origin of birds. If we want to have this background (which would be of much value for most, for sure), do we discuss it within our standard skull and postcranium sections, or, as I suggested above, should we keep it within a separate section ("Evolution of avian anatomy" or whatever)? I am absolutely not sure yet, and I agree with FunkMonk that we can decide later whether a separate section is needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps title it "place in avian evolution"?

Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Such a chapter might be very interesting. Of course, we would need to find sources explicitly referring to its evolutionary position. We would also need to be very careful that no confusion occurs with confuciusornithid synapomorphies or autapomorphies of Confuciusornis itself.--MWAK (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the second paper you refer to below puts it: "This information strengthens the view that many presumed “typical” avian features evolved independently several times and that the phylogenetic tree of birds is not a straight sequence of anagenetic stages but rather a “bush” with parallel pathways leading to varying mosaics of plesiomorphies and apomorphies". Of the first paper, BAND-members Martin and Feduccia were co-authors, reflecting the grave dangers involved :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, I just noticed forgot to add these two papers on the ostology of Confuciusornis to the paper collection: 1 and 2. PDFs are free. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is another one I missed. It is in German (no problem for me hehe), and I don't have it, and it has not even an entry in Google Scholar, but I will get it anyways: "Goernemann, A.: Osteologie eines Exemplars von Confuciusornis aus der unteren Kreide von West-Liaoning, China. In: Archaeopteryx. 17, 1999, S. 41–54." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, very useful. No language problems for me either :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this article not covered by WP:DINO? Also, wouldn't "sexual dimorphism" be a more descriptive section header than "sexual variation"? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it should be. The consensus was that we include Mesozoic birds in the project (is also in the scope description). FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote following Holtz (2012) for what should be included in the project. (Non-avian Dinosauria, Mesozoic Aves, and Dinosauromorpha) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are (see[3]). The discussion was here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently the taxobox classification jumps from Chordata to Confucisornithidae. Why does it do this? Surely more clades could be added, such as Tetrapoda, Sauropsida, Theropoda, Maniraptora, etc.? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, it should at least mention Dinosauria, Theropoda, Avialae. Does anybody know how to fix it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps IJReid (our most code-savvy member)? On another note, what do we think this article needs in regard to image selection? We have a lot of specimen photos of varying quality, but could be nice with some skeletal diagrams. The one we have of the skull seems very outdated, though:[5] I wonder whether the one with the arm is much better:[6] Also, could be nice to find a photo of the holotype(s) or a cast, but I cna't find a clear photo of it to compare with available free photos... FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I really can't do much here,

R}} 04:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Some points:

1. I think questions about the taxonomy to be used for birds and dinosaurs are best addressed to the relevant WikiProjects, perhaps at WT:WikiProject Birds and WT:WikiProject Dinosaurs. My understanding is that the current consensus is to use different classification systems for birds and dinosaurs, in line with reliable secondary sources in each area. The bird system treats Aves as a Class, the dinosaur system treats it as a much more lowly placed clade. Whether the bird or the dinosaur one is to be used for Confuciornis is a matter for discussion; I have absolutely no view on it.
2. My interest is solely in the technical issue of how to ensure that we can display whichever of the incompatible systems is chosen. The method adopted (well before I started working on the automated taxobox system) is to use "skip" templates to jump over taxa that would otherwise create inconsistent ranks. If starting from Template:Taxonomy/Aves, which has the rank "class", we linked to Template:Taxonomy/Avialae rather than Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip, then above Class Aves would be Suborder Therapoda, but suborders belong below classes.
3. You can show more ancestor ranks in a taxobox (provided they are in the relevant taxonomy templates) by using |display_parents=. However, the strong consensus is that taxoboxes are like all infoboxes – intended only to show a summary, so they should only present a sample of the really important higher ranks.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, what ornithologists usually refer to when speaking about birds is just the crown group (Aves/Neornithes). Confuciusornis and other Mesozoic birds are outside the crown group (and thus the class Aves). They need to be treated same as dinosaurs; the problem you described should not apply here. Understood that they are supposed to be summaries, but the current summary given for this article is inadequate. I tried to use |display_parents=, but it didn't show me anything (we would need Avialae, Theropoda, and Dinosauria). Could you please explain how to use this, or insert these yourself if you got some time? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the red pencil icon on the top right of the taxobox, you will see the taxonomic hierarchy used in the taxobox. Counting upwards, you'll see that |display_parents=6 will get all taxa displayed up to and including Avialiae. You can't get Theropoda and Dinosauria displayed, because they aren't in this version of the hierarchy. Comparing the hierarchies at Template:Taxonomy/Confuciusornis and Template:Taxonomy/Aves reveals that the issue is that the clade Pygostylia is in both. So Pygostylia upwards must skip Theropoda to prevent, as noted above, Class Aves being below Suborder Therapoda. You can, and indeed should, discuss the complete taxonomic hierarchy in the text.

Expanding on the explanation above, to change the taxonomic hierarchy used for the taxobox, you would need a consensus not to treat Aves as a Class – but then all the orders, suborders, etc. recognized by ornithologists (see e.g. the hierarchy at Template:Taxonomy/Corvus) need to be demoted, since birds then belong to Order Saurischia, way, way above Aves, let alone Order Passeriformes. The point is that the taxonomy at Template:Taxonomy/Corvus and that at Template:Taxonomy/Carnotaurus are radically incompatible. I have an idea as to how the taxonomy templates might better support incompatible taxonomies, but it's not fully worked out yet, and would have considerable ramifications, so will need a full discussion elsewhere in future, plus some new code in the Lua support module.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, thanks again, but I'm confused now. Isn't that a clear mistake in the taxonbox phylogeny? Pygostylia is not part of Aves. Aves is part of Pygostylia, and both are part of Avialae, but Avialae has (to my knowledge) never been defined as a class. The only taxon that may be considered a class is Aves. Therefore, we can arguably only use the dinosaur system here, since we are outside of the class. What do I miss? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: ah, it's frustratingly hard to discuss in words what can be easily pointed to in diagrams! When I wrote Comparing the hierarchies at Template:Taxonomy/Confuciusornis and Template:Taxonomy/Aves reveals that the issue is that the clade Pygostylia is in both, I meant "in both hierarchies". Please do look at these two templates and the hierarchies shown on the right of the page for each. Complete hierarchies for both taxa would run (upwards) "Confuciusornis → ... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → ... → Therapoda" and "Aves → ... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → ... → Therapoda" (where ... means actual clades, not skips). But if you use the complete hierarchy for Class Aves it leads to Suborder Therapoda, because it goes via Pygostylia, like the hierarchy for Confuciusornis. To stop this, the version of the taxonomy template for Avialae that you get to from the taxonomy template for Pygostylia skips straight up to Amniota, i.e. both hierarchies go "... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → Amniota". It's confusing I know; it can help to draw out the hierarchy on paper. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm understanding here is that the highest we could display would be Avialae, because anything more breaks the linnaean structure of Birds. Because Avialae is nested within Theropoda, Dinosauria etc, we would want those clades displayed, but it would break all bird taxonomy, because birds follow linnaean structure where Class Aves is separate from Class Reptilia. But the thing with including them is that Avialae is a clade, not a linnaean rank. The current Avialae taxobox is similar to what we desire here, with Theropoda, Saurischia and Dinosauria displayed. All stem birds show the taxobox as they would using the Bird system, excluding all extinct clades, but it looks like that would theoretically be fixable by making Aves, instead of Avialae, the rank where all extinct clades become hidden at?

R}} 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

[edit conflict], Ok, but that means that any taxon within Avialae automatically will be under the bird system (instead of the dinosaur one), right? I mean, taxa basal to Avialae use the dinosaur one, and everything included in the Avialae uses the bird one. I don't see any justification for choosing Avialae here. The only class defined within Dinosauria is Aves, so it can only be that taxon. This means: Everything basal to Aves should use the dinosaur system, and everything included in Aves the bird system. I think we need to change that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to express a view on where the two taxonomies, bird and dinosaur, should diverge. The current setup seems to date back to ErikHaugen in 2012, and changing it will potentially affect many articles and taxoboxes, so any change would need discussion much more widely than at this article. I suggest you raise it at one of the two WikiProjects, ss I said above, alerting the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, is it my fault Confuciusornis is using this? I don't think I ever intended it to. This, I think, is the problem. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]