Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar

Ben Creisler

As things stand now, the big question is what the authors of the description of the more complete specimen decide to do. Since the specimen presumably would be preserved in Burmese amber as well, they will need to find a journal to publish in that has not changed its policy in light of the humans rights and ethical issues.Â If the authors treat the Oculudentavis paper as "nonexistent" as Henry Gee interprets the situation, they could make their Âspecimen the holotype of a new genus and species, and give it a new binomen, ignoring the name Oculudentavis. If they decide to keep the name Oculudentavis and retain its holotype, they would need to cite the retracted paper,Âwhich now seems problematic.

The only case that comes to mind of another fossil animal name being "retracted" is Acinonyx kurteni.Â

"Acinonyx kurteni" paper retraction after the fossil was shown to be forgery (from Retraction Watch)

https://retractionwatch.com/2012/08/20/author-retracts-pnas-about-alleged-pliocine-cheetah-fossil-that-had-been-questioned/

Original paper (2009)

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/2/512

***
Retraction came after Chinese paleontologist Deng Tao (2011) published a note identifying the fossil material as a composite forgery.

http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/201108/t20110812_3321856.html Â

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271842876_Acinonyx_kurteni_based_on_a_fossil_composite

In this case, the specific name "kurteni" would be a nomen dubium.Â It was published in the normal way but the taxon it refers to cannot be determined.

The situation with Oculudentavis is different because the holotype exists Âand is not a forgery, and was given a diagnostic description, but an incorrect taxonomic interpretation. Maybe Oculudentavis (if not used by the authors of the redescription) could be treated as another kind of Ânomen dubium because the original description appears in a work that (supposedly) can no longer be cited for purposes of scientific literature--although the name was published originally in a way that made it available, the description cannot be cited so the name has "doubtful" status.
=====
2017 Â Horton T. et al.
European Journal of Taxonomy 389: 1â24 ISSN 2118-9773
https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.389 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu
Free pdf:
https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/512/1147

a. Nomen dubium
A Latin term (meaning 'doubtful name') which is used to refer to a name of unknown or doubtful application. This applies to a name which is available (animals) or validly published (plants, algae and fungi) but of uncertain taxonomic significance despite the attention given, usually, for example, because types have been lost (or are poorly preserved), or if the description does not allow us to know with certainty which species was really meant. Nomen dubium should only be used when given this status in a revisionary work, not when an editor deems it so, and it should be supported by the source flagged as 'status source'.
======

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 8:10 PM Gregory Paul <gsp1954@aol.com> wrote:

Of course Nature has normal modern peer review. No technical science journal does not.Â

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; Thomas Richard Holtz <tholtz@umd.edu>
Cc: DML <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2020 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar

On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 01:27:30 AM UTC, Thomas Richard Holtz <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

> David wrote:
> >The paper may no longer be available from the journal (I haven't checked if that is so, or if the PDF is still available with a big watermark saying "RETRACTED", which is how at least some journals do their retractions).
>
> For the record, it is the latter (still there, but with notation) at the moment.

This thread has probably run its course (and then some), but this is just so odd. It strikes me as a different way of thinking, perhaps stemming from a top-down authoritarian system in which Chinese leaders probably *can* make things disappear. The authors' own "retraction" statement:

"We, the authors, are retracting this Article to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature..."

is nonsensical--it's *in* the literature at this point, especially if it has been published in hardcopy. All you can do now is publish corrections and such. Nor should Nature be altering the original PDF online. I wonder who reviewed the paper, if anyone.

Â Â Paul P.