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

Ben Creisler

I'm not saying that I think "retracting" rather than correcting the Oculudentavis paper was a good idea, nor that the name "deserves" to become a nomen dubium. It just may end up that way if I understand what a "retracted" paper means. Retraction is typically used for much more serious problems (such as deliberate fraud, etc.) than a misclassification, and as noted, the specimen was clearly diagnostic and mostly accurately described even if evidently misinterpreted in some details.Â

Nature gave Oculudentavis the maximum treatment as the cover story for an issue (typically a big deal) and put out a special Nature video to accompany it, with an interview with O'Connor, all based on the supposed "tiniest" dinosaur-bird identification. The Nature paper got global coverage. The immediate controversies that came up over the likely misidentification of the fossil and the Burmese amber trade connections would have been unexpected and likely embarrassing I assume. The journal now may want to burnÂits bridges for the whole matter, so a "retraction" was imposed rather than a correction.Â

Note that Nature video is now labeled RETRACTED:

"The paper covered in this video has been retracted and the contents of this video are incorrect. New evidence suggests that the specimen might actually be a lizard, and not a bird-like dinosaur."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3xABEpxNfY&t=33s

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 5:52 PM Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

I obviously agree with David's take on the ICZN regarding retractions and nomina dubia.Â To answer Paul P., the specimen is incredibly diagnostic, with its pointy snout and big braincase for a lepidosaur, or pleurodont teeth, pointed coronoid process, open lower temporal bar, weird scleral plates, etc. for a theropod.Â If the authors declare it undiagnostic, they would just be lying.Â And that's my main problem with this philosophy of looking for a "loophole" to make this a "new kind of nomen dubium"- giving publishers or authors the right to delete their nomenclature and non-fraudulent work is unethical.Â No one gets special rights to erase their mistakes from the record.

Mickey Mortimer

From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 4:23 PM
To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar
Â

On Saturday, July 25, 2020, 09:18:37 PM UTC, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:

> the paper has become taxonomically unusable because it was retracted (as opposed to simply corrected)

Again, and as suggested by David M, I don't think "retractions" per se make much sense, although they do happen. The cheetah paper mentioned by Tom H as an example was indeed "retracted"--several years later. All a retraction really does is alert people to ignore a given paper. But in this case, the name is valid and will always be available, if for nothing else than to cite as an example of what can happen when you rush something to press.

That said, there might be a loophole. The authors could declare the specimen nondiagnostic and the name a nomen dubium--I mean, it must not be terribly diagnostic or they would have realized it was a squamate and not a bird, right?--and then name that new, better specimen something more apropos. (and take a year to doublecheck everything instead of trying to make a big splash.)

Btw, how could Nature have initiated the retraction? Are you (Tom H) saying a third party informed Nature that the specimen wasn't a bird?

ÂÂÂ Paul P.