[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

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



David (and Paul before that) wrote:

>> 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?

>The good people at Nature, in particular the responsible editor Henry Gee, can hardly have remained ignorant of the famous preprint that says it's a lizard. Once they learned of that, most likely they promptly talked to people.

Yes, David is correct. All parties involved (the initial team, Nature, the vert paleo community) were aware that this was likely not a bird and in fact a lizard pretty early on. There was the bioRxiv paper, there were numerous blog posts and social media discussions.

But consider that subsequent to this realization, the international move by at least some societies and journals to no longer accept papers on Myanmar amber happened. Consider how adopting that position might interfere with further publications about this specimen.

Patience, everyone. We aren't going to get the answers as to the whys and wherefores of the retraction right now. Breathe, relax, and wait. There are many other things in the world to deal with, or to attract your attention.

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 8:51 AM David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
Gesendet:ÂSonntag, 26. Juli 2020 um 01:23 Uhr
Von:Â"Paul P" <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>

> That said, there might be a loophole. The authors could declare the specimen nondiagnostic and the name a nomen dubium--

They could do that. And nobody would need to agree with them. This is taxonomy, not nomenclature, and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature grants taxonomic freedom.

Once you decide for yourself that a specimen is diagnostic, the Code tells you which names to use and which not to use. But it doesn't give you any hint how to make that decision, and it doesn't give anyone else any hint on whether they should agree with you. Such things are ultimately subjective; the Code is a set of conventions that are arbitrary but _not_ subjective, and it doesn't want to mix these things.

(Likewise, the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature grants phylogenetic freedom. Once you decide to take a particular phylogenetic hypothesis as your starting point, it tells you which names to use and which not to use; but it doesn't give you any hint how to make that decision, and it doesn't give anyone else any hint on whether they should agree with you. The reasons are exactly the same.)

> I mean, it must not be terribly diagnostic or they would have realized it was a squamate and not a bird, right?--

Having read the paper, I'm completely confident the specimen is diagnostic. It's not "well, this looks like a lizard"; it's obvious to me that an expert in lepidosaurs could figure out which kind of squamate it is, and would definitely find it's a species that has not been described before.

> 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?

The good people at Nature, in particular the responsible editor Henry Gee, can hardly have remained ignorant of the famous preprint that says it's a lizard. Once they learned of that, most likely they promptly talked to people.


--

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email:Âtholtz@umd.eduÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology

Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742

Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/

Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661ÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars

Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Department of Geology
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Building 237, Room 1117

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 8000 Regents Drive
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ University of Maryland
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA