Talk:Aurornis

Classification relevance
From the beginning of the classification section: "In 2011, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing claimed Archaeopteryx was not a bird ancestor." How is this relevant? (I don't want to delete information unless I'm sure.) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The abstract of the paper on Aurornis makes a point of noting this because the analysis contained in the paper (again) refutes this point, as other papers have already done. However, this seems to be as much a consequence of including more and better characters into the analysis, rather than simply adding Aurornis, so I don't think it's directly relevant to this article (it is relevant more to Archaeopteryx and Avialae). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede clarity
OMG...this calls for some capital letters here. That first section couldn't have more 5+ syllable words if you tried. This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Articles like this should be for the general audience, not people who would naturally understand all that Latinate language. Would someone with a little expertise be able to unwind all of that to a more "general English" please? Hires an editor (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Image please!
There must be a free synthetic image of this creature someone out there... Fig (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Next time just add the Image requested template to the top and specify the category of the image. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

When is a "bird" not a "bird"?
David Attenborough in several of his TV shows declared that the presence of a feather defines a bird. This is consistent with the definition of a mammal (has mammary glands). As such it seems ... useful. 58.164.40.36 (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * this is true when talking about living birds as all living animals with feathers are birds, but this is not the definition most scientists, if any, use when talking abut extinct species. If everything with feathers was a bird, all tetanurans at least, including Spinosaurus and T. rex, would be birds. At most, all dinosaurs and probably pterosaurs would be birds, including pterodactyls and Triceratops. Note that scientists also do not define mammals based on mammary glands when dealing with fossils either, mainly because they don't fossilize. For all we know Dimetrodon may have had some kind if mammary gland! MMartyniuk (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is currently no evidence in the fossil record of feathers on T. Rex or any spinosaurid, let alone ceratopsians. ?? 2603:6080:21F0:6000:8442:56FE:BA73:A516 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"Life restoration"
The image of a "life restoration" appears to be somebody's rather fanciful home-drawn attempt and looks suspiciously like a modern bird. Is there any scientific basis for this "restoration" whatsoever? Otherwise it would seem to be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What else is it supposed to be? Scaly? Covered in spikes? Six limbs? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Most paleoart on Wikipedia is "home-made". As for looking like a bird, well, that should be a good thing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to that degree. I thought I was looking at a more colourful gackle. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:8442:56FE:BA73:A516 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Syn. w/ Anchiornis
New study proposes Aurornis as a synonym of Anchiornis. They make a pretty convincing case. If there's more agreement in the lit, I think it would be a good idea to redirect it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We should only merge if there is scientific consensus. Given the realities of Chinese paleontology, it will not be quick to materialise :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The paper only say it's a "likely" synonym, so it isn't that clear yet, seems they only open up for further examination of the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cau specifically rejects the papers conclusions on this. Blog post, so not totally formal, but pretty good. IJReid  discuss 01:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)