Talk:Darwinius/Archive 2

Scientific disagreements
Starting a new section as it's broader than Brian, to alliterate. The suggestion that critiques of the paper only a day or so after it was revealed are therefore invalid seems to disregard the inconsistencies in Hurum's own position, of being positive Darwinius merits an immediate rewrite of phylogenies to make adaptids ancestral to humans, but telling us he won't have the evidence to publish for about a year. Media frenzy, Nature 459, 484 (28 May 2009) | doi:10.1038/459484a; Published online 27 May 2009, describes that inconsistency between the wording of the PLoS ONE paper and the media statement, noting the find's relationship to "extinct primates called adapids, which are generally considered to be more closely related to the sub-order containing lemurs and bushbabies (strepsirrhines) than to the one that includes higher primates and humans (haplorrhines). That suggests that the new species has little to do with human ancestry." and concluding "In principle, there is no reason why science should not be accompanied by highly proactive publicity machines. But in practice, such arrangements introduce conflicting incentives that can all too easily undermine the process of the assessment and communication of science." The preview of [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5931/1124 Celebrity Fossil Primate: Missing Link or Weak Link? -- Gibbons 324 (5931): 1124 -- Science] states "many of the leading scientists who study primate evolution don't think Ida lives up to her billing as a human ancestor; most think she's a relative of lemurs instead. After looking at photos and a description of the fossil published in an online paper last week, most researchers think that the skeleton—though stunning—reveals little new information about ancient primates, much less human origins. Some worry that the publicity framing Ida as a human ancestor will backfire as her true identity and lowly origins are revealed." I don't have access to the full article, which could be useful. There will doubtless be a robust and fascinating debate when Franzen et al. publish sufficient evidence, but they don't seem to have done that yet. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, they haven't, but then again, neither have the opposition


 * Let's have a look at the critical statements:
 * Critiqu: Adapids are generally considered to be more closely related to the strepsirrhines than to haplorrhines (Nature). So, based on extremely fragmentary material, the majority view is that adapids are closer to lemures. Franzen & al. says it does not look like it, based on an extremely complete skeleton. Is this "serious scientific critique"?
 * Critique: A huge publicity machines makes "conflicting incentives" that can "undermine the process of the assessment and communication of science" (Nature). This can hardly be called a critique of the science. In effect is says that the huge media machine makes it hard (for whom?) to "asses and communicate science". I'd love to really understand what the latter really means.
 * Critique: Many of the leading scientists who study primate evolution think she's a relative of lemurs. This put on paper right after the publication of the fossil, so I'd like to see the careful scientific analysis conducted by "many of the leading scientists" behind the "don't think Ida lives up to her billing".
 * And there is more: Elwyn Simons says it is a wonderful specimen but most of the information had been previously known (The Australian). Sooo, she can tell that there's not much to be learned from Ida after studying the pictures for a day, considering that what else we know about adapids comes from a few extremely fragmentary remains?
 * Is it only me, or do this critique strike as perhaps not quite as scientific as it proposes to be? Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been many, many points brought up regarding this issue: It started off as a discussion about the wisdom of using the blog of an undergraduate student's blog as an authoritative source, and has expanded to include more specific discussions regarding the contents of the blog and similar opinions. Regardless of the merit of the arguments expressed in this discussion page, the editor(s) that are insistent on the inclusion of the questionable references have offered no compromises, and have refused my compromise to preface quotations from Brian's blog with "Rutgers University undergraduate and professional blogger Brian Switek..." (it was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to be ).
 * Scepticism is beneficial, but authority of the source is demanded nevertheless
 * Laelaps
 * Brian Switek ... again

I'll admit that I lost my cool and violated the WP:3RR with this edit. However, I share Gibbzmann's frustration that there seems to be something strange going on here. Am I the only one who feels like there might be an ownership issue? If that is not so, then why cannot a compromise be reached given the lack of consensus on this issue?130.13.168.237 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. There are various views on this subject, and our policy is to give due weight to each. The team that's worked on this for two years should know most about it, but can't expect everyone to take their word for things without publishing their reasoning and evidence. There are different arguments presented by the PLoS ONE paper, by the various contributors making expert statements in the press release and in interviews, by the TV documentaries and by The Link website. These are all effectively primary sources, and for analysis of their claims WP:NOR requires us to look to reliable secondary sources. It's not up to us to decide what is or is not science, we need sources for that. Compromise doesn't mean presenting the proponents' position without showing critical coverage, and although these new sources give a first view from two leading scientific journals, I think the issues they raise are already reasonably well covered in the article so we probably don't need to further emphasise these particular criticisms, as long as the article makes it clear that this isn't settled science. It'll be good when the argument turns to more hard science and gets away from the soundbites on both sides. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a good point there. This is so new it should perhaps be classed as a current event. Any statement on the science here is bound to be "gut reactions". Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is also covered in a wider way by, interesting read but doesn't strike me as being a useful source for the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and acquisition
The section "Discovery and acquisition" starts with the sentence: "The events regarding the original unearthing of the fossil are not clear, though some facts are known." Anyhow, the text that follows does not contain facts but a story told by a German fossil dealer. The dealer told that Ida ...

... was found in 1984

... was found at Messel

... was in the possession of a German collector

without any factual evidence. This story may be true, but it also may not be true. The researchers believe the story, because the fossil is prepared in exactly the same way as other fossils from Messel. But what if a forger took a fossil from another location (and maybe much younger age) and prepared it Messel-style, to give it an age of 47 Million years? As long as the location of the find is based solely on the verbal account of one single person, I am doubtful about the integrity of the whole affair. In the current WP-section this verbal account should not be called "fact". Gugerell (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that many other species of adapid that are very similar have already been found from Messel, Darwinius is hardly unique, just uniquely complete. Given the close similarity to other Messel adapids, it would be even more incredible if it were not from there. Any older and it would be the first of its kind, any later and it would have been a living fossil in its own time. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Messel specimens are unique in their mode of preservation. There are many places with exceptional preservation showing innards and body outline (Burgess shale, Chengian and Green river to mention a few), but there's only one where the nature of the rocks require the fossil to be put in resin. Ida is the right age, the right preservation and the right preparation for being from Messel. As Dinoguy2 stated, it would bee incredible if she was from somewhere else. That would mean there is a wholly unknown lagerstätte out there somewhere. Having had the chance to study study bout Ida and other Messel fossils up close, I can assure you that part of the story is right. The rest of the story seems credible too, there's no reason to doubt it. If the seller wanted to change any part of the story, it would be the year of unearthing (in 1983 the pit was closed to the public, making Ida an illegally found fossil).Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly one of my concerns, too. It wasn't documented and was "lost" for more than 2 decades in someone's private collection... there's just too many possibilities for this to have been manufactured with no verification and yet everyone seems to be taking it as gospel truth (forgive the off-side reference). This could have been one very well crafted practical joke that everyone has fallen for because they want it to be true... it's happened before in the media, too. Specifically, there have been multiple practical jokes that were done by one specific guy (I don't recall his name, but he always uses fake facial hair and/or a wig to disguise himself) that purports himself as an expert in his field and has tricked the media at least 2-3 times that I'm aware of. He bragged about it quite a bit on one of those news special shows (20/20, Dateline... one of those). It's been a while since I saw the broadcast so I don't recall all the details, but the point remains. Without verifying some of the basic details, the finer points may not matter at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.229.254 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The rock embedding the fossil, I think, is rock solid evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.166 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anoiapithecus
Anoiapithecus may be added to the see also section. Reasons:
 * also new discovery (this year publication),
 * also fossil find in Europe (Spain),
 * also our evolution related,
 * closer to us (11.9 Mya) discovery. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Ganlea could be added for similar reasons, and because there's been publicity about the relative claims of it and Ida in relation to ape and human ancestry. . . 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomic info trimmed from Type specimen section
The Type specimen still included assertions which belong in the Taxonomy section and which were based on journalism about the initial publicity event. I've trimmed these out, and removed the citation to Missing Link Found: Scientists Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man's Earliest Ancestor | World News | Sky News as that seems an unnecessary and unreliable source. Feel free to add it in again if you think it's useful, presumably in relation to the publicity. Better sources for the Type specimen section would be an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Better sources for the Type specimen section would be an improvement. Actually, I would agree that the Type specimen section, which should be the most important one and most extensively reported, is so short in its actual version that I would judge the entry "Darwinius" little justified in Wikipedia. I read the article again and it more or less portrays DM almost as one of the most ordinary fossils ever found (at least regarding its significance). The publication is presented as bordering pseudoscience. The media stunt is merely a contingent event, so we shouldn't consider it actual as of today. I suggest either: Remove Darwinius from Wikipedia altogether; Leave it as a one or two paragraph entry stating that Darwinius was an acclaimed fossil that received much publicity coverage, but was rapidly dismissed by the scientific community. Even though this suggestion might sound a little provocative, I think it reflects the reality of the entry at present. I don't see why this article should have two or three lines saying why the authors of the paper were excited, and something like 50 lines saying why other scientists say they are wrong. It's way too long in this view. --Gibbzmann (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy - Important info added in
I judged that the WP article lacked in my view the most important information about Darwinius Masillae, which is that the authors claim to have identified six synapomorphies of DM with Haplorrhines. Now, to include accuses of cherry-picking some traits without this info is like saying the authors are fools, therefore such critique must be placed in context. Recall Einstein: one could have said that two experiments (Michelson-Morley and Mercury's precession) were just merely two out of the thousands experiments, and so special relativity had to be dismissed altogether as an absurdity (actually, somebody did suggest it). This is irrational. The authors never claimed that they were making an exhaustive and all-encompassing list of the 200-400 (whatever) traits one could imagine in his head could be looked at. They merely stated that out of 30 "commonly" used which they checked, there were 6 that could not be explained if one assumed DM was a lemur and that lemurs were all Strepsirrhines. One can contest this, of course. But even if you check 200-400 traits, you still have at least six of them that don't fit. Nobody, as yet, has contested this. Finally, I didn't add in the requirement for citations, but the generic phrase "Paleontologists have expressed concern that the cladistic analysis compared only 30 traits, when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include fossils such as anthropoids from Egypt and the primate genus Eosimias which were not included in the analysis" should be substantiated by names and references. Feel free to improve the text I added in. --Gibbzmann (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From memory, reference 9 covers the whole of the paragraph before the point where it's cited, but this is confused by a citation to the PLoS paper by Franken et al. Reference 9, Ann Gibbons (19 May 2009). ""Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists -- Gibbons 2009 (519): 1 -- ScienceNOW is now hidden behind a subscription wall, so a check by someone with access to AAAS publications would allow clarification. . dave souza, talk 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update, have found a copy at this website, that confirms it. They say "many palaeontologists" but name three, so I've made it a number of palaeontologists, and removed the confusing Plos link. . dave souza, talk 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over taxonomy
Various concerns have been stated about the taxonomy, in recent edits the part of the taxonomy section dealing with these concerns was made into a new section, then moved below the publicity section. As this is clearly contrary to WP:NPOV, I've undone the last move, and changed it to a subsection about concerns over taxonomy. In some ways it may be better to keep it as one section, but either way the information is clearly directly related to the taxonomy. . dave souza, talk 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

stem group?
The article currently begins:
 * "Darwinius is a genus of Adapiformes, a group of basal or stem group primates from the Eocene epoch."

Stem group links the the relevant article, but the term seems to be used incorrectly. Paleontologists may disagree about where northarctids or adapiforms belong in primate phylogeny, but most seem to agree that they're crown group primates. The authors describing Ida think she may be a stem haplorhine, while most workers think she's a stem strepsirhine, but in either case she's descended from the last common ancestor of both groups.

We may be better off leaving "basal", with explanation if needed, and removing "stem group". Cephal-odd (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As there is no set consensus of the detail of the early branching of the primate tree, any use of detailed cladistic terms like stem group and crown group would be "taking side" in the current discourse. "Basal" is an apt description. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article now says adapiformes are "a group of alleged basal primates . . . ". The qualifier might be misread as casting doubt on their status as primates, which isn't in dispute. Moreover, it seems to me that adapiformes are basal (early-diverging) primates regardless of whether they're stem haplorhines (per Franzen et al.) or stem strepsirhines (per Seiffert et al.). I think it's best to remove the adjective. Cephal-odd (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and acquisition
This section doens't explain how the two plates were put together (supposedly in 2007). Was Plate B bought, donated or what? And who was the first to notice its similarities with Plate A? Thanks to whoever may add this info. Capmo (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No longer considered a human ancestor or even closely related
See ‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all. Seregain (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to avoid the sweeping statements of the media (who believed all this stuff in the first place). For those with access, a more sober reflection is in a recent issue of Nature magazine, which I've linked to in the article itself - Fossil primate challenges Ida's place Nature 461, 1040 (2009). I think the 'Concerns over cladistic analysis' section is a reasonable reflection of the views at the moment. Average Earthman (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added content and references relating to the news story Seregain linked to above two days ago. It's an important analysis, but certainly doesn't end the discussion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't end the discussion at all, but half of the early references on this article (I believe several of which are still up) come from those same sources that were removed with the addition that I had written. Both the original story and the followups that were posted were quickly posted and circulated on those sites... I don't see why the links I posted should have been removed as they are sources just as valid as many used for the original story. Burleigh2 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that we don't write articles by making additions to the lead. Your addition was also too chatty and non-specific; it gave little real information on what has been found by Seiffert et al. The content you added is already in the body of the article and is represented in the lead generally by reference to dissent from the classification: "Others have disagreed with this", with a reference to a news story in Nature about this latest study. If you want to expand the mention of the latest study in the lead, add it to that paragraph, not as a new paragraph at the end of the lead. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. I added the link to the appropriate paragraph as you mentioned and I didn't add any more "chatty" or "non-specific" information to the article. Thanks for the clarification! Burleigh2 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New Switek journal article
Just fyi, Brian Switek has published an article with a retrospective overview of the controversy surrounding the initial publication and media publicity of Darwinius. Could add to or supplement the existing sources and provide a more scholarly source than the blog links. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Source
The following is an excellent source that talks about the media campaign surrounding this fossil and the issue of science in the media. It's a much better source than most of the news articles presently cited. I don't have time to add the information myself, but someone should.



– Maky  « talk » 19:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)