Talk:Odontogriphus

Untitled
Should we taxobox this puppy?--Mr Fink 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? ✅ Verisimilus  T  12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

POV & other question
I am not an expert on this subject, but I have a couple quick questions & observation regarding this article:
 * 1) In the lead, the sentence: "One dissident, who has maintained since 1990..." seems POV pushing, or maybe an attack. Maybe this should read, a "small minority" or something to that effect. (Is Butterfield the only one to hold these positions . . .otherwise is their consensus that Butterfield was/is forcing his findings?)
 * 2) I wikilinked Wiwaxia in the lead – at its first appearance – mostly to help the neophyte reader (ok, me).
 * 3) In the Phylogeny section, I think the issue raised in #1 persists:
 * First, I think this section deserves its own "lead." Just a couple sentences explaining Caron findings versus Butterfields to summarize for the reader – similiar to the summary in the lead lead
 * The prose reads that Caron's group is "interpreting" findings, while Butterfield is "arguing" and terms like "in his opinion" are used.
 * Even the clade chart's seem to suggest a POV issue, based on the Caron group having a cite, whereas Butterfields is "???" – I am reading this correct?
 * Would I be correct to assume that following Caron et al 2007, that there has been no formal reply by Butterfield?

I won't tag the article as having a point of view issue, but I was tempted. Let me say scientist arguing like this is great, (eg. the quote: "Many of Butterfield’s misconceptions" is classic), but I'd like to ensure that it is as neutral as possible before I green tick the DYK hook. So if you could help allay a layman's apprehension, I'd appreciate it. Mitico (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article does not reflect Butterfield's views very favourably. The nature of science makes it difficult to assess the number of people who agree with Butterfield - papers aren't "put to the vote" etc - but he is certainly not alone in his discontent.  Likewise, it is rare to have a sequence of replies continually debating fine points, so the lack of a "comeback" by Butterfield does not mean he's beaten; indeed I think he comments on the issue in passing in a 2008 paper (J of Paleo, "An early Cambrian Radula).  I do agree with your points in general, though. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  08:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The shortage of Odontogriphus fossils (only 1 until about 2005!) limits the number of players, which tends to make it look like a personal battle. Caron et al set an unusually belligerent tone in their reply (2007) to Butterfield (2006) - you should see their intro para!
 * Right now "One dissident ... " accurately reflects the sources found so far. Because of the limited number of players, there may not be other published "dissidents".
 * Mitico, if you check out Halwaxiid you will see that the sources appear to divide into: Butterfield, who has argued (1990, 2006) that Wiwaxia, which now appears to be a fairly close relative of Odontogriphus (the one thing on which Butterfield and Caron etc. agree!), was a stem-group polychaete; Caron et al (2006), Scheltema et al (2003) and Eibye-Jacobsen (2004), who dispute this and argue that Wiwaxia was a stem-group mollusc; and Conway Morris, who argued (1985) that Wiwaxia was a stem-group mollusc but has since (1995, 2007) sat on the fence. However in the same article I report Porter (2008), whose argument for a close relationship between Halkieriids and Chancelloriidae might upset several cladistic apple-carts.
 * Smith609, it would be great if you can provide citations for others who agree with Butterfield as that would mitigate the appearance of a personal battle. I looked through "An early Cambrian Radula" hoping for a bit more representation of Butterfield's views on Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia, but as far as I could see his 2008 article's main text concentrates strictly on description of "the Mahto fossil". -- Philcha (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a bit in the discussion section at the end? Maybe I am remembering wrongly.  And I don't think anyone's expressed an agreement with Butterfield in print - mainly because he's been thorough with his arguments and there's not much more to add to them.  You don't get in press simply by writing "I agree with that chap" - you need data, which is difficult to come by! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did miss a point from the discussion section at the end: in addition to the number of teeth and differences of shape between the 2 tooth-rows of Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia, which he's commented on before, IIRC this is the first time he's made such a point of the wide spacing of tooth-rows in Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia vs the close packing of teeth in modern radulae and in the Mahto "Fossil with No Name". I'd also missed the fact that very near the end he puts a date on it, "late Early Cambrian ( 543 Ma) record." Thanks for prodding me to check it again!
 * Wait a cotton-pickin' minute. IIRC the official date for the base of the Cambrian is - Template:Graphical timeline burned that into my brain. I got "late Early Cambrian ( 543 Ma) record" from  Findarticles.com - I'd better check the actual PDF in case Findarticles.com had a transcription error. -- Philcha (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Findarticles.com messed up - the original says "at least the late Early Cambrian (<510 Ma), in keeping with the Nemakit Daldynian (>543 Ma) record of (presumably raduliferous) helcionellids"


 * Mitico, thanks for your rephrasing in the lead. I've changed it to "One scientist has presented a different analysis ...", inline with Martin's comments above that others agree with Butterfield but have not written about it. -- Philcha (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling item(s) in "References"
The URL is now a 404 "not found". Gooogle found me an abstract at another APP page, but it says nothing that looks relevant to Odontogriphus or any other "halwaxiid". -- Philcha (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)