Talk:Ophiodon ozymandias

Requested move 5 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Ophiodon ozymandias → Ophidion ozymandias – Paleobiology Database lists this taxon as Ophidion ozymandias, a cusk eel not Ophiodon ozymandias, which would be related to the lingcod, and the GBIF reference used in this article only refers back to Wikipedia. I propose, in my relative ignorance, that this page be moved to Ophidion ozymandias. I would have moved the page but hoped to get input from more knowledgeable editors than me. Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The database is in error, as this fossil is described as having been a lingcod, not a cusk eel.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem appears to be that a source has not been found that is not a WP self-reference that supports that this fossil is a lingcod and not a cusk eel.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Asked for help at WikiProject Tree of Life.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 16:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See also: Template:Taxonomy/Ophiodon & Template:Taxonomy/Ophidion.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, a main source for fish taxonomy is FishBase], which has no definitive answer for either genus as applicable to the ozymandias species – see & .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 17:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with Fishbase is it useless for fossil taxa, it literally has NO fossils in it, so any searching there will give the results you show.-- Kev min  § 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This any help?  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Jordan put it in Luvaridae, which is a perciform, which is more closely related to Ophidion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We see that on p.43, and it looks like he uses "ozymandias" as a genus, as in Ozymandias gilberti. Curiouser and curiouser.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Lingcod's second reference is another Jordan fossil reference that article uses to say it's in Ophiodon. (Biodiversity library). - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In there, Jordan and gilbert move it to Ophiodontidae. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even worse... this seems to say there were two specimens given the O. gilberti name, and one is probably Ophiodon while the other is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As User:Kevmin points out below, this is a mess. I propose move to Ozymandias gilberti for now, describing the two different fossils, and indicating the confusion this causes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why move it? The species article here is at the correct placement PER the describing LIT and all that is needed is an article for O. gilbertii hatnoting that they are separate taxa. Do we have any evidence the two were synonymized?-- Kev  min  § 17:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doing some digging, The PBDB entry (for the species) is indeed wrong, with Jordan placing the species in Ophiodon. However we also have the problem that the article is currently conflating 2! fossil species, both named by Jordan (1907 & 1921 respectively) and both using Ozymandias in the name. Jordan (1907) named Ozymandias gilberti (gen et sp) first placed in Luvaridae as  found, then moved to Scombridae by 1921. Then in 1920 Jordan described a new fossil which he attributed to O. gilbertii, but in 1921 changed opinion, and moved the referred fossil from O. gilbertii to a new species Ophiodon ozymandias (sp nov) of the living lingcod genus Ophiodon, see Here for Jordan 1921-- Kev  min  § 17:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, PBDB has a correct entry set for the genus Ozymandias, its just the species that currently is misplaced to genus (cited from Catalog of the Neogene bony fishes of California: A systematic inventory of all published accounts from what the back end says). I'm attempting to find the 2012 ref now.-- Kev min  § 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are 2 different taxa involved, not one, an extinct Genus/species, and an extinct species in the living genus Ophiodon-- Kev min  § 17:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just glad you're here editor ! This is all very confusing.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kevmin a source here has Ophiodon ozimandias, but only a passing mention. First column, bottom of page 5. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking at the partial view of Catalog of the Neogene bony fishes of California here, my suspicion was correct, and the two fossils are different valid taxa. The confusion likely was spawned from inaccurately equating them in the synonyms on this article page a few years ago, combined with the false generic placement at PBDB (bad data entry on the enterers part). We just need to create the genus Ozymandias.-- Kev min  § 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per the discussion. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the discussion here has been useful, and has convinced me that we are referring to two different species. Thank you. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)