Talk:Palaeopteryx

Merge with "List of informally named dinosaurs"
Palaeopteryx should not be its own article and instead integrated as a section on the list. This is because of the following reasons

- It is a nomen nudum, being described in the Japanese magazine Anima without listing of diagnostic characteristics (ICZN Article 13.1.1)

- There is not a lot of information on the specimens or detailed analysis of its phylogenetic position

- It is a chimera, the synsacrum belonging to Mesadactylus

References

- Jensen, 1981. [A new oldest bird?] Anima (Tokyo). 1981, 33-39. [in Japanese]

- Molnar, 1985. Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a survey of proposed early or ancestral birds. in Hecht, Ostrom, Viohl and Wellnhofer (eds). The Beginnings of Birds. Eichstatt, Germany: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt. 209-217.

-Jensen and Padian, 1989. Small Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs from the Uncomphagre fauna (Brushy Basin Member, Morrison Formation: ?Tithonian), Late Jurassic, Western Colorado. Journal of Paleontology. 63(3), 364-373. AFH (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and merge. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike most entries on the list of informally named dinosaurs, the name Palaeopteryx has been intentionally used in numerous scholarly articles and is clearly notable, even if it's of little taxonomic value. Being of uncertain phylogenetic position or having material incorrectly assigned to it doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It's a more worthwhile article to have than Ponerosteus, for instance. Furthermore, I am not convinced that Palaeopteryx is a nomen nudum in the first place. I haven't read Jensen (1981a), Jensen (1981b), or Molnar (1985), but none of the sources I have access to (Jensen and Padian 1989, Padian 1998, Norell & Makovicky 2004) explicitly indicate that the name is not available. Jensen & Padian (1989) refer to a specimen as its holotype; nomina nuda do not have holotypes. Padian (1998) says he had "advocated suppressing it"; nomina nuda do not need to be surpressed. Norell & Makovicky (2004) calls it a nomen dubium, not a nomen nudum. Not being properly diagnosed, as Jensen & Padian (1989) say, does not necessarily imply that it altogether fails article 13.1. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons explained above by Ornithopsis. A lack of information on fossil material and an unclear phylogenetic position are not valid reasons to merge a page. Even if Palaeopteryx is informally named, the subject itself can still have a page in addition to a listing at informally named dinosaurs (Archaeoraptor and Ubirajara, for example) As long as the subject is notable (which it seems to be) and there are sources to support it (there are, although there are more that could be added), I think the page should remain. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even though I would normally support a nomen nudum at this level of research being merged, Palaeopteryx has been used in scholarly articles often enough that it has the notability to warrant its own article. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)