Talk:Rhinogradentia/Archive 1

Intent of publication?
Why did he document them? Fun, fiction, hoax? -- Tarquin 18:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Fun I think. The link suggests that the author of the pamphlet was fictitious as well and the whole thing was made up by Gerolf Steiner from the University of Heidelberg. Secretlondon 18:50, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

et biologie des rhinogrades
The book seems to have been first published in France, in 1962. It was written by the respected biologist Pierre-Paul Grassé who was, through this hoax, fighting the (then dominant) theory that evolution was due to a series of random mutations.

Ref.: "Les rhinogrades, un canular qui sent la vraie question scientifique à plein nez", article published in Le Monde, 11/08/2000.


 * Well, if he intended to bend the readers' opinion on some obscure scientific dispute, he obviously did not succeed. That point doesn't come through at all. The book reads just like a very good science joke, and educational too. Jorge Stolfi 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the book is too elaborate and well done to be just a pamphlet for an obscure cause. IMHO, it was written for the fun of it. Jorge Stolfi 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhinograde article
Should be merged of course. Made it after I couldn't find Snouter. The French book is a translation, afaik. Phlebas 21:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French edition is the original edition
The article from Le Monde says there aren't any prior edition to the French one in 1962, although edited as a translation from (Grassé's pseudonym) Harald Stümpke's works. This was part of the hoax. Grassé did sign the preface under his real name.
 * Just to confirm: Le Monde says that Gassé admits that he is the real author, and that "Harald Stümpke" is fictitious too?  Os is that just Le Monde's theory? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox not appropriate
Shouldn't we remove the taxonomy sidebar, to avoid confusion? --Delirium 20:23, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

A taxobox is not appropriate here. Rhinogradentia is not an order of mammals. Gdr 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a real order, sure, but it is a fictional one. The book has a lengthy discussion of how the ancestral mammal species (a shrew-like animal) evolved to fill all niches. What is wrong with providing a taxobox for a fictional species? It's no different than providing a map for a fictional country, or a portrait for a Greek god. Should we delete those too? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the argument against using the taxobox? It says right at the top that it's fictitious, so it's not as if someone is going to be fooled into thinking that it's a real order.  Stolfi's argument is a good one, because it's not as if the taxobox is something holy that is dishonored when used for a fake order.  Citizen Premier 04:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing it again. Taxoboxes do not get used for fictional creatures. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can anyone say why not, or cite some kind of wikipedia policy for me? I'm going to revert again, because I believe just as stubbornly that it should be used...  Citizen Premier 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxoboxes are for creatures, giving links to articles about the larger groups they belong to. This is a fictional creature, and doesn't belong to the groups in the taxobox. No taxobox for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain this in more detail. First, a taxobox is more than just a visual aid, it's a piece of metadata describing the relationship of taxa to each other. We can and do run programs that analyze taxoboxes to generate, say, redirects from scientific names to common names, or lists of taxa that need articles, and so on. If taxoboxes get used for fictional taxa, then this "pollutes" the metadata, making it less reliable. We wouldn't want "Rhinogradentia" to appear in an automatically-generated list of orders of mammals, for example. Second, taxoboxes are visually distinctive and their appearance in an article conveys a certain amount of authority. Someone just looking at the taxobox might miss the explanation in the article text that the creature is fictional. Gdr 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhinograde Picture
Could someone please put this picture in: http://nsm1.nsm.iup.edu/rgendron/plate04a.gif? I don't know how to. Thanks 204.49.209.120 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That picture is copyrighted. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mammoth-sized
Removed description of "the mammoth-sized Mammontops". Description from the original text: "the anisorrhine Mammontops ursulus (The Bearlike Shaggyfaced Snouter), that likewise occurs in the mountain meadows of Mitadina, falls quite outside the hexarrhine sens. It is a relatively majestic animal, that attains an overall height of 4 feet 3 inches in the male and 3 feet 7 inches in the female", which is fairly small for a mammoth. -- 201.37.244.188 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Snouters"
All reference to the english edition, titled "The Snouters" has been removed. Could someone please restore it? And yes, there is one- I have a copy in my personal collection. CFLeon (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhinogradentia steineri (?)
See also: Rhinogradentia steineri (family Pyralidae) by H.G. Amsel, Beitr. Naturk. Forsch. SW-Deutschl. 29: 78-Ins. (Lep.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAvdK (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is already mentioned in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nasopods
When I first encountered these marvellous creatures it was in the late 1960s in the April edition of a science magazine for children, where they were called the "nasopods". Indeed, I've just been googling them under that name, and came across this thread on the Cryptozoology website, which also uses the word "nasopod" in reference to an April Fools' Day article in the UK magazine Animals (to which it is possible that my parents had a subscription for us on the grounds that it was educational). I also came across an article on Michel Garneau that mentions his Élégie au génocide des nasopodes (1979), which apparently is presented by a cast of 4 plus a musician and lasts 1 hr 40 min. Greer Watson (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a ping to see if you ever came across this article in Animals or if you could narrow it down to a particular issue, maybe? Relevant: archive.org has a clip of the Garneau piece. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another textbook with an entry
Rolf Siewing (Hrsg.): Systematik. Fischer, Stuttgart 1985, ISBN 3-437-20299-5 (Lehrbuch der Zoologie. Band 2, Kapitel Rhinogradentia).

From the German Wikipedia. I haven't been able to verify it or find another [reliable] source that mentions the entry yet, though. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sending to GAN
I think there's a bit more that can be done here (the pedagogical basis, first and foremost, but also tracking down other examples of it appearing in scientific publications and a few other things), but while I'll continue to update the article along those lines, I think it's more or less ready for GAN. Getting it into the queue now. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what category it belongs in. Defaulting to "language and literature" since it's not real, although it seems like biology is also possible? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Legacy
might be interesting to add to this paragraph: In popular culture, Steiner's work influenced or inspired works of art. Japanese noise musician Merzbow, for example, gave the name Rhinogradentia to both a song and an album in the Merzbox box set.[32]

An origami artist Fernando Chura from Bolivia have created a paper version with origami. https://www.facebook.com/fernando.chura.792/posts/614498176063583 https://twitter.com/FernandoChuraH1/status/1237231246998200320

Actually googling the title Otopteryx Volitans is as I have founded this article =) Andriyx (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC) And


 * Thanks, . Anything we include here must be supported by reliable, independent sources. Of course, now that I say that, I see that we don't actually have a good source for Merzbow -- just Discogs. Well that's disappointing. I'll try to find a secondary source for that, and if you find one for Chura, please go ahead and link it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)