Talk:Gualicho

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging Aoniraptor with this page...[edit]

I have made the "Aoniraptor" article a redirect to this page because, in light of recent evidence, "Aoniraptor" does not appear to meet ICZN Article 8.5.3 and was not registered in ZooBank. As Gualicho made it to publication first, that is the valid name. Just thought I'd leave this here as a note for anybody. Raptormimus456 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems premature if this claim has not been made in a reliable, published source. Blog posts are not enough to deem something a synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a small chat with Mickey Mortimer over on her blog about it. Mickey and Andrea Cau have both come to the conclusion that the two are synonyms, and since Gualicho is the first validly published name (and the most commonly-used name), that means it should take priority over Aoniraptor. To quote her blog directly;

"the volume Aoniraptor was named in has yet to be physically published and does not contain a ZooBank registration, thus Gualicho has precedent." Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the problem is that we can not here on Wikipedia quote a blog or personal conversation on that. We need a reliable source which states this specifically (that one name is invalid/the two are synonymous), otherwise it is original research/synthesis. Furthermore, even if one name is invalidly published, there is no study that actually says those other remains are referable to Gualicho, and until that formally happens, they are de facto different entities, both on Wikipedia and in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; but to be fair, we've used some blogs in the past (TetZoo, for example), as long as they've had cites themselves. It's really only blogs that have no cites that I recall being problematic (though I must stress that I may be remembering wrong!).

As for refferal of the "Aoniraptor" remains to Gualicho; Mortimer notes that "Aoniraptor" definitely has two of the diagnostic traits used for Gualicho and may have the third. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert; but I just feel some action needs to be taken in this regard, especially since "Aoniraptor"'s description is seemingly problematic in regards to the ICZN code. Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blogs can be used for relatively uncontroversial statements. But taxonomic revisions happen according to the IUZN, I'm pretty sure they don't accept blogs as valid publications, therefore these ideas don't exist in the published literature, and therefore don't "exist" yet. We can mention the ideas, while making it clear they are not peer reviewed, published theories, but we cannot merge articles based on them. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that Aoniraptor does not meet the requirements of ICZN Article 8.5.3, meaning it is an invalid nomen nudum. While this is true, the cited comment on the blog Theropoda also mentions that the print edition of the article naming it will be available for purchase "in about two weeks", and thus it will meet the requirements of ICZN. Is this necessary to specify that Aoniraptor is a nomen nudum in the article, keeping in mind that this will only be true for another few weeks?--Macrochelys (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added that because the article somehow stated it was a junior synonym because it was invalidly published, which is incorrect, since an invalidly published name does not "exist", and can therefore not be a synonym of anything. And even when that name is published, the two genera would also have to be formally synonymised in a published paper, blogs don't cut it. So if we pre-emptively remove the nomen nudum part, we should also remove the invalidly published part. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]