Talk:Phytodinosauria

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.

Even though Phytodinosauria is an obsolete hypothesis, it is still important to have this article[edit]

Given the fact the Ornithoscelida is up and still running, not to mention we do have articles that illustrate conflicting hypotheses in zoological systematics (such as Archelosauria vs Ankylopoda) and clade hypotheses that no longer or have much current today as they did back then (Archonta and Metaves come to mind). Therefore it is important that we do have an article entry for Phytodinosauria just as a comparison for the Saurischia and Ornithoscelida hypotheses.--4444hhhh (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare controversial clades, which are supported by some writers, with groups like this, which no one supports today, and never had a large following to begin with. Obsolete and controversial is not the same. I agree this taxon should be discussed in the Dinosaur article, but I don't see why it needs an article, as it is not used by anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that regard then perhaps we should not have the Ornithoscelida up and running then. Or that Archonta should be disregarded since when was the last time in 17 years scientists published any papers on that particular clade? And didn't Phytodinosauria had a big following, which is similar in vein to Archonta, Insectivora, Thecodonta, etc.--4444hhhh (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that has nothing to do with this: Ornithoscelida is currently in use, and has not been challenged yet, the others are just disputed. On the other hand, no one uses Phytodinosauria now, and it was never in wide use. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True but whether a concept is still scientifically valid is not decisive for its notability. Phlogiston has lost all defenders — but is nevertheless an article here. When deciding whether to keep a separate article we only have to ask ourselves four questions: 1. Can it be sourced? 2. Is it conceivable that some reader might encounter the term and wants it explained to him? 3. Can more information be provided than a mere dictionary definition? 4. Is the term essentially identical to some other term that already has its article? If the answer is yes to the first three questions and no to the fourth one, there should be a separate article.--MWAK (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is what I am arguing you about. I am not saying that Phytodinosauria is still widely supported or that it is being published. People are going to be interested in the history of systematics, and they may come across it in older literature. Plus I disagree that it is best worth mentioning this in Dinosauria, as again, you may as well have Ornithoscelida in the article as well.--4444hhhh (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article can obviously be written about the subject, but given the general conventions employed within the Dinosaur project, there is no precedent for why it should, as junior synonyms have always been redirected and dealt with in the articles about their senior synonyms in the past. So if we make an article about this, it'll be a slippery slope, and we might as well have an article about every junior synonym that has a bit of history behind it. That's one of the reasons why Brontosaurus was kept a redirect of Apatosaurus until it was resurrected recently, even though you would agree that a lot could be written about that synonym. But we kept the info on the senior synonym page, for good reason I think. What keeps us from having an article about Prosauropoda, which is an immensely more historical important concept than Phytodinosauria, for example? I think we need discussion on the project page before overturning long-standing standards/consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, real junior synonyms, in the ICZN sense, are covered by question 4. But Phytodinosauria is not formally invalid because Dinosauria has priority. It is probably materially invalid because analyses rarely group Ornithischia and Sauropodomorpha together to the exclusion of Theropoda. Should one give a phylogenetic definition of Phytodinosauria — which by the way Bakker never did — within standard analyses it would be materially identical to Dinosauria. However, the subject of an article about Phytodinosauria would be the "Phytodinosauria hypothesis", the situation that Ornithischia and Sauropodomorpha are sister groups. Within that state of affairs Phytodinosauria would not be a synonym of Dinosauria. Bakker did not propose the name to replace Dinosauria or to denote the objects known as dinosaurians but to circumscribe a possible smaller natural group. As the subject of the article would not be the real Dinosauria but a hypothetical relation, the redirect is unequal.

As regards paraphyletic taxa: they are "basal somethings" and can usually be best explained under the "somethings". In the special case of Prosauropoda, there obviously should be a separate article. A minimal argumentation should convince us of this. Von Huene. Sereno.--MWAK (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention we STILL have the Avicephala article. Not THAT group has no serious support nowadays anymore than Phytodinosauria.--4444hhhh (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the article is a bit of a mess, and needs to be expanded and re-organized if one desires it to actually be usefully informative about the grouping... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, I made a Phytodinosauria article for the Dutch Wikipedia and I can use that to expand this one a bit.--MWAK (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the train is already rolling, why not. But if we want it to be really reflective of the period, we should say "segnosaurs" in the cladogram, and almost use this 80s style segnoaur illustration[1] there... Retroactively calling them therizinosaurs would be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we could use Avimimus for a theropod ;o).--MWAK (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the possibility of a valid Phytodinosauria has just been raised[2], so it's probably good to keep this article after all... FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what is the the cladogram based on? As far as I can see, Bakker doesn't even mention segnosaurs, and Gauthier doesn't mention Pythodinosauria. The only one who seems to have specifically placed segnosaurs in Pythodinosauria is Paul, and he didn't publish a cladogram. So it seems to be WP:original synthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]