Jump to content

Talk:Ophiodon ozymandias

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 5 December 2022

[edit]
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.

result:
Procedural close. Nominator has opposed this page move below, so this request is effectively withdrawn. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ophiodon ozymandiasOphidion ozymandiasPaleobiology 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 , ed. put'r there 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Template:Taxonomy/Ophiodon & Template:Taxonomy/Ophidion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a main source for fish taxonomy is FishBase], which has no definitive answer for either genus as applicable to the ozymandias species – see [1] & [2]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Kevmin § 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 , ed. put'r there 17:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just glad you're here editor Kevmin! This is all very confusing. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, Quetzal1964, UtherSRG, and YorkshireExpat: 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.--Kevmin § 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.