Wikipedia:Peer review/Transitional fossil/archive1

Transitional fossil

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a very important topic, and the article could use improvement. I would like to one day bring this to GA and then FA status. It needs more review by relevant experts, since I am not a scientist myself and merely incorporated text from other sources. I would like a peer review to further show what those issues are so we can move forward. I know some sections need expanding and clarification. The article has just gone through a copy-edit. It includes some notes that may be useful:Talk:Transitional_fossil#GOCE_copy_edit.2C_February_2012

Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I may have time to offer a thorough review soon, but just glancing over the page, I ask that you replace the Tiktaalik roseae reconstruction immediately. The first tetrapods were solely aquatic, and any image that suggests that they came onto land is outdated. Yes, I know the textbooks still use these images, but paleontologists who study tetrapod evolution will tell you these illustration only perpetuate myths. If you want better images, I suggest putting in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is just the sort of commentary that is needed. I have also removed the image from the tiktaalik article (which is where I initially got it). I have replaced the image with another one from the tiktaalik article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Although File:Tiktaalik BW.jpg is better, I still suggest having a new one made at the Paleoart review. The posture of the fish suggests it is holding itself up on land. It would be best to have it redrawn as a fish swimming in murky water. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

An alternative is using a picture of the fossil, like File:Tiktaalik belgium II.jpg. We could also need a better image of Thrinaxodon, preferably one showing wiskers, scale and some hairs here and there. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We can digitally remove the shadow on the current Tiktaalik image, which would make it look less like it's on land. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the NSF restoration has grass on it. *facepalm* -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway I'll try my hand at creating a restoration for Tiktaalik. Will post what I make in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Tiktaalik Here is the link to the Tiktaalik Paleoart review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Obsidian Soul. If you would like, I could try putting you in touch with an expert who is knowledgeable about the fish's anatomy in order to offer suggestions and critique your preliminary work. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2 : There really need to be more non-vertebrate examples. I'll look around a bit, since I actually have a bit of time, but my expertise lies with plants, not invertebrates. The fossil Archaeopteris (the tree, not the bird, note the different ending) is one of the classic examples, as its fragments were originally thought to belong to two completely separate divisions of plants, until Charles Beck found connected fossil material. The tree had gymnospermous wood, but the leaves produced spores like a fern, instead of seeds. The fossil Pleuromeia is also believed to be transitional between the giant scale trees of the carboniferous and the more modest-sized modern genus Isoetes (quillworts). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We clearly need more plants! We should perhaps also include a human ancestor, I'm thinking Homo erectus specifically. The problem is that the example section can become overlong compared to the rest. Should we drop a couple of vertebrates? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that having all the current examples (plus a couple more) would be a problem. The strength of the article will lie in presenting examples, rather than in simply defining a term. If this were simply a definition, then it would be a Wiktionary entry. The current vertebrate listings are certainly spread out phylogenetically (ray-finned fish, early tetrapod, bird, mammal), so there's diversity present in the vertebrate selections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My vote is to get rid of the "Examples" section. Instead, while discussing the topic, examples can be given in the text with illustrations nearby. If we really want to list examples, then maybe we should create a list article. From my experience, once you start listing examples, then everyone and their mother will want to list their favorite example. Again, it's better to work the examples into the text, with a preference for (up-to-date) textbook examples, particularly when explaining terms. For example, Tiktaalik and tetrapod evolution is a great case to bring up with discussing the incompleteness of the fossil record (due to the fossil footprints but lack of land-dwelling tetrapods in the fossil record at that time). Archaeopteris is good for discussing early discoveries, and how opinions change as we learn and uncover more fossils. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now the section seems like a bunch of random examples thrown together to prove a point that's already discussed in the proceeding sections. There's already a list of transitional fossils if readers want examples, and all the information in these examples can be found in their respective articles. Some of the more famous examples like Archaeopteryx can be discussed in a section about cultural perceptions. Smokeybjb (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Smokey, I don't see that your criticisms can be addressed. What would make any selection of examples not "random" (one of your criticisms). Why do you say they're "thrown together"? Why shouldn't examples be used to illustrate the point? Isn't that what a good article will do?

The problem with relying on the aforementioned "List" article is that it suffers from being a mass agglomeration of snippets that will presumably continue to grow randomly longer. By contrast, a small selection of examples included in this article can be written so as to illustrate carefully and clearly the current point. They also can be selected so as to present the more classic and clear-cut fossils, rather than a full list of all somewhat obscurely transitional and often argued-over fossils. Now, it might be possible, and even preferrable, to incoporate the selected list into the body text of the article, but we shouldn't leave readers having to go look everything up to figure out what is transitional about the fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What's making the examples seem a little random to me is the placement of very famous fossils like Archaeopteryx with more obscure ones like Runcaria. If we are to keep an Examples section, I think there needs to be more explanation as to why they are notable, mentioning a bit about their discovery and cultural impact. A textbook source for all these examples might be a good idea.

Following what's been said, I think the best way in which examples can illustrate a point is to put them right next to the specific points, not group them by themselves in an Examples section (Archaeopteryx with Missing Links and the Polish tetrapod footprints with Limitations of the fossil record, for instance). Smokeybjb (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman (which is what an encyclopdia is for) this article would be very dry and theoretical, and very hard to understand, without examples. Many a beginning reader would actually do better to read the examples first and the theoretical part afterwards. --Stfg (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For a layman, examples can be offered (in summary) in the lead, along with an opening illustration (example with an informative caption). If you throw the readers straight into examples in the body, you will be struggling to explain terms along the way. What better way to introduce both than to turn it around and illustrate theory with examples. An example of a featured article with this structure is Lemur. Not only does the lead list special lemur adaptations, but the body does *not* have a "Examples of lemur adaptations" section. Instead, examples are given throughout the "Anatomy and physiology", "Behavior", and "Ecology" sections. I still strongly believe that an article with an "Examples" section is just as unprofessionally written as an article with a "Images" or "Gallery" section. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "examples", not "examples section". "Transitional fossil" is a more difficult concept than "lemur", but anyway, illustrating the concepts with examples at the point where the concepts are introduced, without a separate section, is fine. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm glad we're on roughly the same page. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of a cultural section, citing the classical "Icons of Evolution" like Archaeopteryx, Ichthyostega, Java man (or perhaps Lucy) and Cooksonia or Rhynia (just to have a plant). Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started adding a history section, an alternative to the examples. Please have a look at it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First problem I see is that you're using the name Rhynia for a plant that is now called Aglaophyton. The story there is much more complicated by the fact that Rhynia is the name of a fossil vascular plant, but the fossils now called Aglaophyton, on reexamination, were found to lack vascular tissue. Also, you'll have to be more specific than Cooksonia, which has turned out to be a polyphyletic assemblage of several species and has undergone extensive reinterpretation in the past 15 years. It's also wrong to call it the "ancestor" of vascular plants. There still ought to be mention of Archaeopteris as a classical icon of evolution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was using Rhynia for Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii, which to the best of my knowledge is still called Rhynia. The reason I wanted it (over Archaeopteris) is that I am trying to make a section on the history of transitional fossils, and old Rhynia is very much an old classic. If you read what is now the history section in the article, you'll see what I'm after. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll need to completely rewrite that section, because what you've written describes Aglaophyton rather than R. gwynne-vaughanii. I still don't understand why you don't think Archaeopteris is a classic as well. It has been around for more than 60 years, and is included in introductory biology classes as a classic example of a transitional fossil. It's also much easier to explain why it's transitional than either Aglaophyton and Rhynia, since more people are familiar with ferns and gymnosperms than with the architecture of the bryophyte sporophyte or alternation of generations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I took what is in the section from the page on R. gwynne-vaughanii, so if what I wrote needs a complete rewrite, then so does the Rhynia article. Seeing that you are a botanist, would you have a look at it (I'm a zoologist I'm afraid)? I'm all for having more plants, but the reason I primarily wanted Rhynia is that my trusty old "Studies in Paleobotany" (1967) spends a whole chapter on it (Archaeopteris is mentioned in passim), and the little weed was still all the rage when I started studying biology in the early 1990s. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In 1967, Aglaophyton was still considered a species of Rhynia. The detailed studies of vascular tissue had not yet been completed. As I am rather busy offline for the forseeable future, the best person to have rework the information is either User:Peter coxhead or User:Smith609. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 3 : The "Comparison with intermediate forms" looks suspect to me. I'm not sure this distinction in terminology is widespread, and I've certainly not seen it made in botanical papers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We haven't been able to track down a source, and in zoology too, the two terms are used interchangeably a lot. The article will in my view not suffer in scope or clarity by removing it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Having thought things over, I feel the article misses some words as to the definition and cultural aspect of transitional fossils. First off, what's separating the examples we have from any other evolutionary transitions? Why is Tiktaalik more important than let's say Osteolepis, Panderichthys or Diplovertebron? And why is still Archaeopteryx the quintessential transitional, when there's been found a heap of other small feathery theropods? I believe both answers are firmly rooted in culture, and that this rather non-scientific aspect needs to be mentioned. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps expand the role of media hype or mention that virtually all fossils represent transitional/intermediate forms? Some possible sources:

• Tarver, J. E.; Donoghue, P. C. J.; Benton, M. J. (2010). "Is evolutionary history repeatedly rewritten in light of new fossil discoveries?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1705): 599. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0663.
• Horenstein, S. (2009). "Paleontology and Evolution in the News". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (2): 318–325. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0130-7.
• Evolution, missing links and climate change: recent advances in understanding transformational macroevolution (John Long)
• Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs (Anthony J. Martin)
• Ida: Humankind's Earliest Ancestor! (Not Really) (Michael Lemonick, TIME Science)
• The Fossil Fallacy (Michael Shermer, Skeptic)

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)