Talk:"Dixeya" nasuta

Requested move 7 July 2022

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Dixeya" nasuta. Consensus is to revert to Dixeya in quotes to better reflect the fraught taxonomic situation of this species, but double quotes will be used as this case doesn't seem to fall under the general exceptions to double quotes in the MOS. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿とうこう) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Njalila → 'Dixeya' nasuta – Njalila is an informal genus name coined in an unpublished thesis separating the valid species Dixeya nasuta into a distinct genus. This separation is recognised in literature, however, as an informal name an article for "Njila" is inappropriate. Typically, such valid but incorrectly-assigned species are covered on the pages for their original parent genus to avoid creating species-level articles. However, in this case a specific problem arises due to the species' taxonomic history.

This species was originally assigned to the genus Dixeya as D. nasuta. Ordinarily then we would redirect this taxon to Dixeya, however, the type species of Dixeya (D. quadrata) was sunk into Aelurognathus by Sigogneau (1970), while D. nasuta was not. This leaves us without a page for the original parent genus, and it would be inappropriate to merge D. nasuta with Aelurognathus, a genus it has nothing to do with. Sigogneau (1970) tentatively referred D. nasuta to Arctognathus as Arctognathus? nasuta, which arguably would constitute a more appropriate merge and redirect. However, more recent literature, nominally Kammerer (2014) explicitly rejects this taxonomy, stating:

"As there is no evidence for a close relationship between the Tanzanian specimens [Dixeya nasuta] and Arctognathus curvimola, this material should not be referred to the genus Arctognathus. Given the uncertain relationship between the Tanzanian material and the Malawian type specimen of Dixeya quadrata, the Tanzanian specimens should be referred to as ‘Dixeya’ nasuta for the time being."

The dilemma rests on deciding which is the more appropriate action: merging and redirecting "Njalila" (Dixeya) nasuta with Arctognathus, which is neither the original parent genus or an accepted referral in current literature, or keep it as a separate species-level article under ‘Dixeya’ nasuta. Personally, I do not see the harm in retaining this page as a species-level article given the extrenuating circumstances. While strict adherence to typical WP:PALEO policy could argue it goes to Arctognathus, I do not think this is an appropriate application of this policy given that its intent, as I understand it, is to maintain the association with the genus it was originally named under in lieu of a formal separation. In this case, both Arctognathus and ‘Dixeya’ nasuta are uncertain referrals, and I believe that maintaining the page as ‘Dixeya’ nasuta better represents the state of gorgonopsian research and taxonomy as well as the contextual history of ‘D.’ nasuta.

Nonetheless, I think it's worth recognising examples like this as special cases, and perhaps we should update WP:PALEO policies in recognition of such cases to maintain the usual standard for avoiding species-level articles. WP:DINO has mention of similar cases, stating that "in some cases (eg. Hypsibema missouriensis) species which are known to possibly belong to different genera than the one they are currently assigned to may be kept separate, to make it easier to move information once such a revision happens", and I think a similar or modified statement could be added to WP:PALEO policy on article creation.

(An alternative would be to redirect "Njalila"/'D.' nasuta to Gorgonopsia (the next highest parent), although I doubt this page's content could be suitably merged without either losing them or derailing the Gorgonopsia article with information focused on a single species. More extremely, the article could be deleted altogether until a new genus is formally proposed (although there is little indication for this in the near future)).

References

– DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Support, although I think MOS:QUOTEMARKS implies "Dixeya" nasuta would be preferable to 'Dixeya' nasuta. Because "Njalila" is not a formal scientific name and theses are considered to be of borderline reliability, keeping the current title is inappropriate. However, its proposed type species, "Dixeya" nasuta, is a formally named taxon that Kammerer (2014) considered diagnostic enough to refer material to, and has been discussed in some detail by multiple reliable sources. By any reasonable standard, it is a notable topic. There is no other page which would be appropriate to merge it into for the reasons already mentioned: We should not merge it with Aelurognathus because it has never been directly associated with that genus; we should not merge it with Arctognathus as such usage was proscribed by Kammerer (2014) and was only ever a tentative referral in the first place; and we should not merge it with Gorgonopsia because discussing a single species on a page for a higher taxon like that would be decidedly nonstandard. The reasons given at WP:PALEO to avoid creating separate species articles are to avoid redundancy, avoid unnecessary stub articles, and provide appropriate context for species. This article is not redundant with any other, and is already above stub length and could doubtlessly be improved further. Because "Dixeya" nasuta specifically does not belong to Aelurognathus or Arctognathus, merging it into either article would place the species in an inappropriate context. Therefore, none of the reasons given to avoid species-level articles apply here. As a full disclosure, DrawingDinosaurs brought my attention to this issue in an off-site conversation, but my opinions on this matter are my own. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom, this is a reasonable solution to a complicated situation. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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.