Paper Retraction on Burmese Amber Dinosaur

[Omnomosaurus]

Seems the questions raised around that exciting news of an avian dinosaur preserved in Burmese amber were right after all.

 

The original paper has been retracted by its authors, after the discovery of another fossil closely resembling the previously discovered skull portion of Oculudentavis was classified as a species of lizard, rather than an avian dinosaur.

 

Disappointing for dinosaur fans, but it doesn't change the fact that any Late Cretaceous vertebrate preserved in this way is still an exceptional find.

 

Read more:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2553-9

[RuMert]

https://www.livescience.com/retraction-smallest-dinosaur.html

 

[digit]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is the way science works--correcting the occasional overreach when additional evidence comes to light.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Miocene_Mason]

42 minutes ago, digit said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is the way science works--correcting the occasional overreach when additional evidence comes to light.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Not sure retraction was the way to go. The name is still valid, but now subsequent papers (should there be any) will have to cite a retracted paper which is unorthodox. The retraction was a thinly veiled way to retroactively get rid of Myanmar amber which has been denounced by many for being unethical, so perhaps it’s unlikely any papers on the subject will be published. It’s a mess of a situation all around.

[Rustdee]

I agree that a retraction in this case is unusual (at least to me). I am a social scientist and in my field of study retractions usually only occur when fraudulent activities have been discovered that are associated with the research, such as faking data or analyses, etc. In contrast, I could understand if a discipline shares consensus on there being an objective Truth and a retraction preserves the integrity of the literature, which does seem to be the authors' suggestion in their retraction note. That type of consensus around philosophical assumptions regarding an object of study certainly does not exist in the social sciences. 

 

Regardless, a preserved lizard is an amazing find, although it is plagued by various ethical considerations.

[Miocene_Mason]

10 minutes ago, Rustdee said:

could understand if a discipline shares consensus on there being an objective Truth and a retraction preserves the integrity of the literature, which does seem to be the authors' suggestion in their retraction note.

In fossils, placement changes all the time but like in social science it’s rare a paper is retracted because of it. It is imperative the original description is preserved, or we end up with a taxonomic nightmare. At least one of the authors was against retraction. By the way, here’s that second specimen:

[FossilDAWG]

I checked with a friend of mine who is an actual taxonomist, he doesn't just play one on the internet like me.  As WhodamanHD has indicated this is now a mess.  There wasn't any need to retract the paper, as no fraudulent activity occurred.  Now we have a validly named genus and species based on a retracted paper.  There is nothing in the rules governing zoological nomenclature that addresses this situation.  The description met the criteria for a valid name, so the name should stand.  But the paper was retracted, so maybe the name is retracted too?  There is no clear answer.  It'll get worse if they publish the name as new in a new paper.  Then the species will be it's own junior synonym.  What a mess.  The editors at Nature should not have allowed the paper to be withdrawn.

 

That new specimen is amazing!

 

Don

[Miocene_Mason]

12 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

I checked with a friend of mine who is an actual taxonomist, he doesn't just play one on the internet like me.  As WhodamanHD has indicated this is now a mess.  There wasn't any need to retract the paper, as no fraudulent activity occurred.  Now we have a validly named genus and species based on a retracted paper.  There is nothing in the rules governing zoological nomenclature that addresses this situation.  The description met the criteria for a valid name, so the name should stand.  But the paper was retracted, so maybe the name is retracted too?  There is no clear answer.  It'll get worse if they publish the name as new in a new paper.  Then the species will be it's own junior synonym.  What a mess.  The editors at Nature should not have allowed the paper to be withdrawn.

 

That new specimen is amazing!

 

Don

ICZN has apparently stated it will stay valid, Nature’s decision is therefore little more than symbolic. 

[FossilDAWG]

Interesting.  So in the synonymy list and presumably elsewhere people will have to reference a retracted paper.  Sort of like retracting a retraction .  Still, that seems to be the most reasonable course of action.

 

Don

[piranha]

26 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

...Then the species will be it's own junior synonym.  What a mess.  The editors at Nature should not have allowed the paper to be withdrawn...

 

 

A terrible self-inflicted wound ... in other words they have attempted to erase their mistake by 'unpublishing' the paper.  Too bad that ship has already sailed!

 

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"

[Oxytropidoceras]

The publications, with URLs, involved in this disussions are:

 

Li, Z., Wang, W., Hu, H., Wang, M., Yi, H. and Lu, J., 

2020. Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur? bioRxiv.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v4.abstract

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.993949v4.full.pdf

 

O’Connor, J., Xing, L., Chiappe, L., Schmitz, L., Li, G.,

and Yi, Q., 2020, Reply to Li et al. Is Oculudentavis a 

bird or even archosaur? biorxiv.org , 

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.12.147041v1

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.12.147041v1.full.pdf+html

 

Xing, L., O’Connor, J.K., Schmitz, L., Chiappe, L.M., McKellar, R.C.,

 Yi, Q. and Li, G., 2020. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the 

Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature, 579(7798), pp.245-249.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2068-4

 

Xing, L., O’Connor, J.K., Schmitz, L. et al. Retraction Note: 

Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period 

of Myanmar. Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2553-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2553-9

 

Related articles,

 

SVP Executive Committee, 2020, On Burmese Amber and

fossil repositories: SVP member's cooperation requested!

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, McLean, Virginia.

http://vertpaleo.org/Society-News/SVP-Paleo-News/Society-News,-Press-Releases/On-Burmese-Amber-and-Fossil-Repositories-SVP-Memb.aspx

 

Sokol, J., 2019, Troubled treasure.

Science Vol. 364, Issue 6442, pp. 722-729

DOI: 10.1126/science.364.6442.722

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6442/722

 

Yours,

 

Paul H.

[DPS Ammonite]

1 hour ago, FossilDAWG said:

The description met the criteria for a valid name, so the name should stand.  But the paper was retracted, so maybe the name is retracted too?  There is no clear answer.  It'll get worse if they publish the name as new in a new paper.  Then the species will be it's own junior synonym. 

Oculudentavis khaungraae was described as new in the retracted paper. The species cannot be described as new in a new paper. In can be moved to a new genus level or higher taxon in a future publication.

[piranha]

A future paper should declare it nomen nudum with a simultaneous nomen novum as replacement.

[FossilDAWG]

4 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Oculudentavis khaungraae was described as new in the retracted paper. The species cannot be described as new in a new paper. In can be moved to a new genus level or higher taxon in a future publication.

That is all true.  The problem is that a retracted paper does not exist (or it is not supposed to) as part of the scientific literature.  A retracted paper is supposed to be treated as if it were never published.  In other fields (biomedical research for example) you should never cite a retracted paper, nor give any credence to the data or conclusions contained in that paper.  In this case though we have a genus and species named and described in that paper.  In a formal sense, it would be correct to treat the names as if they had never been published, which would make them invalid, and to propose and properly publish new names.  However the ICZN has apparently decided the name is valid, which (again, from a certain point of view) requires unretracting a retracted paper.  IOW, it's a mess.

 

Don

[piranha]

In other words ... if it isn't published, it doesn't exist = nomen nudum.  Simple!

[FossilDAWG]

15 minutes ago, piranha said:

In other words ... if it isn't published, it doesn't exist = nomen nudum.  Simple!

Except apparently the ICZN has ruled otherwise.  I'll have to see if I can find the published opinion.  I have to say I have never heard of the ICZN moving so fast, usually they take years to issue an opinion.

 

Don

[Miocene_Mason]

Just now, FossilDAWG said:

Except apparently the ICZN has ruled otherwise.  I'll have to see if I can find the published opinion.  I have to say I have never heard of the ICZN moving so fast, usually they take years to issue an opinion.

 

Don

I got the word from Dr. Hans Sues who got the word from the Executive Secretary of the ICZN, they have yet to release a formal statement. Their reasoning is that the description is completely valid and in compliance with ICZN rules, and the paper is already in print around the world, and the retraction was non-scientific in nature. I think it’s a good precedent to set, a proper description is a proper description.

[piranha]

2 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

Except apparently the ICZN has ruled otherwise.  I'll have to see if I can find the published opinion.  I have to say I have never heard of the ICZN moving so fast, usually they take years to issue an opinion.

 

Don

 

 

Sounds like they want to eat their cake and have it too.  In this case the snake swallows itself whole by the tail!

[FossilDAWG]

I found an article about this on the web site "Retraction Watch".  Apparently Nature decided to retract the paper and the authors decided not to fight it.  Here is a quote from the lead author on the paper:

 

" It is also not that unusual for paleontologists to misidentify things and for new information to correct previous hypotheses. However, Nature chose not to publish the Matter’s Arising and instead retracts our paper – they must have their reasons. It’s unfortunate because this way science can’t simply correct itself (as it is supposed to do) and on top of that, according to the [International Code of Zoological Nomenclature] ICZN the nomenclatural acts are valid whether retracted or not creating a complex grey area. The paper is retracted, yet will continue to be cited. So science will correct itself and cite the paper even though it is retracted making the retraction pointless."

 

Don

[piranha]

4 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

I found an article about this on the web site "Retraction Watch".  Apparently Nature decided to retract the paper and the authors decided not to fight it.  Here is a quote from the lead author on the paper:

 

" It is also not that unusual for paleontologists to misidentify things and for new information to correct previous hypotheses. However, Nature chose not to publish the Matter’s Arising and instead retracts our paper – they must have their reasons. It’s unfortunate because this way science can’t simply correct itself (as it is supposed to do) and on top of that, according to the [International Code of Zoological Nomenclature] ICZN the nomenclatural acts are valid whether retracted or not creating a complex grey area. The paper is retracted, yet will continue to be cited. So science will correct itself and cite the paper even though it is retracted making the retraction pointless."

 

Don

 

 

Thanks for finding this peek behind the curtain that reveals the heavy-handed tactics of the publisher.  Thankfully just an aberrant exception and not the rule!

[Troodon]

Looks like its being identified as a lizard.

 

New preprint paper

2020.08.09.243048v1.full.pdf

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/smallest-dinosaur-known-actually-peculiar-ancient-lizard/

 

[Boesse]

So some commentary from the vert paleo community on facebook:

 

1) one of the editors of Nature commented the morning of the retraction indicating that the intention by the editors was to completely scrub the name oculodentavis from the literature.

 

2) As many have noted, the ICZN has no rules or accommodations for such an action and the name is 'valid' under ICZN rules, regardless of being grossly misidentified. Journal retractions, particularly in natural history, are a very recent phenomenon and the ICZN (already admittedly a 'dinosaur' to many) desperately needs some sort of update to address this.

 

3) Prevailing opinion from our community is surprise at the retraction and that it's unprecedented in VP - plenty of corrections have been issued (I myself have done one, begrudgingly thanks to a taxonomic mistake of mine pointed out by @DD1991 - whale genus name preoccupied by a Sri Lankan butterfly) in the past, but this might be the first case of a vert paleo paper being retracted! I am sure this is not the first paper naming new taxa to be retracted ever, so I am sure the precedent has been set before... and if not, a formal petition for guidance to the ICZN has been floated, albeit informally. So yes, those of you indicating above that a retraction is pretty strange, you're on the same page as all of us.

 

For comparison: I LOVE getting out the popcorn and watching scientific slapfights/drama (it's like trashy TV for scientists) and I was already following the Oculodentavis thing with such interest, because it was identified as a squamate by some critics literally within an hour of being published, and the whole Myanmar conflict amber thing is a huge can of worms. I was totally blindsided by the retraction.

 

And here's the thing, why the whole thing is so weird: no journal would ever issue a retraction because of something minor like a misidentification, however embarrassing. This suggests that the authors knew something the editors did not and kept it from them. Other VPs have indicated that the authors were informed at a conference of the squamate affinities of the specimen (I mean, just look at the lower jaw) and forged on ahead with the paper identifying it as a bird anyway.

[FossilDAWG]

I wonder if the Myanmar issue plays into this at all.  Purely a speculation, but perhaps Nature wanted to wash their hands of anything to do with Myanmar amber and some mistake by the authors gave Nature an opportunity.  Again, just speculation.

 

Don

[Boesse]

@FossilDAWG I would like to think so but the editors pretty quickly, within hours of the paper coming out, defended it and said that the significance of the fossil outweighed the ethical concerns (not joking).

[Miocene_Mason]

2 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

I wonder if the Myanmar issue plays into this at all.  Purely a speculation, but perhaps Nature wanted to wash their hands of anything to do with Myanmar amber and some mistake by the authors gave Nature an opportunity.  Again, just speculation.

 

Don

I am but a layman, but I think it was entirely due to this. Neither nature nor any other paper would retract a valid describing paper due to affinities changing. Nature made a public relations mistake publishing Myanmar amber, which they tried to undo under the guise of the science. It backfired on them.