Talk:Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hang on, new stub

Give the guy a chance to write it... Dicklyon 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

I agree with the suggestion that this needs on-line references for the various statements made. (Not just a general bibliography, which the three items that I've listed are only a start on.) TomS TDotO (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, and since you're the guy with the sources and the knowledge, it's up to you. In my experience a general bibliography on wikipedia is worth exactly zero, whereas citations are very valuable, because they say what is verified in sources, so that anyone can help protent that information for the constant mutations that tend to go on for passives that are not anchored to a source. Use template:Cite book, template:Cite journal, etc. I can help if you're not clear on exactly how to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reichert-Gaupp Theory

I noticed that in the Wikipedia articles on Reichert and on Gaupp that there is reference to the "Reichert-Gaupp Theory" of the origin of the mammalian auditory ossicles, and this seems to occur occasionally in the literature - Gaupp himself referred to the "Reichert Theory". Would it be appropriate to add the title "Reichert-Gaupp Theory" as an alias (if that's the right word) to this article? And also to make a cross-reference from those articles on Reichert and Gaupp? If so, I don't know how to add an alias. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see there are books you can reference that call it that, and a redirect or two is in order (two because you'll want it both a hyphen and with the correct punctuation, an en dash, like several of the sources use). Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried it. I hope it works. I also put in a reference from the articles on Karl Bogislaus Reichert, Ernst Gaupp and Hans C. Bjerring, which perhaps covers all of the articles that mention it by name. I won't be insulted if someone corrects me on this. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More content coming

I'm about to start editing, as requested by TomS TDotO in Talk:Evolution of mammals. I can handle the paleontology from therapsids to mammals OK, and can probably push it back to basal amniotes and possibly even fish. But it would be a good idea for someone who knows mammal embryology to pitch in as well. Philcha (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be a completist, so my natural inclination is to go all the way back to pharyngeal arches in cephalochordates such as Pikaia and Amphioxus; but that would take months, as so far I've only viewed cephalochordates and fish as places on the road to amniotes, so I'd have to do quite a lot of research. Another possible starting point would be hyoid arches and the origins of jaws in fish. Or I could start with amniotes and say as as little as possible about amphibians and basal tetrapods (the current state of the article). I'm not confident that we can simply keep our options open, because the earlier starting points involve building in a lot more comparative anatomy, e.g. "this bone is called X in fish and Y in amniotes". Personally I'd be quite happy to use basal amniotes as the start point and say only a little about non-synapsid amniotes, because that would leave open the opportunity for specialists in fish and primitive chordates to handle the earlier stages in other articles, and for other specialists to deal with amphibian and sauropsid hearing mechanisms in separate articles. Please comment. Philcha (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion (and I'm not a scientist) is that there is such a wealth of material that can be covered that it could overwhelm the reader. Perhaps it would be best to restrict this to the reptile-to-mammal transition as much as possible. On the other hand, I like the idea of elaborating on the non-fossil evidence, as many people seem to think that the fossils are all there is to evolution. One thing which might be interesting is the recently developed understanding of Hox genes. All that I am aware of is more generic, how the several pharyngeal arches are controlled. Is there something that Evodevo can add to the essay? Neil Shubin's book, mentioned in the references, seems to say that there is something there.

Perhaps something about the musculature?

I have gotten the impression that in the development of some mammal embryos that what are to become the ossicles start out in the embryonic jaw. Is this true? If so, perhaps a mention of that.

Is there any other line of evidence that is worth mention?TomS TDotO (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to restrict it to the reptile-mammal transition for clarity. Perhaps one section describing the change, then a section on evidence of the change, subdivided into morphological, embryological, fossil, and developmental/genetic? Mokele (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs that might be useful

I'll add to this as I go - others are welcome to add.

Currenty searching Google for "earliest first tympanum ear drum synapsid therapsid" Philcha (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of references that I cannot find, that maybe somebody can help out with. One that I'd like to see somewhere elaborated on is Rechert's original paper. Shubin says something to the effect that Reichert was almost emotional in describing his discovery. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

I am thinking of adding a brief section at the end of this article, to be titled something like "Applications", which would mention a few of the results of our knowledge of the evolutionary history of the ossicles. I would like to hear some opinions from others before doing this. An example of what would be mentioned would be Shubin's ("Your Inner Fish") mention of the understanding of anatomy that comes from this knowledge. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified summary?

While I'm delighted in the level and depth of contributions to this article, I can't help but fear it's becoming a bit overwhelmingly technical and detailed. I've edited the intro to the article to give a very, very rough summary of what we're talking about, so that readers can get a quick idea before diving into the technical aspects. I think, from a readability POV, this is pretty essential. Any feedback or improvements are welcome, of course. Mokele (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general principle that the intro should be relatively non-technical.
But it might be best to sort out the main content first and then clean up the intro. For example at present the intro says "The evolution of the stapes was an earlier and distinct event and is not discussed here," but the sections "Early tetrapod and amniote ears" and "Early therapsid jaws and ears" cover the conversion of the stapes from a simple prop for the braincase into the first of the auditory ossicles, apparently independently in several lineages including some amphibians.
One of the most important aspects of sorting out the main content will be agreeing the article's scope. We've already agreed that the article should start with amniotes (amphibians are mentioned only as part of the multiple convergent evolutions of the stapes+eardrum system). An earlier Talk item raised the possibility of covering embryological evidence. And it might be useful to comment on how much and in what ways the changes in anatomy affected hearing.
After the intro I think the subject inevitably gets a little technical, since we're talking about the anatomy of small parts of fossil vertebrates, and hearing systems are themselves more complex and diverse than I realised before reading up on the subject.
One of the difficulties is that the evolution of hearing systems usually lagged behind the evolution of the traits that are normally used to distinguish and label various clades and grades.
But I strongly believe that Wikipedia should be written for the benefit of non-specialist readers, so the article should be as simple as possible provided it does not sacrifice accuracy. Improvements in structure and phrasing and good use of images may be the most promising approaches. Philcha (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Gorram, you're right; I'd actually been avoiding the main text (because it seemed to dense to deal with after a long day of work, underscoring the need for a tone-down), and I dind't realize it was this bad. Some portions can be trimmed considerably, some portions rephrased, and there's a few errors. The cladogram is both excessive (why the hell are Chondrichthyes in there?) and inaccurate on some parts. I'll chip away at things, and try to make small edits, so everyone can see what's been done step-by step (rather than editing multiple sections in one go. Mokele (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just checked Tetrapod, and it states early and clearly that the earliest tetrapods were wholly aquatic; so I agree with your removal of all fish from the "cladogram". It's nice to have someone else around who'se working to make the article accessible - I've had some ding-dongs in connection with other pages where some editors exhibited symptoms of "academics envy". I try to write simply but don't always succeed - a common reason is that half-way though a sentence I realise I'm assuming too much prior knowledge, try to squeeze that in, and it all goes haywire.
BTW, what are your views on the use of bullet lists to clarify the logical structure of paragraphs? I'm in favour but have lost battles over them in connection with other articles. Some editors claim that FA reviewers regard bullets as a disqualification, and quoting the relevant parts of the style guide doesn't seem to make anyone reconsider. Philcha (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not fond of bullet lists for stylistic reasons. They make good placeholders as a sort of 'outline form', but I feel they should eventually be replaced by prose text to keep with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. But if they make sense (such as when you need a list of this or that, like states in a region), fine. I'm more concerned with general readability and accuracy than style, though - I'm content to just do info-dumps, polish the words up, and leave it for someone else to improve style and formatting. Mokele (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Re the need to make articles intelligible, you might enjoy the "user feedback" presented by Geologist at Talk:Dinosaur :-) Philcha (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)