[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

A curious contradiction regarding RT



On Dec 17, 1996, Terry Jones wrote (in regards to criticisms about sample
size in the Science RT paper):

>By the way, the three dinosaurs we used were the only three available.

        This contradicts information provided to me by Andrew Leitch,
who was a co-author of the Science paper and performed some of the 
computed tomography (CT) work for that paper.  In 1995, I had a long
(and _very_ expensive; calling Toronto isn't cheap) telephone conversation
with Andrew regarding RT, and he told me that in addition to the 
_Nanotyrannus_ and ornithomimid skulls, they also had CT scans of the nasal
cavity of a nodosaurid ankylosaur.  The nodosaur CT even showed a turbinate
preserved on one side of the nasal cavity.  Andrew also gave me a list of 
birds they had data for, which included a fulmar.  Fulmars are members of 
the Procellariiformes, a group of birds characterized by very narrow, 
tubelike nasal cavities that contain RT.  
        Needlesstosay, when the Science paper came out, I was surprised
neither the nodosaur nor the fulmar data were presented.  I E-mailed
John Ruben about this last November, but have yet to receive a reply.
Could anyone else out there shed light on this discrepancy?

REFERENCE
        Bang, B. G. (1966).  The olfactory apparatus of tubenosed birds
(Procellariiformes).  Acta Anatomica, 65, 391-415.

Guy Leahy
Dept. of PEHR
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225
n9435712@henson.cc.wwu.edu