[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Correcting the DD5 edits
I have just read what I wrote for DD 5. I didn't think I really needed
to since I wrote it and I knew what I wrote. And I feel it is important
to make a few corrections.
I have problems with the editing of the Tapejara section. I wrote.. .
They mainly are found in the Romualdo Member, many of which are three
dimensional, with a few from the Crato Member, which are more
flattened, similar to the Niobrara Formation of Kansas? which was
condensed to It is from the Crato Member of the Santana Formation
(famous for the well-preserved fish, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs
found there). No the Crato member is not. It is the Romualdo member
that has the well-preserved material, as what I originally wrote shows.
This is important distinction of the two members. I don't want to
mislead people into thinking that it is the Crato member that has the
well-preserved material, which it does not. (I see that in the Second
to the last paragraph the distinction is made).
Also, I wrote.. Most of the sutures of the skull are obliterated by
fusion, indicating it to be an adult animal?After sutures [joints] was
added. Now to me, joints means where the limbs joins the body, and
where movement is done, which is not the case in the skull.
Also it was added into the last paragraph, This species (referring to T
wellnhoferi) may or may not have had the large sail-like crest of
Tapejara imperator. Well it didn't.
The drawing of T. imperator is wrong, the body is way to long, which
makes the wings way to thick, Also the head is to small for the body.
The drawing of Titanosaurus colberti has the wrong number of toes on
the front foot. I only mention this because the very first article I
wrote for Prehistoric Times was on the number of claws on the foot of
sauropods is usually drawn wrong. They had only 1 (one) thumb claw on
the manus. Perhaps I should send J. Whitcraft a copy of my article.
One of the problems I have with the editing is in the Boys from Brazil
section, I wrote Kellner talks about Angaturama limai, it was edited to
Kellner describes? To me, this means a formal description, which is not
the case since he described Angaturama in an earlier paper. I wrote it
was found in the Santana Formation, but it was edited to the Romualdo
Member of the Santana Formation (This is a GOOD edit).
The following edit really gets my craw. I wrote in the Out of India
section; Indosaurus matleyi (Carnotarsus like), It was edited into
(Carnosaur?) I don't know if DD edited this or Tom did, but shame on
who ever. I meant CARNOTARSUS like. I drew Indosaurus for the Dinosaur
Society Dinosaur Encyclopedia after Carnotarsus.
I strive for accuracy in both my writing (it needs help) and in my
drawings. Accuracy in paleontology, weather it is in a scientific paper
or a lay mans book, newsletter, paper, is very important and I am very
adament about this, and I do my best to achieve this.