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

Re: GSP's hadrosaurian reconstructions AND SUCH



Take it easy, George.  I wasn't trying to make a personal attack on you (or
Ken or Greg or anybody).  I was referring mainly to artistic "mistakes"
that imbed themselves in people's minds in a strangely different way than
written ones.  Like your post (which must be read more carefully), so is
the literature not to be assimilated in a cursory way.  But ARTWORK is
instantly assimilated and if people don't carefully read the accompanying
text, they carry away only what they see.  And repeat it as gospel.  And if
the "experts and professionals" disagree, what's the public to do?  
Another prime example that comes to mind (of what I'm trying to get at) is
the Czerkas Stegosaurus flap.  Steve came out with his proposed
rearrangement of stegosaur plates and it was put forth at a "press
conference" sort of presentation followed by many published images of his
sculpture.  So we become immersed in stegosaurs with one row of plates.  I
still see them.  And I understand Steve still maintains his position on
this.  However I also hear that recent finds reinforce the old idea of two
rows of alternating plates.  But those images (published irresponsibly in
Czerkas'  own book, like Greg's PDW?) hang on...
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: vonrex@gte.net; padron@online.no; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Subject: Re: GSP's hadrosaurian reconstructions
> Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 2:35 PM
> 
> In a message dated 98-08-30 16:21:05 EDT, vonrex@gte.net writes:
> 
> << Dinogeorge tries to say that mistakes are no big deal because they can
be
>  corrected, but if the mistakes get made into pictures and published, how
>  are people to know that the artist may have changed his mind later?   >>
> 
> If you would read my stuff more carefully--particularly the post I spent
three
> hours over earlier this morning!--you would realize that I have made
quite a
> big deal out of mistakes in paleontology. Some mistakes--such as
> misinterpreting a shadow in a photo or overlooking a small process in a
> bone--are of little consequence except to professional paleontologists
and are
> easily corrected, but others are very costly, especially those that
remain in
> the literature for years and years. It is these kinds of mistakes that
cast
> the professionalism of the whole field of dinosaur paleontology in a bad
light
> (to make a couple of very bad puns).
> 
> It is Ken Carpenter, not me, who is actually saying that mistakes are no
big
> deal, that that's just how science works. Look at his own words!