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

Re: ARCHAEORAPTOR



In a message dated 10/28/99 5:00:49 PM EST, rowe@psych.ucsb.edu writes:

<< The word "fake" was an
 injudicious choice by one of our subscribers.  Please do *not* allow
 this list to be a source of scurrilous rumors.  If you can
 substantiate an allegation of fossil forgery feel free to do it here.
 If you cannot then do not lead others to draw unwarranted conclusions
 about chicanery. >>

Here is what I wrote:

In a message dated 10/27/99 9:47:23 PM EST, Tetanurae@aol.com writes:

<< Well.... for one thing, one of the femora looks to be at least 25% longer 
than the other, which is certainly odd in a supposedly articulated specimen. 
>>

In that case, the term "chimera" is inappropriate; the correct term would be 
"fake."

--------------------

OK, take a deep breath and---

PLEASE NOTE THE LEADING QUALIFIER "IN THAT CASE...". This means that >>IF<< 
one of the femora is 25% longer than the other, the specimen--which is on 
record (see Nov 1999 National Geographic) as representing a single 
animal--would be a fake and should be called such. I did not say the specimen 
>is< a fake--YET (this depends on whether statement about femora of different 
lengths is correct, for one thing). In the future, I suggest everybody read 
my posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions. I will not be 
responsible for how someone else may misread or misconstrue what I write.