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

Off line for summer/Longisquama rant



Will be off-list the rest of the summer and into Oct.  Anyone
who corresponds semi-regularly with me should expect poor
response time!  ;-)

On-topic material:  I just finished looking at the print version
of the Longisquama paper, and as I did with the paper on
Sinosauropteryx, I am continually amazed at the mediocre
quality of the photographs.  For such a paper that
emphasizes the integumentary structures on this beast, one
would think that better illustrations would be par for the
course.

Of course, my rant may be unfair on a certain level.  I am
used to seeing microscropic structures such as clay crystals
at much higher magnification and crispness (SEM), so perhaps
I should refrain.  If *I* were a reviewer though, I would have
insisted on better micro-detail in the illustrations.

And yes indeed, Holtz was right on about the glaring absence of
evidence for this animal being an archosaur.  Clearly,
classification was not of any concern to the authors, and
it was not just a low priority item for them; it was a non-
priority.

After reading the paper, I am even more puzzled by what
this integument really is.  My hope is that a dinosaur
specialist (or team of specialists) gets a crack at
the specimen next.

The field beckons.  Everyone hold their thoughts until
I get back on list!

cheers,

<pb>



--
"Gentlemen!  You can't fight in here!  This is the War Room!"
(from Dr. Strangelove)