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

Re: Pleurocoelus question



<For all intents and purposes, they are identical in morphology and differ
only in overall size which _may_ only indicate ontogenteic differences.
Regardless, they have the  _same_ structure. So how can they be different if
sectioned? This is really comparing apples with apples. Take any variety of
apple, section them all equally and you get the same basic cross section.
Repeat this sectioning
along another but still common axis, and you get the same structure! Size
does not matter and in the case of apples, variety (to be analagous with
genus or species) does not matter. This is the _general_ apple autapomorphy!
Ditto for sauropod teeth!>

Not disagreeing with your conclusion, but I do want to point out that in
itself the fact that two teeth have the same external appearance does not
necessarily mean that they have the same internal structure.  They probably
do, but, to twist your simile, if I worked at it, I could produce an apple
which did not have seeds.
This is an observation about logic, not teeth.

<Fossil shows are the LAST place to obtain specimens. If they have not beeen
properly catalogued and accessioned into a valid repository (museums, etc.)
than they are useless and most journals will not publish "results" from
material procured in this manner. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that
any respectible funding institution (NSF etc.) would willingly fund someone
to go to a fossil show to BUY such fossils for such a study.>
All the missed data...  Art museums do buy paintings, and privately held
works are photographed and studied and included in art history texts.  I
know the past discussions, but this appears to be saying there's something
tainted (as opposed to diminished utility) about privately held fossils.
Did you really intend to make your point this strongly?