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

Further pot stirring in regard to Peters' "Roadkills" thread

Back on Nov. 26, David Peters wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>
To: "dinosaur list" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 5:14 AM
Subject: Roadkills

> Dear List Members:
> Just thought I'd breach an arguable subject, perhaps to stir the pot
> abit and engender some thoughtful conversation.
> As some of you know already, I've been able to see and identify a number
> of previously unseen and unidentified bits and pieces from various
> crushed but articulated nonvolant prolacertiform and pterosaur
> specimens. And I did so without seeing the fossils first-hand.

He then went on to discuss the problems of publishing on his findings, and
concluded with the question:

> Has anyone else discovered something important in a photograph that was
not obvious to the naked eye or microscope?

Well, I am all for pot stirring, but I see that David left out the fenny
snake and blind-worm's sting.  I'll add them now, plop, splash, and so let's
double, double, toil and trouble:

In my opinion, if someone "finds" something on a specimen and wishes to
publish on it, it is then incumbent on that person to find a way to make
that finding readily apparent to others.  As an example, I recently
published a paper on the soft-tissue crest on a specimen on Germanodactylus.
I noticed the faint evidence of soft-tissue on the specimen several years
ago and soon discovered that the soft-tissue flouresced under UV light.
However, given limited access to the appropriate technology it took me
several years to obtain UV photographs that showed the soft-tissue
adequately for publication.  If what David has "found" is really there, then
in my opinion it will be possible to illustrate it adequately so that others
can see it as well.

However, I do not think that David actually has found anything new, and
interested parties might look at a critique of David Peters'
photointerpretations of pterosaurs that I have posted at: www.bridgeport.edu
/~cbennett/Critique.html .  For those of you with slow speed dial-up web
access, be advised that the page is profusely illustrated (it would be
essentially meaningless without the illustrations!) and so amounts to
roughly 655 Kb.


S. Christopher Bennett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Basic Sciences
College of Chiropractic
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, CT 06601-2449