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

re: Unwin's comments on ptero tracks



This falls under the "be careful what you read" dept.

Southwell and Connelly's 1997 report on a new type of pterosaur track
did indeed precede my hinge line analysis paper, as David Unwin posted
yesterday, but their report was an abstract and therefore had no
published illustrations or photos accompanying it, hence I did not
include the track in my report. It was, and still may be, perhaps,
unpublished material. Beth Southwell and I did talk about it for a few
minutes at the SVP convention during which time she confessed doubts as
to the validity of the "long, tapering digit V" impression [in a single
track from among dozens] that was, as the abstract reported "very
similar to the predicted Rhamphorhynchoid pes track morphology."

Beth had good reason to doubt because, as it turns out, the suspected
digit V is on the medial side of the pes. I guess it's just a line of
mud.

The good news is that a careful tracing and hinge line analysis reveals
the pes to have the proportions of a primitive anhanguerid, a
contemporary of Haopterus.

The bad news is that this error has been taken at face value by at least
one famous paleontologist.

Re: the other three references.

The Purbeck prints were covered in my paper and referred to
Cycnorhamphus.

The initial report of the Korean tracks in Journal of the
Palaeontological Society of Korea failed to come to my attention until
the reading of the post. Thanks, David! [Why is this journal not in my
local university library?]

The Lethaia paper appeared to report on original work done by other
authors and offered few to no new insights, and no new ichnites.

David Peters
St. Louis