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

RE: Gauthier & de Quieroz et al.



Quoting "Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>:

> Stephan Pickering wrote:
>  
> I remember
> vividly the media hoopla over the Egyptian sauropod based upon
> fragments, which is Sauropoda indet., should not have been
> given a name, etc. etc. 
> 
Excuse me?  I am sure that you have seen this material first hand, have 
spent weeks analyzing it and examining it and have compared it to as 
many taxa as the authors did, and have been able to objectively conclude 
that it deserves to be designated as Titanosauriformes indet.  Oh, wait, 
excuse me, you meant Sauropoda indet.   Perhaps you wrote it 
incorrectly and your in depth analysis of this material actually led you 
to conclude that it is Dinosauria indet.  I am sure the reviewers of 
this manuscript would be forever in your debt if you were to illustrate 
their errors for them.  You might, while you are at it, also define for 
us all just exactly what the word fragment means to you.  

-Josh

----
Josh Smith
Department of Earth and Environmental Science
University of Pennsylvania
240 South 33rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316
smithjb@sas.upenn.edu
Project Director, Bahariya Dinosaur Project

NOTE: Currently in residence at:
Department of Anthropology
Harvard University
Please address all correspondence and mailings to:
18 Traymore Street
Cambridge, MA 02140
NEW OFFICE PHONE 617.495.1966