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

RE: New Ampelosaurus skeleton

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:49:26  
 Fabio Marco Dalla Vecchia wrote:
>Dr. Silvio Renesto has already emphasized that the discovery of such "new"
>dinosaurs has been largely mentioned in my divulgative article "The
>International Symposium "Two Hundred Years of Pterosaurs" Tolouse, France,
>September 5-8th 2001", DINOPRESS n. 7 (2002), published at the beginning of
>this year. Finding place, fossils etc are all described. There are 5 (five)
>photographs showing the new sauropod specimen and the site where it has
>been found.
>I did not realize that it was a scoop. I supposed that the discovery was
>well-known in France. Jean Le Loeuff did not tell us to keep as a secret
>the new of that discovery, thus I mentioned it in my report.
>However, it is clear that no one here noted that new in my article.
>Now, three possible causes of such an evident ignorance (with the exception
>of Silvio, who is pictured in a cople of photos) come to my mind.
>- FIRST: Despite the high quality of the journal, readers of DINOPRESS are
>few in this list.
>- SECOND: Alternatively, readers of such journals are not able to
>understand or remember what they have read and are sensible only to the
>Press Agencies releases,
>- THIRD: The texts of my articles are so bad and the English grammar so
>poor that the reader refuses to read them (and refuses to look at the
>photos too).
>It would be useful to me to know which one of those is the main cause, in
>order to write articles that could be understood and, at least for a while,
> (offlist, if the case)

Well, I certainly don't think it is the third case.  I read your article, and I 
thought it was well written.  I think the major reasons why list members didn't 
seem to remember the mention of _Ampelosaurus_ in your article were:

*The large photos were not printed alongside the English text, so there was 
probably a lot of flipping back and forth (that's what I did).  That makes it 
more difficult to remember.
*You mention the _Ampelosaurus_ specimens at the tail end of your article, and 
many times people seem to trail off at the end of an article.
*You mention that the site has been known since 1989 and over 1000 
_Ampelosaurus_ bones are preserved.  That gives the impression that the site 
isn't "new" or "recent," as the news reports did, so perhaps many didn't 
connect the two for that reason.
*You devoted all of three sentences of you great article (which, by the way, 
was almost entirely concerned with pterosaurs) to the new find.  Sometimes it's 
difficult to remember something mentioned in a few sentences.

Regardless, I enjoyed your article.  I didn't make an immediate connection 
between your article and the "new" find at first, but immediately remembered 
what you wrote when Silvio posted his message.


P.S.: Note to Fabio: I attempted to answer your offlist question on the 
dinosaur mummy a few weeks ago, but my e-mail would not go through to you.  Is 
there a better method by which to reach you?

SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob
ONLINE CLUB: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/thedinolanddinosaurdigsite
WEBRING: http://www.geocities.com/stegob/dlwr.html
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SITE: http://www.geocities.com/stegob/international.html

Supercharge your e-mail with a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads
and NoTaglines --> LYCOS MAIL PLUS.