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

Re: Dinosaur Museum Journal

--- Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> cleaner text. I like to do it my way, and I think so
> do Steve and Sylvia  (their way).

Sir, I see you point entirely. But let us look at the
following: The bristled basal ceratopsian was a fossil
acquired by less straight means. However, it was duely
published in a formal way. Czerkas' could have
potentially done the same. Further, some Chinese
scientists did not really seem to interpret their
original feathered finds correctly at all. The
inheritence of their misunderstanding can be seen in
the names like Sinosauropteryx and Protoarchaeopteryx.
However, when they made their finds available to other
paleontologists, not only did their own understanding
improve but also the rest of the world's did. Further,
they published these finds again in a formal but
widely visible form in Nature. Now, the Chinese
paleontologists are showing better understanding of
their precious finds. Likewise had the Czerkas made a
formal publication an existing journal it would only
helped them showcase their finds in a better way. I
doubt they are facing competition: they include the
Chinese experts as co-authors. I suspect that many
mainstream paleontologists may not be very comfortable
with the current mode of reporting the Czerkasian

I agree Mr Ford that we need more dinosaur
Why not make JVP a monthly then? Are they so strapped
for cash that they cannot print it monthly? 

The fact that Czerkas' push in what seems to be
incorrect phylogenetic conclusions regarding
dromeosaurs is definitely not going to help their
cause: here I agree with Mr. Headden that the DMJ
needs to became a *real* new journal.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes