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

RE: Dinosaur Museum Journal




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
ekaterina A
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:59 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: 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
finds.<<

There are Chinese COAUTHORS!!! Tough on them I say. If I could, I'd be doing
the same thing and bucking the system and start my own publication (per
reviewed like the Czerkas for sure though).

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

Cost, cost, cost...

>>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.<<

Have you read the article to come to this conclusion, or Mr. Headden? Why is
Czerkas (which is a COAUTHOR, senior at that, with well known Chinese
authors) theory incorrect? Don't go after just Czerkas, you have to go after
all of them! A *real* journal? Who decides that? Oh, your journal is crap so
we won't believe what you say (this is the way you guys are coming across).
A bunch of smug so and so's.

I know Stephen and Sylvia and I know that they are working with not only the
Chinese government, but also many of the Chinese Museums. They ARE on the up
and up, and are trying to smooth things out with museums, and governments. I
wish everyone else would just get there heads out...well, ok, I won't say
it, I just wish people would be more understanding and just accept what they
are doing is for the betterment of palaeontology as a whole.

-EA


Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074