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

re: Ptero endothermy

Chris Bennett wrote:

As I discussed on this list back in 2001, my examination of
Peters' analysis revealed many problems in interpretation and coding.

>>>> A little vague. Name two.

CB wrote:

Okay.  Firstly, I have already critically reviewed the
methodology upon which Peters has based much of the coding that went
his cladistic analysis (see
http://www.bridgeport.edu/~cbennett/Critique.html), and come to the
conclusion that the methodology is flawed.

And I have critically reviewed many of your findings in print and
elsewhere and found them flawed.

In the future I will be arguing against your interpretation of
Pteranodon fingers I-III and their purported rotation 180 degrees
opposite the wing finger ?? and your interpretation that all
Rhamphorhynchus are conspecific, representing year-class stages in
growth. For the present argument I still say that your interpretation of
Anurognathus missed alot of data -- all of it consistent with sister

CB wrote:  If the methodology is flawed,
then it follows that codings based upon it may not be reliable.  As many

know, Peters has ignored or dismissed my criticisms.

>>>>>>>>  And for good reason. And that's a big if. What you're saying
is that photographs do not reflect reality. Or that my interpretation of
same does not reflect reality. The latter is more likely, but that's to
be argued. And argument is good because it hopefully will get us closer
to the truth.

Secondly, as Dave
Unwin has already mentioned, there is a critical review of Peters'
analyses working its way toward publication, and it not only reviews
analysis, but it highly critical of it.

>>>>>>  The "Four Prolacertiform" paper was written following personal
examinations of the four prolacertiforms. So, please Chris, don't hang
your photo interpretation methodology argument on that paper. It doesn't

And on the same issue... is this a "press leak?" Aren't you two
scientists bound to some sort of confidentiality agreement not to reveal
the contents of papers you review or have access to prior to
publication? If so, this makes incidence number two for you, Chris.

And on the same issue? the systematics paper I'm working on also
modifies work done on the "Four prolaceriformes" paper. Some of the
things I argued turn out to be erroneous, such as quoting you in
guessing that the pteroid evolved from one of the distal carpals.  But
the hypothesis itself is stronger than ever.

Back to Unwin's comments on the pelves of primitive pteros. I presume
that Dave's comments on Dimorphodon stem from his 1988 paper. Here at
least part of the anterior pelvis is visible in his own figures, and the
rest could easily be hidden beneath an adjoining wing phalanx. My
comments stem from personal examination of Cosesaurus and Sharovipteryx
on one side of the phylogenetic fence, and photo interpretation of MPUM
6009 (two matching pelves), Austriadactylus (a bit broken up ventrally,
but the ilial processes are distinct), and MSNB 8950, which Wild also
figured. Also the Greenland Eudimorphodon of Jenkins, Shubin Gatesy and
Padian (2001) has a very long anterior ilial process. Unfortunately it
was labeled a "right scapula." The "sternum" of Jenkins is the prepubis;
the "squamosal" is the jugal; the "right quadrate" is the posterior
ilium; the "right scapula" is the anterior ilium; and the "coracoid" is
the ischium. Altogether it's makes a pretty cool pelvis, consistent with
all sister taxa.

David Peters