[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ptero endothermy
Can't...... resist...... force!......; must..... reply!
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Peters" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 7:33 AM
Subject: 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.
When this came up in 2001 I wrote David Peters a three or four page
single-spaced letter in which I detailed problems in interpretation and
coding. Peters should refer to that letter for more than two of each. I do
not have the letter at hand but as for problems in interpretation I pointed
out Peters' interpretation of the fourth finger as hyperelongate on
Sharovipteryx and his interpretation of the sternal complex of [I think it
was] Cosesaurus, in which he rotated the sternum without justification so as
to make it look more like a basal pterosaur. As for problems of coding, I
pointed out his multiple instances of recoding characters used by others
without any justification and his addition of soft tissue characters that
could not be coded for many taxa.
> 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
I do not see how attacking my interpretations in any way supports Peters'
methodology or interpretations. It would be better if Peters would put his
effort into convincing people that his methodology is reliable and his
> 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.
I do not know what Peters is refering to as 'incident number one', but in
this case this is not a "press leak." I have not reviewed the manuscipt in
question for any journal and my comments, which do not reveal any of the
substance of the manuscript, are based on conversations with the author.
S. Christopher Bennett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Basic Sciences
College of Chiropractic
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, CT 06601
"Savor the sun--but when the clouds come make animals" (Hexum)