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

Re: If No. 9 is a hatchling

I noticed that Dave Peters in his article describing the embryo as an
adult did not establish a few facts, and that was that it was in fact an
adult. He stated that it was, based solely on comparative proportions and
features to other taxa, but did not determine how these features were
related ontogenetically. In this particular case, Dave did NOT show how
this taxon was NOT an embryo. He did not argue against the features that
others have used to support the early age of the specimen, including bone
texture, simple epiphyses of the limb elements, and lack of intervening
carpal and tarsal elements, and the poor state of preservation of finer
elements (ribs, gastralia, etc.) and the wealth of ontogenetic data
supporting "baby" appearance in lizards, crocs, birds, mammals, etc., that
show how this specimen conforms to the interpretation of an embryo,
resulting in Zhao and Wang's diagnosis of the material in _Nature_ as
such. Dave has yet to respond to these features, instead relying on other
impressions (pardon the pun) to assert this taxon is adult.

  I would think the critical argument that Dave needs to use to support
his theories is to overturn the embryonic-supporting features, NOT only
positively identifying apomorphies AS adult as a result of unsupported
slab impressions or cladistic data output.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!