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

Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]

  Unfortunately, the first specimen is an anurognathid only in Dave's eyes.

>>> and it is an ornithocheirid only in Wang and Zhou's eyes. (The same folks 
>>> who said Zhejiangopterus was a nyctosaur and that Dendrorynchoides was 
>>> closest to Rhamphorhynchus). No one else has corroborated or tested either 
>>> egg observation. I merely indicated that there was an alternative 
>>> explanation for what little that could be seen. Isn't that good science? 
>>> Exposing possible errors?  I appreciate it when errors are exposed in my 
>>> work. 

BTW: The tone expressed by the above is not conducive to sharing and building.

This is based on a highgly contentious technique which has been substantially
criticized for it'd highly subjective nature. 

>>>>>  Every observational technique is 'highly' subjective. Every jury and 
>>>>> judge is 'highly' subjective. The Photoshop technique simply offers a way 
>>>>> to send extremely precise tracings on top of layers of photography to 
>>>>> others for confirmation. The beauty of this technique is that you can add 
>>>>> a layer to pinpoint errors and you never have to _believe_ a line drawing 
>>>>> again!

I once sent an image of a pterosaur rostrum to a colleague and showed him where 
to find the naris 'that shouldn't be there'. He responded by saying that all he 
saw was 'a hole in the rostrum with matrix coming through'. I said, that's the 
naris! He wouldn't believe his own eyes. The paradigm stopped him. What I offer 
is an observation and what I invite is for others to make their own 
observations. And send me the results!!

This same technique resulted in
the finding of a skull in a specimen of juvenile *Pterodaustro* which,
according to the people who have studied it first hand, doesn't exist. 

>>>>> Some subtleties come through that can't ordinarily been seen. The 
>>>>> slightest impressions left in the rock when the bone is gone. That too, 
>>>>> is called a 'fossil. '

If when
every bone is present as physcial material, there are hidden impressions that
only Dave Peters has ever reported, it is neccessary to corroborate this data
by independant means. So far all independant observations made on the list or
even in press (Chris Bennett wrote a response in _Prehistoric Times_ to Dave
Peters' *Avgodectes* paper which entirely contradicts his claims). 

>>>>>>> Did Chris provide an alternative drawing? Don't recall seeing it. It's 
>>>>>>> easy to dismiss claims with the sweep of a pen. Harder to establish new 
>>>>>>> ones. In the last  issue of Prehistoric Times I gave Chris credit for 
>>>>>>> finding some errors, but also exposed some errors of his, all without 
>>>>>>> resorting to name calling or making disparaging remarks.

How can you expect to discover anything new if you don't stick your neck out 
once in awhile? I'm not afraid of making errors (obviously). Every error brings 
one closer to the truth. Isn't that what it's all about?

I think so.

<Note that the rostrum shows no shortening whatsoever.>

  This is irrelevant, actually, as positive allometry of the snout and negative
allometry of the non-snout cranium are typical among vertebrates. 

>>>>>> All observations are relevant. 

<Your examples of gharials and cranes unfortunately slipped back into
archosaurs, which are born cuter than most, as noted earlier.>

  Again, this statement begs for an objective cuteness scale -- which is, I
beleive, an oxymoron. Furthermore, since this condition appears in fish and
mammals, it is not "back into archosaurs." Using pterosaurs and personal
subjective interpretation of slabs does not change this.

>>>> You are welcome to find the skull, and all the other little bits and 
>>>> pieces in both Chinese eggs. You can use my work as a guide or ignore it. 
>>>> This is a treasure hunt  and if you don't like the way I unearth treasure, 
>>>> then do it your own way. This is only an offering. Not a command. When you 
>>>> talk about the Photoshop technique, it's like you're yelling: "Stop using 
>>>> voodoo!"

Just enjoy the chase...

<Chiappe's decision might have been subjective ( personally, I think he
measured everything that could be measured),>

  [including the absence of a skull...]

>>>> You might be confusing the egg [with skull] with the juvenile [seemingly 
>>>> without a skull]. Either way, the skulls match and are closing in on adult 
>>>> proportions. [Something of a confirmation of the technique, actually.]

  Rather juvenile in the archosaur sense, or rather juvenile in the really
tirangular, *Cosesaurus*/*Megalancosaurus* Avecephala sense? 

>>>>>  Well, they are all related, but they're not the only diapsid clade with 
>>>>> an orbit larger than the rostrum in adult forms.

And, have you
accounted for fracturing, distortion in crushing a 3D skull into a flat bone on
deforming dolomitic rock?

>>>>> Yes. Now you're grasping at straws. It has been confirmed. All related 
>>>>> forms have the same skull proportions.

  The narrow vs. broad chord wings of *Sordes* have been broadly contended in
print, actually. Dave is simply siding with one position using this technique.

>>>>>> References, please. I'm not aware of any but my own paper on the subject 
>>>>>> that takes that stand. Chatterjee's recent opus did not consider the 
>>>>>> 'narrow to the elbows' model at all, and that, I think, is the latest 
>>>>>> reference.

This is not truly to argue over whether it had a narrow vs a broad chord,
especially when one would offer that the skeleton would shift AFTER the skin
had degraded into the fossilized substrate without leaving impressions of the
limbs in their original positions, or that the tissues would become loosened
and move about during this process as if the skin were so easily detachable
during decomp. This is simply illogical. Other ID's have not been substantiated
by any other than the aforementioned contended technique, which has been
objected to in print. This is substantial enough. However, until this "new"
data of Dave's is itself published and if or when the technique is proven,
objections can be raised then. 

>>>>>>  There's a Catch-22 here. Can't publish cause the technique is bad. 
>>>>>> Can't argue the technique cause it ain't published.

"Release the hounds!"

Nice talking to you.