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

Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]

and it is an ornithocheirid only in Wang and Zhou's eyes. (The same folks who said [...] that Dendrorynchoides was closest to Rhamphorhynchus).

OK, that was when everyone (including the peer-reviewers of Nature) thought the tail was real.

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.

I have Photoshop and Illustrator in the university, but I don't have a good photo... do you have one with higher resolution than what's published?

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.

Come on. Not everything that doesn't work is a metaphor.

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!

The question is whether what you trace exists outside of your mind. Everyone can trace the face on Mars.

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!!

So you observed a hole and interpreted it as the naris. Sounds obvious -- but isn't. After all, we're talking about a fossil. It can have all sorts of cracks, etchings, erosion features, distortions (bones being squished together on one side of the skull and pulled apart on the other, leaving a hole), even damage from preparation.

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. '

Why should some bones but not others disappear from an otherwise complete fossil _after fossilization_? On the other hand, when the skeleton gets disarticulated before embedding, why are there impressions of bones that were never there?

Did Chris provide an alternative drawing? Don't recall seeing it. It's easy to dismiss claims with the sweep of a pen.

A new drawing would be exactly that -- the sweep of a pen.

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!"

Where can I find a good photo? One where the carpals and tarsals are bigger than one pixel?

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.

That's the first, not the last, thing to consider when reconstructing any fossil. "Straws"? Please.

All related forms have the same skull proportions.

And the same ontogenetic trajectories of skull proportions :-)