[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
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
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
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 :-)