[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]
Using Photoshop to go over the fossil is useful as a reference, but it
is not the only way to examine a specimen, nor is it the most precise
method of examining a fossil. The best way to examine a fossil is to
have the actual thing in front of you, so that you can actually see the
details in three dimensions and examine it with different lighting from
different angles. Using a photo is not entirely reliable, it may have
been taken at an angle, the lighting might create illusions (much like
the face and pyramids on Mars), parts of the specimen may be obscured by
shadow, stains may appear to be bones, and there are bound to be many
artifacts from the printing process, but because of the conditions under
which the photo was taken, one may see many things that are not there.
Perhaps this is a good why when a new specimen or species is being
described, the describer must have been able to observe the specimen
firsthand. Now, I have used Peters's method for reference, but in no
instance have I ever found any the bizarre features he has seen in these
specimens, I've even tried to repeat his method as much as possible.
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!
Wow! Looks like you took everything I said completely out of context.
There is indeed some kind of an an anomaly on the maxilla of
Boreopterus, but it is unlikely that is in an external naris. It could
be a depression the matrix had not been removed from, in could have been
some kind of pathology from a wound or infection, perhaps it came from
decomposition. It cannot be a naris because it is completely enclosed by
the maxilla with no sutures connecting to it. This is not seen in any
other vertebrate. A pathological origin is probably most likely, and
there are other examples within the fossil record of such pathologies, a
good one would be the holes in the dentary, angular, and surangular of
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!!
I was never "stopped" either, I just haven't had much time at all lately
to go through everything and refute it.
Website (The Pterosauria): http://www.archosauria.org/pterosauria/
Dinosauricon Art Gallery: http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=mike