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

Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]

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!

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.

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!!

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 "Sue."

I was never "stopped" either, I just haven't had much time at all lately to go through everything and refute it.

Mike Hanson
Email: mhanson54@comcast.net
Website (The Pterosauria): http://www.archosauria.org/pterosauria/
Dinosauricon Art Gallery: http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=mike