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

Re: Impact Factor confirms Nature is top research journal



Mickey, very interesting data. Thanks for looking into that.

Mary, I'm not arguing for people publishing in personal newsletters
and such. I strongly feel that all published work should be put
through a rigorous peer-review process. Along those lines Its
certainly better to be publishing in Science or Nature than a personal
newsletter. HOWEVER, I don't think that Science or Nature should be
held up as the standard bearer for Vertebrate Paleontology research
for the very point illustrated by Mickey's review, these pubs are
often not followed up but full descriptions that form the basis for
all the work vertebrate paleontologists do. Now, in terms of
publishing research of broader implications (biogeography,
biomechanics, etc...) Science and Nature are fine. But I think
vertebrate paleontologists should stop naming taxa in these journals
unless they're already committed to following up with a full
description somewhere else.

Clint.

-
C. Aaroen Boyd
PhD Candidate
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
cab@mail.utexas.edu
www.stratfit.org


On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael
Mortimer<mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Clint Boyd wrote-
>
>> I wonder if anyone has every looked into how often the typically brief
>> taxonomic descriptions found in these journals are followed up with
>> full taxonomic descriptions by the same authors, and how many either
>> were never fully described or were described years later by someone
>> else.
>
> Easy enough to find, for non-neornithine theropods anyway.  Note I only 
> included taxa which were first named in Nature, not those (like 
> Sinornithomimus) which were first announced in Nature but named elsewhere, 
> nor those (like Protarchaeopteryx) which were first named in obscure journals 
> then redescribed in Nature.  I didn't count instances like Shuvuuia, where 
> Chiappe (2002) did describe and illustrate more than was done in Nature, but 
> only in the context of a chapter describing all alvarezsaurids.  So while the 
> skull was effectively redescribed (as it was the only complete alvarezsaurid 
> skull known), comments on the postcrania are only mixed with descriptions of 
> other taxa or generalized alvarezsaurid description.  I also didn't include 
> Majungatholus, which is a theropod described as a pachycephalosaur in Nature, 
> which was later synonymized with Majungasaurus.  Majungasaurus was 
> redescribed in 2007 based mostly on new remains initially reported in 1998 in 
> Science.  So ... uh... I guess that taxon counts as a win for Science/Nature.
>
> Eoraptor
> Sereno, Forster, Rogers and Monetta, 1993. Primitive dinosaur skeleton from 
> Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature. 361, 64-66.
> Redescription in progress for over a decade for publication as a JVP 
> monograph.
>
> Baryonyx
> Charig and Milner, 1986. Baryonyx, a remarkable new theropod dinosaur. 
> Nature. 324, 359-361.
> Charig and Milner, 1997. Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the 
> Wealden of Surrey. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of London 
> (Geology). 53, 11-70.
>
> Giganotosaurus
> Coria and Salgado, 1995. A new giant carnivorous dinosaur from the Cretaceous 
> of Patagonia. Nature 377:224–226.
> Not redescribed yet except for the braincase in 2002 (Coria and Currie).
>
> Siamotyrannus.
> Buffetaut, Suteethorn and Tong, 1996. The earliest known tyrannosaur from the 
> Lower Cretaceous of Thailand. Nature 381(6584): 689-691.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Dilong
> Xu, Norell, Kuang, Wang, Zhao and Jia, 2004. Basal tyrannosauroids from China 
> and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids. Nature. 431, 680-684.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Guanlong
> Xu, Clark, Forster, Norell, Erickson, Eberth, Jia and Zhao, 2006. A basal 
> tyrannosauroid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China. Nature. 439, 715-718.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Juravenator
> Gohlich and Chiappe, 2006. A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic 
> Solnhofen archipelago. Nature. 440, 329-332.
> Gohlich, Tischlinger and Chiappe, 2006. Juravenator starki (Reptilia, 
> Theropoda) ein neuer Raubdinosaurier aus dem Oberjura der Sudlichen 
> Frankenalb (Suddeutschland): Skelettanatomie und Weichteilbefunde. 
> Archaeopteryx. 24, 1-26.
>
> Scipionyx
> Dal Sasso and Signore, 1998. Exceptional soft tissue preservation in a 
> theropod dinosaur from Italy. Nature. 392, 383-387.
> Described in depth in Signore's thesis, which isn't published yet.
>
> Pelecanimimus
> Perez-Moreno, Sanz, Buscalioni, Moratalla, Ortega and Rasskin-Gutman, 1994. A 
> unique multitoothed ornithomimosaur dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of 
> Spain. Nature. 370, 363-367.
> Redescribed in Perez-Moreno's unpublished thesis.
>
> Shuvuuia
> Chiappe, Norell and Clark, 1998. The skull of a relative of the stem-group 
> bird Mononykus. Nature. 392, 275-278.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Mononykus
> Perle, Norell, Chiappe and Clark, 1993. Flightless bird from the Cretaceous 
> of Mongolia. Nature. 362, 623-626.
> Perle, Chiappe, Barsbold, Clark and Norell, 1994. Skeletal morphology of 
> Mononykus olecranus (Theropoda: Avialae) from the Late Cretaceous of 
> Mongolia. American Museum Novitates. 3105, 1-29.
>
> Falcarius
> Kirkland, Zanno, Sampson, Clark and DeBlieux, 2005. A primitive 
> therizinosauroid dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Utah. Nature. 435, 
> 84-87.
> Not redescribed except for the forelimb (Zanno, 2006) and in Zanno's 
> unpublished thesis.
>
> Beipiaosaurus
> Xu, Tang and Wang 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumentary 
> structures in China. Nature. 399, 350-354.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Incisivosaurus
> Xu, Cheng, Wang and Chang, 2002. An unusual oviraptorosaurian dinosaur from 
> China. Nature. 419, 291-293.
> Balanoff, Xu, Kobayashi, Matsufune and Norell, 2009. Cranial osteology of the 
> theropod dinosaur Incisivosaurus gauthieri (Theropoda: Oviraptorosauria). 
> American Museum Novitates. 3651, 35 pp.
>
> Caudipteryx
> Ji, Currie, Norell and Ji, 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern 
> China. Nature. 393, 753-761.
> The type specimens haven't been redescribed, though Zhou et al. (2000) did 
> describe others in more depth.
>
> Gigantoraptor
> Xu, Tan, Wang, Zhao and Tan, 2007. A gigantic bird-like dinosaur from the 
> Late Cretaceous of China. Nature. 844-847.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Mei
> Xu and Norell, 2004. A new troodontid dinosaur from China with avian-like 
> sleeping posture. Nature. 431, 838-841.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Sinovenator
> Xu, Norell, Wang, Makovicky and Wu, 2002. A basal troodontid from the Early 
> Cretaceous of China. Nature. 415, 780-784.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Archaeornithoides
> Elzanowski and Wellnhofer, 1992. A new link between theropods and birds from 
> the Cretaceous of Mongolia. Nature. 359, 821-823.
> Elzanowski and Wellnhofer, 1993. Skull of Archaeornithoides from the Upper 
> Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Journal of Science. 293-A, 235-252.
>
> Buitreraptor
> Makovicky, Apesteguía and Agnolín, 2005. The earliest dromaeosaurid theropod 
> from South America. Nature. 437, 1007-1011.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Unenlagia
> Novas and Puerta, 1997. New evidence concerning avian origins from the Late 
> Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature. 387: 390-392.
> Not redescribed except the ilium by Novas (2004).
>
> Sinornithosaurus
> Xu, Wang and Wu, 1999. A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with filamentous integument 
> from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature. 401, 262-266.
> Not redescribed except for the skull (Xu and Wu, 2001) and the pes (Xu and 
> Wang, 2000).
>
> Microraptor
> Xu, Zhou and Wang, 2000. The smallest known non-avian theropod dinosaur. 
> Nature, 408, 705-708.
> The holotype has not been redescribed, though two other specimens were 
> monographed (Hwang et al., 2002).
>
> Microraptor gui
> Xu, Zhou, Wang, Kuang, Zhang and Du, 2003. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. 
> Nature. 421, 335-340.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Neuquenraptor
> Novas and Pol, 2005. New evidence on deinonychosaurian dinosaurs from the 
> Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature. 433, 858-861.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Epidexipteryx
> Zhang, Zhou, Xu, Wang and Sullivan, 2008. A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran 
> from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers. Nature. 455, 1105-1108.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Jeholornis
> Zhou and Zhang, 2002. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early 
> Cretaceous of China. Nature. 418, 405-409.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Confuciusornis dui
> Hou, Martin, Zhou, Feduccia and Zhang, 1999. A diapsid skull in a new species 
> of the primitive bird Confuciusornis. Nature. 399, 679-682.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Enantiornis
> Walker, 1981. New subclass of birds from the Cretaceous of South America. 
> Nature. 292, 51-53.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Vorona
> Forster, Chiappe, Sampson, Krause, 1996. The first Cretaceous bird from 
> Madagascar. Nature. 382, 532-534.
> Forster, Chiappe, Krause and Sampson, 2002. Vorona berivotrensis, a primitive 
> bird from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. 268-280. in Chiappe and Witmer 
> (eds.). Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. University of 
> California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
>
> Eoalulavis
> Sanz, Chiappe, Perez-Moreno, Buscalioni, Moratalla, Ortega and Poyato-Ariza, 
> 1996. An Early Cretaceous bird from Spain and its implications for the 
> evolution of avian flight. Nature. 382, 442-445.
> Sanz, Pérez-Moreno, Chiappe and Buscalioni, 2002. The Birds from the Lower 
> Cretaceous of Las Hoyas (Privince of Cuenca, Spain). pp 209-229. in Chiappe 
> and Witmer (eds.). Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. University 
> of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
>
> Nanantius
> Molnar, 1986. An enantiornithine bird from the Lower Cretaceous of 
> Queensland, Australia. Nature 322 736-738.
> Not redescribed.
>
> Apsaravis
> Norell and Clarke, 2001. Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. 
> Nature. 409, 181-184.
> Clarke and Norell, 2002. The morphology and phylogenetic position of 
> Apsaravis ukhaana from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Museum 
> Novitates. 3387, 1-46.
>
> So, of all 33 theropods described in Nature, 25 (76%) have yet to be fully 
> described in a published work.
> To be a bit more fair, of the 18 taxa described at least a decade ago, 13 
> (72%) have yet to be fully described. Hmm... doesn't really change the ratio.
> All of the taxa which have been redescribed have been done so by at least one 
> of the original authors.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
> The Theropod Database http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Home.html
>
>
>



-