[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs
The mistake IMHO is with Wu et al. who scored Miodentosaurus as
subthecodont when the lingual dentary is just as high as the labial
That's actually fairly common in taxa with subthecodont tooth
implantation. It's not part of the definition, AFAIK.
Interdental plates cannot be verified in either taxa given
the images presented. Which author was hedging? We'll have to leave
this one for later. It is also very possible, Vancleavea arrived at
(or never lost) tooth dividers independently. After all, it's not far
from Helveticosaurus. Not sure what it's status is, but given such
big teeth, evolution might have added some support there.
Not every wall between two alveoli is an interdental plate! We (and
sphenacodontians in general) are thecodont (as opposed to aulacodont),
yet lack any trace of interdental plates.
In the meantime, if Vancleavea is indeed an archosauriform, don't you
wonder where the antorbital fenestra and the temporal fenestrae
disappeared to (without a trace)?
It's normal for fenestrae, when they disappear, to leave no trace. ~:-|
Where's the mandibular fenestra?
Perhaps ask *Tyrannosaurus*.
Why is the orbit in the front half of the skull?
For the same reason why the mandibular fenestra is missing, I suppose:
to provide more attachment space for strong jaw muscles to operate those
Then remember, "the
apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree" which is another way of
saying evolution works in small incremental steps.
Not all of which are necessarily 1) preserved and 2) discovered as of
I judge referees
the same way. If they have nothing "nice" to say about several months
worth of work, then they probably have a personal agenda. The good
ones weigh the good against the bad.
The comments by referees _never_ spend a lot of space on listing the
advantages of a manuscript. "It's good and interesting, let it through"
is hard to say in 100 words. Listing problems and what to do about them,
however, requires lots of space. Accusations of personal agendae are,
consequently, rather laughable.
That you've invested several months of work is _normal_ and _expected_.
If you hadn't invested that much, you shouldn't have submitted in the
first place, except if the manuscript is about a nomenclatural
correction or something similarly cheap (in short: not science). _I
don't understand why you expect to be praised for merely not failing._
Have you never noticed how rare the people are who publish more than
about five papers per year on average, and that with the help of several
coauthors on almost every one of them?
Besides, it's not just in Soviet Russia that referees judge you.