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

Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

 The paper has been criticised, if not in print yet, largely due to
 the assumption that if you create a histological lineage and compare
 it to a created morphologic lineage, you will somehow have only one
 lineage (ignoring the potential "monkey-wrench" in this theory that
 two distinct taxa may have identical histological and morphological
 ontogenies). I and other have commented on Horner's long-held
 "belief" --held at least as far back as "The Complete T. rex" -- that
 end-Cretaceous dinosaur diversity was diminishing. When you assess
 this "belief" in connection with nomenclatural practices increasing
 the recognition of named taxa in the Maastrichtian relative to the
 Campanian, one may get a sense that taxic reduction was _not_ so
 marked, if present at all. Horner has argued against the catastrophic
 theory of the demise of nonavian dinosaurs, and instead for a
 gradualistic termination. In seeming keeping with this, reducing
 recognized nomenclatural entities would create a perceived reduction
 in taxic diversity, and prompt Horner's theory to the fore. Thus I
 would argue that this is a "preconcieved theory" predating the papers
 that Horner has been a part of releasing attempting to support
 reasons for lumping taxa.

Does that mean it's wrong?

 taxic reductionism

_Please_ stop making terms up.

I mean, you know what "reductionism" without a modifier means, don't you?

 Adding in the theory that stratigraphy can inform on taxonomy simply
 muddles the mixture, as biostratigraphy continues to to run rampant
 in some circles while it remains a statistical non-science.

If you had seen this year's SVP meeting talks by John Scannella and Denver Fowler, you'd know that they propose _anagenesis_ as an explanation for much of the diversity that isn't ontogenetic -- and you'd know that they don't merely speculate on that, they have high-resolution stratigraphic data from many sites to support this.

So why don't you simply W4tP?

I can't go into details because they aren't in the abstract and Denver hasn't mentioned them himself. I suppose this means they have been submitted for publication.

 Instead, it would be handled in a "future paper," which is idiotic

Have you tried publishing a monograph lately? Especially at the very beginning of your career, when your worth is measured by your impact factor?

To expect them to publish everything at once, _that's_ idiotic.