[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?
_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.