[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?
Michael Erickson Wrote-
---Poor choice of words on my part. I still, however, feel that the
cervical fusion may be important somehow; Horner still should have at
touched upon it and attempted to provide some sort of alternative
explanation, in my opinion. This disregard of potentially (or, in some
cases, quite obviously) important data has been a consistency of
Horner's for a long time. Rather than pinpoint conflicting data and
explain it, debunk it, or find an alternative explanation, Horner simply
pretends it isn't there, which tends to get annoying.
**I find this amusing since I have yet to see any pausible
explanation or falsification of Horner's histologic evidence. When
"draco" supporters have been asked about this, little or no explanation
is provided or the subject is switched. From the SVP presentation and
the Horner and Goodwin paper it appears CLEAR that the squamosal nodes
in the specimens the Horner used are resorbing. Also, overwhelming dome
histo evidence to show that the juveniles/subadults have vascular spongy
interior while adults are "solid"
Also the whole discussion of "Fusion" is arbitrary. I read the Bakker
et al. 2006 paper and look at the figures and see clear suture lines,
which I intrepret as NOT fused. I have read other papers on the
difference between open/unfused, closed and fused. Brochu has his paper
on croc vert fusion and (IMO) fused vertebra show no suture lines.
And dismissing the drastic ontogenetic changes that a Cassowary goes
through is irresponsible. The fact that this animal retains juvenile
cranial characters up to 60% its adult size is certainly an interesting
Long and short is that those who want to see "draco" revived, need to
come up with a plausible and TESTABLE theory which refutes Horner and
Goodwin. Otherwise what this amounts to is hand-waving and opinions.
As Dr. Holtz put it a few months ago...."PUB UP OR SHUT UP". When, I
see some testable results in a peer reviewed journal then I'll put more
weight into some of this discussion. Until then, Horner and Goodwin
have done their job well which is why their paper was published.