[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
re: The Pterosaur.net blog and Flugsaurier 2010
Mark W. wrote:
In addition, some DMLers will be pleased to know that Pterosaur.net is
undergoing revision to become fully cited and referenced. We're not aiming to
produce a comprehensive list of all pterosaur literature or anything, but, over
the coming months, our various posts and essays should be complemented with
pointers to relevant literature.
Cautionary note: Since various references often disagree with one another
(after all, these ARE pterosaurs), it would be best to show real evidence
supporting any reconstructions and configurations you propose. Cited references
may speak the truth, but they also may not. Lots of references still report
that birds are pseudosuchians, for instance.
And, again, unless you intend to show both sides of an argument, be consistent
with words and pictures. Don't say one thing and show or say another.
You have the chance to clear things up, once and for all. Do well!
This line scares me: "We're not aiming to produce a comprehensive list of all
pterosaur literature or anything."
That's fine. But don't do what Hone and Benton (2008) did when they claimed to
be testing alternate hypotheses of pterosaur origins, but did so by eliminating
the only alternate candidates from testing and all references to those
candidates. Again, that would be like saying one thing and doing another.