[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. 


>>> 

Pleased indeed!

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. 

Good luck! 

David Peters