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

Re: No substitute for seeing a specimen: Hone blog

I suspect that the problem, Mr. Peters, is not the issue of resolution in 
tracing a camera lucida projection vs. tracing a  photograph. Nor seeing a  
fossil firsthand vs. in reproduction.

As you wrote here:

>tracing a photograph can provide a magnitude more data than a camera lucida 
>can. It's easy to get lost in the chaos of similar-looking features unless you 
>have a system of graphically separating layers of crushed material and this is 
>where >the photograph trumps the camera lucida, IMHO.

> David Peters
> St. Louis

This seems to suggest that you prefer the techinque that produces "more data" 
rather than accurate, repeatable, and distinct data. The important distinction, 
in my mind, is not which technique produces more features, but which produces 
them accurately and with reliable support. To be blunt, Mr. Peters, your 
methods have led you to suggest features in fossils such as fishing lures, 
vampiric fangs, and scattered clusters of embryos that no one else can see. 
Those among us that prefer more solid inferences may look at your more 
idiosyncratic findings as akin to seeing images in clouds.

This may be why Dr. Hone rejected your offer.

But here's to your competitive spirit!