[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Concavenator corcovatus, a new humped carcharodontosaurid from Las Hoyas
Don't agree, supplementary info is just that, not, imho the place for
detailed discussions of theoretical aspects that should be the part of a
main publication, and that is what this needs to be.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:03 AM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Concavenator corcovatus, a new humped carcharodontosaurid from
(Leaving aside idealist blather to the effect that if what you need to
say won't fit in a Nature paper you should publish it somewhere it
does fit ...)
There was plenty of space -- as much as they needed -- in the
supplementary information. I don't think
not-enough-space-to-mention-it washes as an excuse.
On 10 September 2010 16:00, ralphchapman <email@example.com> wrote:
> Look guys - it's a Nature paper, there is no room for discussion of the
> sort you want in that journal or its corresponding one Science. It is a
> challenge to take a paper that says anything and cut it down to the size
> are restricted to - it took more than 15 versions to finally do it for the
> one I wrote. No doubt this will be taken up in spades in the follow up,
> expanded description they will publish on this but they had room for the
> basic description and their interpretation and hardly that. These are
> excellent paleontologists and I'm sure Pepelu and the guys have put in
> hours thinking about all the possible alternatives and that they will
> discuss them in that follow up. Go ahead and discuss and expand the
> possibilities on the list as it is exciting but do not crap on the authors
> who had to deal with the inhumane word counts you have to deal with in
> publishing in those two journals.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:05 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Concavenator corcovatus, a new humped carcharodontosaurid
> Las Hoyas
> Much of this is probably redundant now, given the reevaluations by Mickey
> and Darren, but I figure I should chime in anyway.
> --- On Thu, 9/9/10, David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Sometimes it reads just like Jura wants these to be
>> anything else more than quill knobs. ;-)
> All I ask for is some skepticism when it comes to out of the ordinary
> like this. It's really nothing more than being a good scientist. I don't
> know why everyone else seems to be so willing to accept these things
>> Besides, I don't agree the abstract is overly enthusiastic.
>> Quite the opposite. To me reads it reads like "they look
>> like quill knobs, walk like quill knobs, quack like quill
>> knobs -- surely we've overlooked something???".
> It sounds like you were reading a different abstract than I. The authors
> state quite clearly in the text (of both the abstract and the actual
> that they are interpreting these structures as quill knobs. No possible
> alternatives were ever proposed; not even in the supplementary material.
> --- On Thu, 9/9/10, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hmmm... I really don't see why the idea of quill knobs in a
> carcharodontosaur is so controversial. We already know that
> had them. _Velociraptor_ couldn't fly, and there's no compelling evidence
> that it evolved from flighted ancestors. So _Velociraptor_ tells us that
> the presence of quill knobs cannot be assumed to indicate flight ability.
> _Concavenator_ tells us that quill knobs can exist in non-maniraptorans.
> What I don't understand is why extraordinary finds like this seem to get a
> free ride on this list. If a discovery pops up that causes us to question
> what we thought, the first thing we should do is question that discovery.
> it passes that test then we should look into reworking what we thought.
> --- On Thu, 9/9/10, Phillip Bigelow <email@example.com> wrote:
>> The big question is, if those aren't quill knobs, then what
>> are they?
>> Pathology (infection)?
>> Developmental abnormality?
>> Genetic mutation?
>> Did the authors address these alternatives?
> All good possible alternatives. As it stands right now, intermmuscular
> seem to be the most likely culprit. In answer to your question, though, no
> the authors did not even seem to consider any alternatives. As I stated on
> Tet Zoo, this might have had something to do with page limits in Nature,
> the greater focus on the elongated two presacrals, but given that it was
> addressed at all in the supplementary material makes me think that the
> authors really did just go with their first guess on this.