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

RE: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod



  Durnit. Caught me. I think I rushed the sentence, and my proofing on it tried 
to catch the spelling instead of keeping the clauses legible. Care to point out 
the rest of the "gobbledegook"?

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:31:44 -0800
> From: turtlecroc@yahoo.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Alamosaurus as biggest North American sauropod
>
> --- On Thu, 12/8/11, Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>
> >
> > > I prefer the use of type specimen comparison over
> > > any other process so far used to "assess" the
> > > _reasonableness_ of a "genus"'s validity, including but
> > > not limited to ontogeny, stratigraphic and geographic
> > > distribution.
> >
> > Right. Pick one. Only idiots would try to assess all the
> > available data.
>
> Are you being facetious/condescending here, I assume..?
> Data is usually pretty limited in palaeontology so the
> objective should be to assess all of it, and then find
> some more to assess.
>
> Paul P.
>
> >
> > >Morphologic comparison, placed first and foremost,
> > assures us that degree of unique features can affirm
> > characters distinguishing organisms.
>
> That one however makes my brain hurt.
>
>
>