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

RE: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates



Many universities, most of them European, embargo their dissertations. These 
are often treated as formal and published works which can be cited, but tend 
not to be because other nations (the US is an example) treat their 
dissertations more openly, but do NOT consider them published. They are grey 
literature, and typically do not carry embargoes on their contents. I am thus 
in a double-blind: Either I must work from material that even interested 
parties may not be able to see, no matter how polite they are to me or my 
governing university, or I work from material that is available, but is taboo 
to cite because it lacks (say) peer review. That the work reanalyzes material 
from a dissertation is irrelevant: Such material should be published on first 
to create a citable framework which itself can be examined. I would be curious 
if the work in question (Houssaye & Bardet) could have performed their work 
based solely on the published discussion, or by working from the material 
directly, and never reference the dissertation? If so, then using the 
dissertation as a source becomes pointless.

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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:28:24 +0200
> From: j.falconnet@gmail.com
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: bh480@scn.org; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
>
> ... but you obviously didn't read the paper. If you had had done so, you
> would have see that the authors reanalyzed the rib sections available in
> Sheldon's PhD (1995) and partly published later (Sheldon, 1997; Sheldon
> & Bell, 1998). Hence the citation of Sheldon's original work (provided
> by the author, btw). Also, even if the abstract is quite ambiguous
> ("available in Sheldon's PhD thesis" referring to the reanalysis or rib
> sections ?), the actual paper is not.
>
> I don't see any problem in reusing data available in a PhD dissertation.
> There is no nomenclatural, taxonomical, or moral issue here. Should we
> refrain from using measurements from dissertations because they are not
> published ? Reference to unpublished reports regarding quarries,
> borehole, or geological exploration in general is very common in local
> geology, for instance (e.g., BRGM for France, GSA for US, ...).
>
> Cordially,
> Jocelyn
>
> Le 14/06/2011 20:40, Jaime Headden a écrit :
> > I call foul. The paper is citing a thesis for a source, and not just that 
> > but it's in the ABSTRACT, too.
> >
> > 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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:56:22 -0400
> >> From: bh480@scn.org
> >> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> >> Subject: Mosasaur bone structure and growth rates
> >>
> >> From: Ben Creisler
> >> bh480@scn.org
> >>
> >> Another new paper about mosasaurs:
> >>
> >> ALEXANDRA HOUSSAYE& NATHALIE BARDET (2011)
> >> Rib and vertebral micro-anatomical characteristics of hydropelvic
> >> mosasauroids.
> >> Lethaia (advance online publication)
> >> DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x
> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1502-3931.2011.00273.x/abstract
> >>
> >> Mosasauroids are squamates secondarily adapted to an aquatic life that
> >> dominated the sea during the Late Cretaceous. Mosasauroids display distinct
> >> types of morphologies illustrating steps in the adaptation of this lineage
> >> to increasing obligatory habits. Hydropelvic mosasauroids (sensu Caldwell&
> >> Palci) were the most highly adapted to an open-sea environment. Contrary to
> >> plesiopelvic forms, they are considered to have relied on a hydrodynamic,
> >> rather than hydrostatic buoyancy and body trim control strategies. This led
> >> previous authors to consider that these taxa would favour bone lightening
> >> (osteoporotic-like condition) rather than bone mass increase. Although an
> >> osteoporotic-like state was indeed described in Clidastes and Tylosaurus,
> >> bone mass increase was reported in Platecarpus. As a matter of fact, the
> >> new analysis of vertebral thin sections of various taxa combined with the
> >> reanalysis of the rib sections available in Sheldon’s PhD thesis in a
> >> micro-anatomical perspective reveals the absence of both bone mass increase
> >> and bone lightening in these organisms. These taxa in fact display a
> >> vertebral micro-anatomy much peculiar within squamates. It
> >> characteristically corresponds to a true network of thin trabeculae whose
> >> tightness varies between taxa, probably as a result of both species and
> >> individual size differences, particularly the latter. In addition, analysis
> >> of the pattern of vascularization as observed in hydropelvic mosasauroids,
> >> which is unique amongst squamates, suggests that large size in hydropelvic
> >> mosasauroids would mainly rely on protracted rather than faster growth
> >> rates.
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> >> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>