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

Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes

What you're saying here is, essentially:

do not compare my recons to those of others who used the same data for
the same specimens.

Why? Are you afraid people will find mistakes in yours?

Claiming Mike was suggesting using Scott's reconstruction of one
species and yours of another species is pretty stupid, because it is
an obvious strawman argument: Mike made it pretty clear that only ONE
variable should vary, and different species would be a second

Furthermore, suggesting that comparisons are only practical within one
paper (printing side by side) is pretty ridiculous, too. It's not like
there is no way of copying one reconstruction from one paper and
another from another paper, and comparing them. Gee, hasn't someone
done just that for a dinosaur, recently, and found yours lacking in
Don't go telling me I was incapable of doing what I went and did and
got published in a pretty neat journal :p

>> If the intent is to be able
> to cross compare all the skeletons of different taxa within a publication or
> a given figure, then they need to be from one source.

Indeed - but we are talking about finding the artist-induced error,
and for that we compare the SAME taxon across SEVERAL sources - is
that really beyond you?

by now *slightly* exasperated by your intentional misunderstandings:
Heinrich Mallison

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM,  <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 3/18/11 6:43:22 AM, mike@indexdata.com writes:
> << One of the first things you learn as a scientist designing
> experiments is to change only one variable at a time.  If you compare
> (say) Greg's and Scott's Apatosaurus louisae reconstructions and both
> are in the same pose, then you know that the differences you see are
> between the two interpretations of the anatomy; whereas if you compare
> Greg's Apato with someone else's in a completely different pose, the
> the difference you see could be due to the different pose OR the
> different artist.
>  >>
> This argument has some leg's but in the end does not work out. Here's the
> problem. It is relatively rare for skeletal restorations of the same taxon by
> more than one artist to appear in the same publication. So such direct
> comparisons, although not entirely useless, are not the highest priority. It 
> is
> much more frequent for a single publication, even a single figure, to have a
> bunch of skeletons, each of a different taxon. If the intent is to be able
> to cross compare all the skeletons of different taxa within a publication or
> a given figure, then they need to be from one source. An example would be a
> paper on tyrannosaur taxonomy that compares the skeletons of many or all
> the species they are known for. Using my skeleton of T. rex and Scott's of T.
> bataar would be a bad idea. Better to use either his skeletons of the two
> beasties or mine of the two.  Because cross comparisons between taxa are much
> more common than cross comparisons between artists of the same taxon then it
> is best to avoid the false illusion of comparibility by having different
> artists use the same pose.
> And as I keep saying, one does not do their own career good by not coming
> up with a distincitive look.
> G Paul</HTML>