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

Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes



On 18 March 2011 16:11, Scott Hartman <skeletaldrawing@gmail.com> wrote:
>  It would be unacceptable for a paleontologist to publish a
>> paper in which he or she illustrated or figured bones without indicating
>> their specimen numbers, especially when multiple individuals are known for
>> that taxon.  Why should it be any different for scientific skeletal
>> restorations.  Maybe this could be adopted  as a convention by serious
>> artists.
>
> This is something I've actually been doing for some time (e.g.:
> http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/pages/jeholornis.html )
>
> I was not the sole innovator for that idea either; I picked up the
> idea of a rigorous inset from Russell Hawley at the Tate Museum, and
> then expanded on some of the conventions, including specimen
> description.  Probably I should take it further (although visual and
> textual representation of multiple specimens would take up a lot of
> room, so it may not be practical for some uses).

In a similar vein, let me draw attention to my (2009:fig. 7)
Brachiosaurus altithorax reconstruction
        
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/brachio/images/figures/Taylor-SVP-Brachiosaurus-fig7-reconstruction-R3.jpeg
which distinguished between material from the holotype, material from
referred specimens, and material inferred from related taxa.  The full
caption runs as follows:

FIGURE 7. Skeletal reconstruction of Brachiosaurus altithorax. White
bones represent the elements of the holotype FMNH P 25107. Light grey
bones represent material referred to B. altithorax: the Felch Quarry
skull USNM 5730, the cervical vertebrae BYU 12866 (C?5) and BYU 12867
(C?10), the "Ultrasauros" scapulocoracoid BYU 9462, the Potter Creek
left humerus USNM 21903, left radius and right metacarpal III BYU
4744, and the left metacarpal II OMNH 01138. Dark grey bones modified
from Paul's (1988) reconstruction of Giraffatitan brancai. Scale bar
equals 2 m.

I strongly agree that these distinctions are very important to make,
as is the proper citation of specimen numbers, and attribution of
prior work that is used in executing the new reconstruction.