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

RE: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes

> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:32:04 +0100
> From: heinrich.mallison@googlemail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> oh, and care to explain which OTHER "brand" was established by
> repetition? Can you name even ONE?????? a single one?????
 I think even NIKE's "just do it" is patented by more than repetition.

> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:55 +0000
> From: mike@indexdata.com
> To: GSP1954@aol.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> Dear GSP1954@aol.com,
> Would it really have killed you to refer to Anthony Docimo by this name?
> Your sincerely, mike@indexdata.com
 I appreciate the kind thoughts behind it...but I'd rather not risk anyone dying
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:56:23 -0400
> From: GSP1954@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> In a message dated 3/18/11 6:43:22 AM, mike@indexdata.com writes:
> 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.
 You mean if you and I draw the same T.rex leg bones, they will somehow be 
different sizes?  that doesn't make sense.

> And as I keep saying, one does not do their own career good by not coming
> up with a distincitive look.
 I thought the goal was scientific accuracy.
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:26:11 -0400
> From: GSP1954@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
> Having just replied to the kind of query that is appropriate, here is one
> of the sort I object to. That's because keenir@hotmail.com repeatedly
> misrepresents what I said even when it is plain as day that he is not actually
> responding to what I said, but to what he thinks I said. It begins right at 
> the
> start.
> In a message dated 3/17/11 11:52:55 PM, keenir@hotmail.com writes:
> I said "having different artists pose their skeletons in the same manner
> is not scientific and is misleading."
> Immediately after that statement keenir@hotmail.com inserts "Really?
> Just so I can be sure - you're the same Greg Paul who wrote _Predatory
> Dinosaurs of the World_ with all the skeletons in the same pose, right?
> "
> Aside from the snarky tone, keenir@hotmail.com is making
 what snarky tone?  you think Keenir is my real name?  nope, I'm using a name 
from a Robert Sawyer book; I know other people whose emails are words or 
phrases; and as I said, I know a Greg Paul who didn't write that earlier book.
> I said that "the point here is that for items to be truly comparable they
> have to be consistently produced in methodology and accuracy, and basically
> from the same source."
> Immediately after that statement keenir@hotmail.com inserts "So in other
> words, you [GP] should be the only dino illustrator until you get too old to
> hold a pencil?"
> Note what keenir@hotmail.com did here. It is a common tactic (often used by
> biased media reporters) of setting up a false argument by making a false
> and remarkably outlandish claim. I did not come close to saying that I should
> be the only one doing dinoskeletons. I would never do that. All I said was
> that for a given set of skeletons to be comparable that have to be done by
> one person. Say four equally skilled paleoartists each do their own sets of
> dinosaur skeletons. They will not be fully cross comparable with one another.
> That means if a given author wants all the skeletons they use in a single
> venue to be as cross comparable as possible, then he or she of course needs
> to go to a single source who produces skeletons of consistent quality
 Then what's the point of scientific publications telling the measurements of 
archosaur limb bones and skull bones?   Will the measurements be the same for 
anyone who reads the article as a guide to drawing what was found?
 If the answer to that is "yes," then you have disqualified your own statement.
> (a
> comparable situation would be that if a modeler wants a truly comparable set 
> of
> 1/48 Spitfires from Mark 1-22 he would have to limit himself to just one
> high quality producer). If the artist prefers to use skeletons from a bunch of
> artists by all means do so, just realize they will not be cross comparable
> (same if one builds a bunch of Spitfires from different companies). It is
> true that I am the only one that has done a skeleton for nearly every dinosaur
> that one can be done for (according to my criteria) so I hope scientists
> come to me, but if others want to do the work to build up a comparable set
> then get out there and do it.
 if three people build Spitfires of a single make and model, adhering tightly 
to the rules and guidelines, all three will end up making Spitfires of the same 
make and model.