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

RE: Reinterpretation of Samrukia as a pterosaur



  Note sure if this applies. He'll be referring to the other authors first as 
the original nominative individuals. Since his intention is to refer to someone 
else as the authors, and his lack of any form nominating a taxon, this should 
at least be some consideration. Even so, yeah, it's still kinda bad to be 
referring to a taxon, and try to reassign it, before the original publication 
has been published in print. The editors should have caught _that_.

  Oh, and yet another reason to not reveal or discuss papers not in print.

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, 15 Nov 2011 08:59:38 -0500
> From: martyniuk@gmail.com
> To: augustoharo@gmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Reinterpretation of Samrukia as a pterosaur
>
> The original "Samrukia nessovi" paper is still listed as in press on
> the Biology Letters web site.
> http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/03/rsbl.2011.0683
>
> If this is the case, and Buffetaut's paper appears in print first, he
> will have scooped Naish et al. in formally naming this species.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Augusto Haro <augustoharo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Samrukia nessovi, from the Late Cretaceous of Kazakhstan: A large
> > pterosaur, not a giant bird
> > Eric Buffetaut,
> >
> > Abstract
> > Samrukia nessovi was described as a giant bird on the basis of a pair
> > of mandibular rami from the Late Cretaceous of Kazakhstan. Anatomical
> > comparison shows that the specimen bears no distinctive avian
> > characters, and that its purported autapomorphies, as well as all its
> > other characters, are in fact well-known pterosaurian features. The
> > published phylogenetic analysis placing Samrukia within Aves is flawed
> > because it did not include pterosaurs. Samrukia nessovi is clearly a
> > large pterosaur, not a giant bird.
> >
> > Keywords: Samrukia; Aves; Pterosauria; Kazakhstan; Late Cretaceous
> >
> > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753396911000577
> >