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

Re: Australian dinosaur stampede "ornithopod" scenario challenged




--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Saint Abyssal <saint_abyssal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Saint Abyssal <saint_abyssal@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Australian dinosaur stampede "ornithopod" scenario challenged
> To: dannj@alphalink.com.au
> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:20 PM
> That was my first impression, to. Is
> there anything in the paper itself that justifies such harsh
> language? I'm especially curious about the accusation of
> data fabrication.
> 
> ~ Abyssal
> 
> --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
> > Subject: Re: Australian dinosaur stampede "ornithopod"
> scenario challenged
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 4:44 PM
> > On Wed, Nov 23rd, 2011 at 4:56 AM,
> > Ben Creisler <bscreisler@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Richard A. Thulborn (2011) 
> > > Lark Quarry revisited: a critique of methods used
> to
> > identify a large dinosaurian track-maker in
> > > the Winton Formation (Albian–Cenomanian),
> > western Queensland, Australia.
> > > Cretaceous Research (advance online publication)
> > > doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.11.006 
> > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667111001844
> > > 
> > > Abstract
> > > A remarkable assemblage of dinosaur tracks in
> the
> > Winton Formation (Albian–Cenomanian) at 
> > Lark
> > > Quarry, a site in western Queensland, Australia,
> has
> > long been regarded as evidence of a
> > > dinosaurian stampede. However, one recently
> published
> > study has claimed that existing
> > > interpretation of Lark Quarry is incorrect
> because the
> > largest track-maker at the site was
> > > misidentified and could not have played a pivotal
> role
> > in precipitating a stampede. That recent
> > > study has claimed that the largest track-maker
> was
> > actually an ornithopod (bipedal plant-eating
> > > dinosaur) similar or identical to
> Muttaburrasaurus and
> > not, as originally supposed, a theropod
> > > (predaceous dinosaur) resembling Allosaurus.
> Those
> > iconoclastic claims are examined here and 
> > are
> > > shown to be groundless: they are based partly on
> > misconceptions and partly on fabricated data
> > > which has been assessed uncritically using
> > quantitative measures of questionable significance.
> > > Such ill-founded claims do not
> > >  reveal any substantial flaw in the existing
> > interpretation of the Lark Quarry dinosaur tracks.
> > 
> > Those last two sentences are extraordinarily worded,
> and
> > would seem to border on libel. They give 
> > the impression of an emotional response, rather than
> a
> > scientific one. I'm surprised that specific 
> > wording made it through peer-review.
> > 
> > -- 
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> > 
> > Dann Pigdon
> > Spatial Data Analyst         
> >      Australian Dinosaurs
> > Melbourne, Australia         
> >      http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj
> >
> _____________________________________________________________
> > 
> >
>