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

Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis



 Rothschild is a respected osteo-pathologist and expert on diseases.
 [...]

 So it's not so much that _it_ got through review, as much as certain
 comments made in the paper (I've not read it, so only dealing with
 the remarks made so far from the summary) appear to defy the general
 consensus. In which case, it's about having the critics of an idea
 get their own fair shake, even if it tends to the more aggrieved or
 aggravating in tone or structure, such as Olson's bellicose comments
 in a review.

But... this is about science. Claims -- all claims, any claims -- must come with an assessment of the evidence, or they're a waste of dead trees. It's the unpaid job of reviewers to catch cases where the authors forgot to do that, and it's the unpaid job of authors to avoid such cases in the first place.

 The authors have a theory, which has been in print since at least
 2002 in Sylvia Czerkas' edited "journal" _Dinosaur Museum Journal_
 (vol. 1 and none more so far forthcoming), that "birdy dinosaurs"
 are, in fact, birds, but not dinosaurs, a controversial view leveled
 in Czerkas & Xu (2002) -- in said "journal;" a theory Xu Xing does
 not agree with -- where *Archaeovolans repatriatus* (formerly the
 avian half of the faked "Archaeoraptor" specimen, which had been also
 referred to *Yanornis yandica* and was actually commented upon by the
 author(s)) is assessed in regards to the avian dromaeosaurids,
 troodontids, and probably oviraptorosaurs.

Just for the record, this is one sentence.

Also, there is no *Yanornis yandica*. *yandica* is an alleged species of the alleged *Cathayornis*.