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

RE: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis

  It is not the reviewers' job to actually perform science for the authors, or 
be the one's to make sure the authors are performing science when commenting on 
a philosophical nature about which of of what I called "the golden line" a 
taxon is on. Whether the authors call *Caudipteryx zoui* a bird is not, I 
think, up to scientific purview, although it can be and should be responded to 
in the fullness of the author's conclusions. This is one of the reasons I 
prefer tackling work of authors like Lingham-Soliar, who's analysis and 
methodology are certainly fully within the scientific purview, and thus I can 
make these kind of sweeping arguments (as I did here: 
 ). The definition for a undefined entity "bird" should not be one of those 
things up for review, though the tendency of the authors to ignore relevant 
papers can be ... yet no one goes out in print to call them on their s**t. When 
someone does, this might actually be a legitimate claim against their "process."

  As for sentence length, I've seen longer. Some literature blokes seem to 
enjoy trying to outdo one another in forming incredibly long sentences. This 
one just turned out that way because I was using perentheses and long dashes to 
break the sentence up.


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"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 

> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:43:11 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: 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*.