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

Re: Caudipteryx suffered from osteoarthritis



But really, if somone described arthritis in a squirrel, and said it
was a bird, they're get canned. And considering that there was not so
long ago support for "haemeothermia" uniting birds and mammals, it'd
be /equally/ scientifically valid as what they're doing. (well,
nearly).


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>   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: 
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/lingham-soliars-review-of-chinese-fossil-preservation/
>  ). 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.
>
> 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: 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*.
>



-- 
Robert J. Schenck
Kingsborough Community College
Physical Sciences Department
S332 ph# 718-368-5792
Follow Me on Twitter: @Schenck
KCC Class Schedule on Google Calendar: http://tinyurl.com/mqwlcy