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

RE: Velociraptor scavenged azhdarchid pterosaur



  There is still a drive to consider publication submission to other journals: 
You have to do as little formatting as possible to allow your paper to go to as 
broad a range of journals as possible. This means one may still leave things 
out of the MS for the SOM instead in case the paper is rejected, or because the 
PLoS submission was not the first, and it's too involving to rewrite the paper 
to include the SOM. Videos in the SOM (as in Fowler's paper) are also seemingly 
not useable because there is a sense that this material is still meant for 
printing, unlike _Palaeontological Electronica_. I think it fair nonetheless to 
leave videos and animated images outside of the main paper and available on a 
caching site (like Dryad) instead of in the main bulk, but show stills in 
various positions in the paper itself in its place (linked to the SOM info, of 
course). I also know that, as with Mike Taylor, I will want to illustrate the 
**** out of any specimen I describe, in as many views as possible, intending 
publication in _PLoS ONE_ ... but it is still a new thing to many people. Give 
it time.

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: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:50:53 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Velociraptor scavenged azhdarchid pterosaur
>
> Not to repeat too much of what was said on the weekend...
>
> -- Not only some vultures, but also komodo dragons are known to swallow clean 
> bones. Bone is just protein with calcium phosphate around it; if your stomach 
> acid can take the calcium phosphate off, bone is just connective tissue.
>
> -- I don't know of any mammals that _swallow_ clean bones; but Tasmanian 
> devils chew entire animals up, leaving nothing. I've watched a documentary 
> where a Tassie devil eats a kangaroo tail like a sausage.
>
> -- On the topic of predators attacking large prey, flight give big eagles a 
> great advantage when it comes to attacking _very_ large prey like reindeer or 
> young cattle: the force of impact can drive their claws into the prey's 
> braincase, killing it. (Peregrine falcons similarly kill pigeons by the force 
> of impact, which happens at 80 km/h.) The only reason eagles don't do this 
> more often is that they can't fly away with large prey, they'd have to eat it 
> on the spot and expose themselves to larger predators/competitors. 
> *Harpagornis* was the exception that proved the rule. (And, moa braincases 
> being too small, it seems to have pierced the pelvis and damaged the kidneys 
> instead.)
>
> -- I finally had a look at the RPR paper. Fig. 8 ( 
> http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028964&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028964.g001#
>  will show you fig. 1, click on fig. 8 in the left sidebar) is amazing: the 
> first toe is positioned so that the claw tips converge, it is not strictly 
> parallel to the others or to the metatarsus -- and yet, it would be useless 
> for grasping a branch that wasn't at something like 30° to the metatarsus 
> (not much more, not much less). How much do the feet of *Microraptor* and 
> *Archaeopteryx* differ from this?
>
> -- That paper is the first to mention that *Velociraptor* was not in fact 
> heavier than the heaviest extant flying birds.
>
> -- ...What are the PLoS people thinking? Why does an online-only journal 
> differentiate between main text and supplementary text -- the latter of which 
> is only provided in the MS Word format it was submitted in?!? I mean, I have 
> Word, so I've read the delicious trouncing of the "climbing crampon" paper 
> and all the other hidden goodness, but in principle this arrangement strikes 
> me as stupid. There are no length restrictions! There is no paper to run out 
> of!