[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stegosaurus sexually dimorphic dermal plates
This looks like an interesting paper... but I find it practically unreadable.
That's because it contains some *40* supplementary items that aren't
included the PDF. In this case, there are 21 figures, 12 tables, 6 data
sets, and a script. The problem is that many of these "supporting"
items are referenced inline in the text.
Imagine turning in a term paper that cited figures, tables, and data
that weren't there, forcing the instructor to go look for them.
If a figure is important enough to include, then include it. If not, then
don't reference it. This seems like common sense. If it's something
that the author or editor thinks most people aren't going to want to
look at, e.g. a character matrix or detailed state descriptions, then
it can go at the end in an appendix. (anyone who's actually going to
read and understand a paper *will* want to look at that stuff.)
I realize that certain things, e.g. computer scripts, can't be included
in a PDF, or don't make sense there. But why should people have to
download a paper in 40 separate parts..? It's absurd. Sure I can
download all the pieces and combine them into a single file using
Acrobat, or print them all and staple them together (this little paper
would become 60+ pages by doing that). But if something is
relevant and important, why isn't it already in the PDF?
This seems to be, at least in part, an issue of quantity vs. quality.
The old way was for the author, and to some degree the editor, to
distill a project into a nice, tight little paper (in-house monographs
notwithstanding). Now apparently it's the reader's job to take all the
parts (S1 text, figures, tables, etc.), decide what's important, and
then piece that together into something readable.
Is it just me, or do others too have difficulty reading a paper that
constantly references figures that aren't present?
On Wed, 4/22/15, Ben Creisler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Subject: Stegosaurus sexually dimorphic dermal plates
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 1:12 PM
Ben Creisler email@example.com
New in PLoS ONE:
Evan Thomas Saitta (2015)
Evidence for Sexual Dimorphism in the Plated Dinosaur Stegosaurus
mjosi (Ornithischia, Stegosauria) from the Morrison Formation (Upper
Jurassic) of Western USA. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0123503.
Conclusive evidence for sexual dimorphism in non-avian dinosaurs has
been elusive. Here it is shown that dimorphism in the shape of the
dermal plates of Stegosaurus mjosi (Upper Jurassic, western USA) does
not result from non-sex-related individual, interspecific, or
ontogenetic variation and is most likely a sexually dimorphic feature.
One morph possessed wide, oval plates 45% larger in surface area than
the tall, narrow plates of the other morph. Intermediate morphologies
are lacking as principal component analysis supports marked size- and
shape-based dimorphism. In contrast, many non-sex-related individual
variations are expected to show intermediate morphologies. Taphonomy
of a new quarry in Montana (JRDI 5ES Quarry) shows that at least five
individuals were buried in a single horizon and were not brought
together by water or scavenger transportation. This new site
demonstrates co-existence, and possibly suggests sociality, between
two morphs that only show dimorphism in their plates. Without evidence
for niche partitioning, it is unlikely that the two morphs represent
different species. Histology of the new specimens in combination with
studies on previous specimens indicates that both morphs occur in
fully-grown individuals. Therefore, the dimorphism is not a result of
ontogenetic change. Furthermore, the two morphs of plates do not
simply come from different positions on the back of a single
individual. Plates from all positions on the body can be classified as
one of the two morphs, and previously discovered, isolated specimens
possess only one morph of plates. Based on the seemingly
display-oriented morphology of plates, female mate choice was likely
the driving evolutionary mechanism rather than male-male competition.
Dinosaur ornamentation possibly served similar functions to the
ornamentation of modern species. Comparisons to ornamentation involved
in sexual selection of extant species, such as the horns of bovids,
may be appropriate in predicting the function of some dinosaur
>From last December:
Stegosaurus plates study