[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: FW: ps: No substitute for seeing a specimen: Hone blog
Hasn't this challenge already basically been met in print, with diagrams
and lengthy discussion, by Chris Bennett?
Bennett, S. C. 2005. Pterosaur science or pterosaur fantasy? Prehistoric
Times, 70, 21-23.
The article used to be posted online, but I don't think it's available
any more. It does not contain Bennett's direct tracings of pterosaur
specimens, but it shows direct comparisons with Peters' interpretations
and high-quality photos of real specimens. PLus, in subsequent papers,
such as:
Bennett, S. C. 2007. A second specimen of the pterosaur Anurognathus
ammoni. PalÃontologische Zeitschrift, 81, 376-398.
you can see Bennett's own line drawings of the specimens, and they seem
pretty accurate when compared with my photographs of the same specimens.
So, that's it, right? Dave P's tracings compared to those of someone who
holds a PhD and then compared to real specimens for accuracy and
insight. Sounds like it's been done to me and, if so, this means that
Dave Hone really needn't bother to 'put up or shut up' for this
challenge: the test Dave Peters is after was presented, with damning
results, a long time ago. I argue, instead, that it's up to Dave P to
prove to his skeptical audience that his methods genuinely provide any
new insights into fossil specimens at all, and do not just highlight
digitial noise, diagenetic damage or prepatory artifacts. From my end,
Dave P tracings of the Lacusovagus holotype (a specimen I described and
like to think I know pretty well) did not reveal anything new and, where
'new features' were alleged to be found, they were erroneous.
Additionally, I find it very interesting that numerous temporily and
spatically independent authors working on specimens of Tanystropheus,
Cosesaurus, Longisquama, Archaeopteryx, Helveticosaurus, Effigia,
Vancleavea, turtle skulls, pterosaur pteroids, wing membranes and
footprints papers cited by Dave P have all misinterpreted their
specimens. To me, this suggests that the bulk of scientists are, a)
incompetent, b) part of a long running international conspiracy to hide
real data (though I can't think why that would be: seriously, who cares
_that much_ about the fine detail of extinct vertebrate anatomy?) or, c)
a good independent test for finding Peters-esque forms or
interpretations in their fossil specimens. Given that some of the most
respected and smartest chaps in palaeontological research have spent
hours and hours of painstaking, microscopic examination on these
specimens but never found anything remotely Peters-esque, it's almost
insulting to them to suggest that a few digital snaps and photoshop
could be any substitute for their work. I'm not saying they couldn't be
wrong, but, to my mind at least, work derived from analysis of primary
data - actual specimens - is worth considerably more kudos than even the
most extensive work penned exclusively from interpretations of secondary
data (specimen photographs).
--
Dr. Mark Witton
Palaeobiology Research Group
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Portsmouth
Burnaby Building
Burnaby Road
Portsmouth
PO1 3QL
Tel: (44)2392 842418
E-mail: Mark.Witton@port.ac.uk
>>> dale mcinnes <wdm1949@hotmail.com> 09/05/10 1:45 PM >>>
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 16:47:17 -0700
> From: nightimeshadow@yahoo.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: ps: No substitute for seeing a specimen: Hone blog
>
> Even with a large number of well lit photos, I can't imagine how you
could possibly interpret a specimen equally well as you would when
seeing it in person. It's along the lines of the Flatlander idea (though
obviously not quite as extreme): you're taking a three dimensional
figure and converting it into two dimensional space.
--- Good point. So would a 3-D holographic color image be a better
substitute (providing that preparation is complete)?? dale
>
> --- On Sat, 5/8/10, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Anthony
Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: ps: No substitute f> > Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 4:55 PM
> >
> >
> > on second thought, maybe we could all have saved oh so
> > much time and money if we had traced "Sue" and "Leonardo"
> > instead of x-raying and CAT-scanning them.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 22:51:46 +0000
> > > From: keenir@hotmail.com
> > > To: davidpeters@att.net;
> > mike@indexdata.com
> > > CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > > Subject: RE: No substitute for seeing a specimen: Hone
> > blog
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> References?
> > >>
> > >> Experiments?
> > >>
> > >> Mike, with your "That's how it is" paradigm we
> > would have no relativity, no integrated baseball and the
> > earth would be the center of a tiny universe only a few
> > thousand years old.
> > >
> > > and if we trace everything, we would have no great
> > artworks.
> > >
> > >
> > >> So let's test this paradigm!
> > >>
> > >> Besides the challenge itself,
> > >
> > > what challenge? the "please don't reply to me" part?
> > >
> > >> Dr. Hone's comments were not backed up by
> > evidence. Just simple musings.
> > >
> > > it's a BLOG.
> > >
> > > musings are the whole point of blogs.
> > >
> > >> And while he can say whatever he wants to say,
> > we're all in this for the evidence. As scientists reporting
> > on science, we shouldn't be making pronouncements that we
> > can't back up. Right?
> > >
> > > in a publication, that's true. but a blog is not a
> > publication.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Hotmail has tools for t
>
ttp://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get
> > more from your inbox.
> >
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> >
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Win $10,000 from Hotmail! Enter Here.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729708