Re: PERSONAL EXAMINATION OF SPECIMENS

[Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>]

> >      3) Making black lines and dots on paper to convince the reader that
> > he or she is looking at a three dimensional object is a rather tricky
> > business.  
> 
> Not really. I've mastered it in a short time, and if you haven't seen
> Jerry Harris's Acrocanthosaurus monograph, you should. He did a great
> job and he says he's not an artist.

     I don't mean that drawing is impossible.  I'm just saying that
drawing soemthing from even several different angles can't perfectly
capture what every curve or angle looks like in 3-D. No drawing, even
a beautifully detailed monograph illustration, looks as detailed and
three-dimensional as the real thing.  If crushing or warping has
altered the apparent thickness and shape of bones (as it usually
does), this is a pretty significant concern.  Such distortion is often
easier to see in the actual specimen then in a drawing of it, even a good
drawing.
     More over, mistakes are almost inevitable; an error in one of your
own drawings was mentioned in the previous discussion.  This is not a bad
reflection on you by any means, it just emphasizes that both artists and
scientists can make mistakes and misidentifications when the specimen is
right under thier nose.  Anyone who has ever examined a specimen with
somebody else, particulaly an at least partially smashed and/or
disarticulated specimen with matrix (often a similar color) still on it in
places knows that there can be considerable back and forth dialogue and
debate as to what is what, and even what is actually part of the specimen.  
   As to "why bother", I think that anyone would agree that putting out a
paper or illustartions that have some unrecognized errors in them is
preferable to not producing anything at all (unless of course, someone is
basing thier conclusions only on reading other peoples papers and looking
at other people's drawings). 

LN Jeff