Re: John Bois on Armadillos at the K/T!

["Ray Stanford" <dinotracker@earthlink.net>]

    John, you said, "All but a few Pterosaurs were booted out of their niche
by something well before the bolide.  I mean pterosaur diversity was much
greater earlier.  Do you need a reference for that?"

    Certainly I don't need a reference for that, but it absolutely does not
prove that birds "booted them out", as you claimed in the earlier posting.

    You also said, "As with so many things, there is no evidence to be had.
You're right, I was being informal--but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I
believe most workers would hazard this cause as their first choice."

    Not when such an unsubstantiated claim is being made.  There may even be
a few young, relatively uninformed people on list, or maybe someone
media-connected person(s) just 'listening in'.  Do we really want to
misinform them with statements made as fact when, as you admit, "...there is
no evidence to be had"?  All our statements may be accessible for years to
come, via the internet.  Suppose someone mistakes your statement for expert
information?  Do you want that?

    The last time I spoke to you, John, you were teaching school (maybe high
school, some science, as I recall).  Perhaps you are more cautious in such a
circumstance.  Of course, informality is fine, but concerned informality
does not broadcast speculation as fact.

    You and the list would not have heard from me about your posting if you
had simply said, "In my opinion, they [pterosaurs] were summarily booted out
of it by better competitors (birds)."  Or, one might have asked the
question, "Could pterosaurs have been booted...?"  There is nothing wrong
with you or anyone else stating opinion, but it seems better if one
qualifies opinion as such and as nothing more when, as you admit, "...there
is no evidence to be had".

    Ray Stanford

"You know my method.  It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery