Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > > > and it is an ornithocheirid only in Wang and Zhou's eyes. (The same 
> > > > folks who said [...] that Dendrorynchoides was closest to 
> > > > Rhamphorhynchus).

OK, that was when everyone (including the peer-reviewers of Nature) thought 
the tail was real.

> No one else has corroborated or tested either egg observation. I merely 
> indicated that there was an alternative explanation for what little that 
> could be seen. Isn't that good science? Exposing possible errors?  I 
> appreciate it when errors are exposed in my work.

I have Photoshop and Illustrator in the university, but I don't have a good 
photo... do you have one with higher resolution than what's published?

> This is based on a highgly contentious technique which has been 
> substantially
> criticized for it'd highly subjective nature.
>
> > > > > >  Every observational technique is 'highly' subjective. Every jury and 
> > > > > > judge is 'highly' subjective.

Come on. Not everything that doesn't work is a metaphor.

> The Photoshop technique simply offers a way to send extremely precise 
> tracings on top of layers of photography to others for confirmation. The 
> beauty of this technique is that you can add a layer to pinpoint errors 
> and you never have to _believe_ a line drawing again!

The question is whether what you trace exists outside of your mind. Everyone 
can trace the face on Mars.

> I once sent an image of a pterosaur rostrum to a colleague and showed him 
> where to find the naris 'that shouldn't be there'. He responded by saying 
> that all he saw was 'a hole in the rostrum with matrix coming through'. I 
> said, that's the naris! He wouldn't believe his own eyes. The paradigm 
> stopped him. What I offer is an observation and what I invite is for 
> others to make their own observations. And send me the results!!

So you observed a hole and interpreted it as the naris. Sounds obvious --  
but isn't. After all, we're talking about a fossil. It can have all sorts of 
cracks, etchings, erosion features, distortions (bones being squished 
together on one side of the skull and pulled apart on the other, leaving a 
hole), even damage from preparation.

> > > > > > Some subtleties come through that can't ordinarily been seen. The 
> > > > > > slightest impressions left in the rock when the bone is gone. That 
> > > > > > too, is called a 'fossil. '

Why should some bones but not others disappear from an otherwise complete 
fossil _after fossilization_? On the other hand, when the skeleton gets 
disarticulated before embedding, why are there impressions of bones that 
were never there?

> > > > > > > > Did Chris provide an alternative drawing? Don't recall seeing it. 
> > > > > > > > It's easy to dismiss claims with the sweep of a pen.

A new drawing would be exactly that -- the sweep of a pen.

> > > > > You are welcome to find the skull, and all the other little bits and 
> > > > > pieces in both Chinese eggs. You can use my work as a guide or ignore 
> > > > > it. This is a treasure hunt  and if you don't like the way I unearth 
> > > > > treasure, then do it your own way. This is only an offering. Not a 
> > > > > command. When you talk about the Photoshop technique, it's like you're 
> > > > > yelling: "Stop using voodoo!"

Where can I find a good photo? One where the carpals and tarsals are bigger 
than one pixel?

> And, have you
> accounted for fracturing, distortion in crushing a 3D skull into a flat 
> bone on
> deforming dolomitic rock?
>
> > > > > > Yes. Now you're grasping at straws.

That's the first, not the last, thing to consider when reconstructing any 
fossil. "Straws"? Please.

> All related forms have the same skull proportions.

And the same ontogenetic trajectories of skull proportions :-)