Re: back to pteros, [yada, yada]

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Peters" <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:00 PM

> >   And the drawing of lines on a slab perceiving that the completely 
> > prepared
> > matrix in a chalk bedding plane described "hidden" bones? This was the 
> > case for
> > another published objection to this technique on the basis of 
> > *Nyctosaurus* sp.
> > Since the slab itself was prepared down to recover bones within the 
> > chalk, it
> > is impossible for impressions of bones or tissues to be preserved out of 
> > the
> > bedding plane recovered.
>
> > > > > > > Time will tell. When other skeletons arise we can compare them to 
> > > > > > > the
> ephemeral ones.

This still wouldn't mean that the ephemeral ones ever existed.

> > Indeed,
> > the positions of the nasal bone itself, and a developmental series in
> > pterosaurs offers evidence for a particular fusion of the external naris 
> > with
> > the antorbital fenestra, the "classic" model, which, while "classic" and
> > therefore "wrong", objections have to go through as much scientific rigor 
> > to
> > overturn it.
>
> > > > > > > I disagree and I show numerous examples at pterosaurinfo.com.

Well, here http://www.pterosaurinfo.com/abittersdorffii.html for example the 
two "nares" occur in a damaged region of the maxilla where you have yourself 
traced numerous breaks in the bone.

> > Using cracks and holes that are present all over the skulls of
> > most pterosaurs preserved in slabs to find these special ones and then to
> > identify them as external nares is _a priori_ observation. For example, 
> > what
> > stops these "holes" from being foramina or subnarial fenestrae?
>
> > > > a jugal below and a nasal above, as in all pterosaurs.

A jugal? Below the naris???

This http://www.pterosaurinfo.com/criorhynchus_insitu.html looks completely 
surreal. Why should the jugal have such an extremely long process that 
overlies the maxilla? It looks weirder than in an ichthyosaur (see the 
newest JVP for the bizarre things those critters did with their extra-thick 
skull roofs).
       This is of course something that is very easy to test by seeing the 
specimen -- much more easily than most of the results of 
photointerpretation.

> > Indeed, one theory about beaked animals is that they should
> > have many foramina on the bones supporting the rhamphothecal
> > sheath for the purpose of ennvervation. Instead,
> > they are "the naris 'that shouldn't be there'."
>
> > > > > > show me sheath extended back to the AOF.

Considering how far forward the AOF extends... why shouldn't it?

> > > > > > > Funny thing is, these cloud-like ephemera fit the phylogenetic 
> > > > > > > puzzle. One
> can trace the development through many specimens.

The other way around.

You enter the cloud-like ephemera into your matrix _as data_, and PAUP* 
_makes_ the tree _based on_ the data it gets. The ephemera _cannot help_ 
fitting the puzzle because the puzzle _is designed for_ being the most 
parsimonious interpretation of the ephemera. The puzzle fits the ephemera. 
It is _meaningless_ to claim it the other way around.

> >   Psychology and neurobiology teach us that when we try to look at 
> > something
> > where the image is fuzzy or unclear, our eyes will fill in the missing 
> > details
> > and our minds will try to fit something familiar into the gaps. This will 
> > give
> > us a picture in our heads not entirely consistent with the actual object 
> > we
> > perceive.
>
> > > > > > > Except that this time it is entirely consistent with other 
> > > > > > > specimens.

Because those other specimens are "something familiar" that you "try to fit" 
"into the gaps"?

> > > > > > > This few pixels business occurs on occasion. Otherwise I'm 
> > > > > > > recovering
> entire bones and fenestra from high-resolution photographs.

"This few pixels business" must not occur at all -- sorry for my patronizing 
tone, but the creation of information (as opposed to the interpretation of 
already existing information) isn't science.

> > This is another reason why Chris Bennett
> > has argued that to substantiate these claims, it is required to see the
> > specimens themselves and show them in detail.
>
> > > > > > > Ironically Chris provides at his website a great closeup of AMNH 
> > > > > > > 1942 in
> which the large naris is very clearly set off from the AOF once the broken 
> pieces
> are repaired and replaced.

Looking for that I've found this:
http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/cbennett/science-v-fantasy-figs.html
Fig. 6 not only shows clearly that "Much of Peters' 'baby' consists of 
scratches made by the preparator"; it also shows that the wing phalanges are 
split, visible in longitudinal section.

> Sometimes ridiculous claims, like Beebe's 4-winged proto bird,
> become reality.

(This particular claim hasn't become reality. *Microraptor* still hasn't 
learned how to sprawl.)

> >   Dave, if my tone sounds unwarrantly critical, it's not that I don't 
> > like you;
> > you are an awesome man and I am glad to have met you. I hope I do not 
> > have to
> > say this about anyone anymore, since as a scientist and a student, I know 
> > I
> > will never learn all I can, but will make an effort of it. Fighting for 
> > rigor
> > in scientific practice when I see a need will always be a driving force 
> > in my
> > social interactions, I fear.
>
> > > > > >  It might be better yet if you were to say, "show me, I want to 
> > > > > > learn."

Maybe, but this would presuppose that you have something to teach, instead 
of testing that hypothesis... :-}