Re: Martin 2004 critique

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

> > > I agree that it is a dreadful paper. However, I don't think this is 
an example of how the "system failed". The same issue of _Acta 
Zoologica Sinica_ also features an article by Sereno that argues that 
birds indeed evolved from dinosaurs (and so *are* dinosaurs). The 
editors were probably just trying to be even-handed. <<<

See, I think this IS a failure.  Science is not about being 
"even-handed".  It's not like all "political viewpoints" need to be 
heard in the interst of "fairness".  That's the domain of Newsweek and 
Time, not Nature or AZS.  Peer review should weed out papers that 
contain obvious factual errors, and the Martin paper does.  It should 
never have seen the light of print, and the fact that another paper 
with an opposing viewpoint was in the same issue in no way excuses this 
oversight.

And to be even more blunt, I will say this is indeed a criticism of 
Martin.  Larry has always been freindly to me, and I have always tried 
to return that courtesty, but if he truly is this unfamiliar with the 
relevant literature then he has no business writing a paper on the 
subject, and it's tragic that the editors of AZS provided a sounding 
board for such tripe.

Don't get me wrong, Martin (or anyone else) has every right to publish 
a contrary opinion on any subject in paleontology, that's not what 
bothers me.  But it seems reasonable to expect certain standards in 
such papers, and his most recent paper does not make the grade, IMO.


Scott Hartman


Zoology & Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82070

(307) 742-3799