Re: NZ mammal paper

["Mickey Rowe;893-2446" <mrowe@lifesci.ucsb.edu>]

A case of mistaken identity held back the message I'm enclosing here
and another I'll forward immediately after this.  Since I'm here, note
that although cryptozoology is not a forbidden topic, it is one in
which attempts to discuss it generally drift away from anything
approaching science more closely than Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult
science".  On those grounds we generally shut cryptozoology threads
down pretty quickly.  Please don't pursue such topics here beyond
casually mentioning them.

Thanks!

-- MPR

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:28:58 +1100 (EST)
From: Allen Patterson Hazen <allenph@unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: NZ mammal paper
To: dinosaur@usc.edu

I've skimmed the paper (online).
I note that Worthy et al. have not proposed a name for the beastie.  Is
this just unusual restraint, or is PNAS not an appropriate place for
systematics?  And should we anticipate another publication with more
details and a "Systematic Paleontology" section?
(((Personally, I'd love to see a name alluding to the rumored cryptid
"Waitoreke," but that's just me.  On the off chance that there IS a
plesiosaur or lookalike in Scotland, I'd also hope that the describer when
it is discovered "legitimizes" the name "Nessiteras rhombopteryx".)))
((NB. I am ***NOT*** claiming anything; nothing in the previous
parenthesis should be construed as an attempt to publish.))
---
Allen Hazen
Philosophy Department
University of Melbourne
------- End of forwarded message -------