Re: Aurorazhdarcho, new azhdarchoid pterosaur from Late Jurassic, Germany

[Mike Hanson <mhanson54@comcast.net>]

From my cursory look through this paper I have to wonder if this thing 
was peer-reviewed at all, but that's all I can really say for now. Not 
surprising though, it seems like a lot of recent pterosaur papers were 
just sent straight from the author's desk to the printer with nobody 
bothering to even read the abstract along the way, and this is certainly 
*not* the most egregious example.

On 24/10/11 18:58, David Marjanovic wrote:
> >  If it's a new "Family," there's no way it can be called what it says
> >  in the abstract. Sigh.
>
> Exactly. Google doesn't know a "*Protazhdarcho*". Three possibilities:
>
> -- *Protazhdarcho* is named in the paper, and the contents of the 
> paper somehow haven't made it to Google yet. In that case it's 
> surprising it's not mentioned in the abstract.
> -- Protazhdarchidae isn't intended to be a family, except, uh, except 
> the abstract explicitly says it is.
> -- Protazhdarchidae is a failure of peer review. A rather surprising 
> one, actually.