Pterosaur Heresies is about 2 years old now

And, despite all the evidence I try to cram into this blog, it’s still reviled and dismissed by several professional paleontologists. Something odd about that… Providing testable answers to long standing mysteries is evidently not to be encouraged! You would think at least a few of them would say, “Hey, that’s a different idea. Let’s run the big Kahuna through a test or two!” Instead the strange bedfellows are defended. That’s the paradigm.

I’m still hoping that someone will add some suggested taxa to their phylogenetic analyses to see if they can confirm the results of the large reptile and large pterosaur trees.  So far there have been no testers.

I wish someone would go take a studied look at Cosesaurus and remap the thing again (as detailed as here or Ellenberger 1993) to see what they come up with. Same with Longisquama and Sharovipteryx. Considering their importance, it’s at least worth a try.

Or does confirming anything in the heresies come at some professional cost?

I have been vindicated by the discovery of bipedal pterosaur tracks and Kellner’s confirmation of the pteroid articulation on the radiale (Peters 2009). Nice to see.

The taxon lists keep growing in both studies. Reptiles have surpassed 340. Pterosaurs are past 220.

Google has been very good to the site and its figures.

The number of visitors and page views holds steady between 8000 and 11000 view a month. Unique visitors are a third of those numbers. More readers are subscribed now than ever before. The subject matter is a niche within a niche, so I’m happy to have the steady readers I do.

I’ve tried to keep up a steady stream of posts, one per day, seven days a week. So far, so good, keeping to that average as we’re up to some 740 posts now. There have been times when I thought I was out of subject matter, but then a fresh truckload comes in and I can do a week’s worth. Even so, the pace will undoubtedly slow down as most of the best subjects have been posted already and Witton’s new book only brought up old subjects to be repeated. Even so, it also gave me an opportunity to take a fresh look at lizard tendons.

The process of discovery is the driving force. It’s a wonderful reward to be able to see something with fresh vision and understand how it works. It’s almost as fun to disassemble bad hypotheses and show why they don’t work. Keep those cards and letters coming!

I will always wonder how certain workers have been able to promote bad ideas and how the next generation gloms onto them. I’ve only seen one scientist back down off a claim: Kevin Padian, at the sight of the Crayssac tracks admitted that certain pterosaurs were indeed quadrupeds. So, it can happen, but it takes a landslide.

Thank you for your thoughts and thank you for your loyal readership whether you’re interested in what I have to write or whether you’re just waiting for me to slip up so you can reprimand me.

It’s been an interesting and rewarding two years.

I’ll see some of you at SVP in L.A toward the end of October. My abstract will be a poster.

3 thoughts on “Pterosaur Heresies is about 2 years old now

  1. “And, despite all the evidence I try to cram into this blog, it’s still reviled and dismissed by several professional paleontologists.”

    I think that’s for some of the reasons these professionals gave.

    You are regarding your interpretations, many of which are simply not supported by proper evidence, as facts, like the “pterosaurs are lizards” thing. You find some cutting-edge new things in photographs by some dubious image-analysis, and then claim the rest of the world to be wrong!

    In everything you do, you do not regard the evidence and come to a conclusion. You start with a premise and collect things you think you can transform into evidence, or even better, take your own “facts” as evidence (eg. “Pterosaurs took of bipedally. Why? Because they are lizards and this would fit into the evolutionary pathway I found!”).

    Hell, I’m certainly not alien to wild speculations, and these are an essential part of paleontology. But you are making up your own world of hypotheses that no evidence can penetrate, and then trying to make it look as if the professional scientists were the ones who did not respect you.

    How big is the chance that you are the only person on earth that has comprehended all this correctly and seen all those things in the specimens if they really existed, that those were somehow invisible to the teams that studied them?

    Everyone can post whatever he/she wants, and everyone has the right to have an opinion. But when you consistently despise actual scientific data in favour of your hypothesis, regarding the latter as superior to everything, you shouldn’t be surprised that professionals dismiss you.

    • Let’s remind ourselves that no pros have added fenestrasaurs to their dino/ptero trees, none have added tiny pterosaurs and all disagreements have consisted of overall blackwashing (like your letter). Alternate tracings of certain controversial fossils are mere outlines or cartoons that don’t even attempt to get details out, like mine do. With regard to bipedal takeoff, I have presented several posts of evidence, including bipedal tracks and animations that provide three wing flaps in the time and space the forelimb leap sequence takes for the first downstroke (if still airborne by then!). Please be specific and I will handle your query.

  2. re: the only proper science:
    No, you’re reading waaay too much into this. When you say “all” that puts false words into my mouth. I try to be specific. For instance:

    When I say alternative reconstructions, I’m thinking specifically of cases like Jeholopterus which can be seen and compared here: https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/jeholopterus-recon.jpg

    I’m also thinking of the pterosaur eggs that I have traced. If you can find or offer more detailed or equally detailed tracings that result in other reconstructions, please do so.

    I’m also thinking of everything I have put up on the sites. If I have made mistakes, we can correct those.

    Most of the work on the site is pulled from the literature.

    When I ask you be specific, you blow things out of proportion when you say I expect you to explain on every single one of my posts. Start with one. When we settle that, we can move onto #2.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.