I have been criticized for seeing structures that are not present, but rarely have detractors provided alternative tracings with new identifications that reflect phylogenetic bracketing.
I have similarly criticized others for overlooking structures, and have offered alternative identifications and solutions. Often the solution is found in a larger gamut phylogenetic analysis, as in the large reptile tree.
I have also modified the data presented on this blog (and at ReptileEvolution.com) when new valid data is presented or becomes available. And I look forward to doing this to keep presenting the best data.
Old ideas are discarded. New ideas are accepted — but sometimes it takes awhile.
This is how Science works.
Einstein’s radical theories had to be tested during solar eclipses. That took several decades.
In similar fashion, continental drift* had to wait nearly 400 years for confirmation.
Bob Bakker’s and Greg Paul’s then radical reconstructions lifted dino tails. Why did that take so long for someone to notice the problem? More on the history of this is found here at G. Paul’s online autobiography.
Kevin Padian finally admitted that certain ichnites were pterosaurian in nature after years of providing experimental evidence that the ichnites were crocodilian.
So established hypotheses can change. And paleontologists can change their views. Unfortunately sometimes scientists keep their blinders on.
Today I am looking for feedback.
In figure 1, did I correctly identify two disarticulated prepubes in the pelvic region of Cosesaurus? Or is there a more parsimonious explanation for these identifications?
I will publish the results.
You don’t have to come up with an alternate interpretation, but I will publish any that are sent in. A simple “Yay” or “Nay” will suffice. I’m just looking for a majority, one way or the other. Try to have your judgements here within a week because the poll closes Friday. Everyone will remain anonymous unless you specify it’s okay to publish your quote or opinion.
We’ll look at this again next weekend.
If there are no replies, there won’t be anything to publish. So go ahead and weigh in.
* From Wikipedia: “The speculation that continents might have ‘drifted’ was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. The theory of continental drift was superseded by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move.”
Yes, I see the bones.
I see shapes. Whether they represent bones, pine needles, or artifacts from the matrix (or scan)I can’t tell.
Yes, I see the bones.
I see most of the shapes but cannot interpret what they are in some cases.
I see shapes, don’t think they are identifiable as prepubes, especially not the one towards the bottom of the photo