Cosesaurus Prepubis Identification Experiment Results

A week ago I asked readers to tell me: “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?”

The question is important
because certain workers have refused to accept my manuscripts based on their perception that I imagine bones that are not there.

A half-dozen votes came in
(a small percentage of actual visitors). Most saw the shapes and three agreed with the identification. Three could see only some of the shapes and so could not agree with the identification. The results represent such a small sample they are statistically irrelevant.

Thank you for participating.

2 thoughts on “Cosesaurus Prepubis Identification Experiment Results

  1. I am somewhat disappointed to see your description of the results.

    Five commented on the original post. 2 said they saw the bones (we’ll take them as “agreed with the identification”). Three (including me) said they saw shapes that could not be identified. I don’t know what results you received by email, but if you only received a “half-dozen votes”, then even if you received a couple of votes by email, about half of your entrants said the bones could not be identified.

    How do you justify saying “Most saw the shapes and agreed with the identification” and only acknowledging one person’s negative comments?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.