Sharovipteryx Wiki just updated

Once again, like the Pterosaur Origins Wiki page, some well-meaning, but misinformed author/expert on the Sharovipteryx Wiki page claimed that I did not observe the fossil firsthand (which is false) and that my phylogenetic analysis of Sharovipteryx (still the only one in any academic publication in the last 14 years) had less validity than what paleontologists “generally agree”. Yes, in this age of verifiable nestings, can you believe this return to the vagaries of the 1960s? (Actually I think this only occurs when my name is present).

The author/expert claimed that I am not a scientist (ignoring academic publications in 6 or 7 journals now) and put his faith in Bennett’s claim made in a popular publication that my tracings were fantasies (once again, mining the wastebasket). Yes, I made those mistakes, but the new work puts all that crap in the wastebasket, where it should stay.

Wiki is generally for information, not for casting aspersions on others. So, when an alternate and testable hypothesis is presented, it is not necessary that the author of that hypothesis be trashed. Simply present the facts. Not the bias, please.

I made changes to the Sharovipteryx Wiki page that stick to the readily observable and testable facts. Let’s see if those changes stick.

If that author/expert wants to put his faith in Chris Bennett, Lord help him. Bennett has made dozens of mistakes, including purposefully creating a fantasy (by his own admission) pterosaur precursor (Bennett 2008), rather than to test any of the hundreds of currently known reptile candidates in phylogenetic analysis, as I have here. And 2008 Bennett had a short list provided by Peters (2000), which he ignored. I tested his 1996 paper by adding a few taxa. Turnabout would have been very welcome.

We’re all guilty. Let’s move forward people. Please, use the latest information and keep the focus on the taxa, not the person. I put all my data in viewable, testable photos and am more than happy to make corrections when made available.

 

Bottom Line
Sharovipteryx is a complete fossil with many uncontroversial traits shared with Cosesaurus and pterosaurs. Those traits are going unpromoted in Wiki and I think it’s because some people think I’ve poisoned the well in publishing on it without having a PhD. They have to tip-toe around my peer-reviewed publications and they have to trash me because if they started listed characters, they’d soon find out what anyone can find out. Perhaps that’s why no one had published another analysis of Sharovipteryx in the last 14 years. And it’s ripe for a revision because I made several mistakes with it, even firsthand.

Remember, Hone and Benton (2007, 2008) tossed Sharovipteryx out in their search for a pterosaur precursor. Same thinking. Same result.

If you’re thinking of Senter’s (2003) dissertation (which the Wiki author/expert cited), in which he nested Sharovipteryx with Cosesaurus, but pterosaurs with Scleromochlus, take a good look at his scorings. He gave Scleromochlus a sternal complex and a long lateral pedal digit, both of which are absent on it and any sister taxa — among dozens of other rookie mistakes.

References
Bennett S.C. 1996. The phylogenetic position of the Pterosauria within the Archosauromorpha. Zoo. J. Linn. Soc. 118: 261-309.
Bennett S.C. 2008. Morphological evolution of the forelimb of pterosaurs: myology and function. In: Buffetaut E. and Hone D.W.E. (Eds) – Flugsaurier: pterosaur papers in honour of Peter Wellnhofer. Zit., B28: 127-141.
Peters D. 2000. A Redescription of Four Prolacertiform Genera and Implications for Pterosaur Phylogenesis. Riv. It. Paleo. Strat. 106(3): 293-336.

 

 

5 thoughts on “Sharovipteryx Wiki just updated

  1. Oh well. That´s look unfair. But It seems like a only one man´s tale…
    ¿ Do the others researchers don´t accept your work? they expelled it?
    Can you upload your paper?
    Peters, D., 2000. A Redescription of Four Prolacertiform Genera and Implications for Pterosaur Phylogenesis. – Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 106(3): 293-336

    Someone can read it and add another point of view

  2. It would be great if others came out with better data, better trees, more precise tracings, but they’ve ignored the work and the taxa. Wittons’ book, Unwin’s book both avoid Cosesaurus, Sharovipteryx, Longisquama and the traits anyone can view, even in photos. This is like limbo or what the Amish call “a shunning.”

    • Ok, But…You can share the paper of Sharovipteryx? It´s better to ask the main sources…I´m not a paleontologist, but a i prefer to make my own thoughts than follow Naish´s prejudices.

  3. Okay. I want to see good photos, if possible, of Sharov’s crazy looking wing finger. And your recent findings. Let us put Darren Naish’s “paper” where it should be…in file 86…but I need to be able, at least in part, to back up my big mouth.

  4. You admit to making mistakes. Science advances by the admitting of mistakes. Does a scientist HAVE to have a degree to legitimately BE a scientist? I wonder what Galileo Galilei would say about that? Was he accredited by a modern university? I doubt it…yet GG is credited, basically, with starting modern science. Wegener was a cartographer whose observations of MAPS led him to probably the greatest geological theory of all time–plate tectonics. Science advances by testing and unbiased observation, and re-testing and so on.

    Even if you were wrong in every particular on reptiles and pterosaurs and evolution…(I do not believe you were wrong on everything, not even close), Darren Naish’s “article” on you is sheerest libel, SINCE IT IGNORES BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES and it easily a very personal attack on you yourself. Too many people will wait for a sale “3 for a dollar!” on a 25 cent item before buying said item–I’ve asked!!!!–and Darren’s article is a “3 for a dollar!!!” sale on 10 cent items.

    In other words, keep on going with this. IF you can, send me high resolution photos of any fenestrasaurs you can, since everything I’ve so far seen on the net is low resolution. IF you can show that Darren’s paper is way out of date vis-a-vis your experience and working methods and techniques, I believe we can start that boulder of cynicism rolling back down to him.

    That article does SCIENCE a great, grave, and deathly disservice, quite apart from you and your work. He has purposely held you up to ridicule, echoing Richard Owen back in the early days of Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species. Hell’s BELLS, David, Charles Darwin was a THEOLOGIAN, whose voyage on the Beagle was meant to cement creationist biblical thought on the origin of the Earth, of life, and of species. Yet look what happened!

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.