Comments on: A critical evaluation of Tianyulong confiusci – part 2 http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/ The rants and ravings of the webmaster Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:39:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dave Hone http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1889 Dave Hone Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:34:31 +0000 http://reptilis.net/?p=224#comment-1889 I'll keep this short as i have aa blog post prepared on this very subject, but in general fakes are easy to spot and the kinds of authentication various people have been suggesting online are either impractical or impossible. It is unrealistic to expect people to move valuable and fragile specimens to a distanct location to have them CAT scanned say, and the money has to be found to pay for this proceedure. You simply can't treat every fossil the way you would like. I’ll keep this short as i have aa blog post prepared on this very subject, but in general fakes are easy to spot and the kinds of authentication various people have been suggesting online are either impractical or impossible. It is unrealistic to expect people to move valuable and fragile specimens to a distanct location to have them CAT scanned say, and the money has to be found to pay for this proceedure. You simply can’t treat every fossil the way you would like.

]]> By: Jura http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1885 Jura Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:48:23 +0000 http://reptilis.net/?p=224#comment-1885 The need for brevity in a Nature paper makes sense. It would have been nice though, if the researchers had put some authenticity testing information in somewhere like the supplementary material. The need for brevity in a Nature paper makes sense. It would have been nice though, if the researchers had put some authenticity testing information in somewhere like the supplementary material.

]]> By: Dave Hone http://reptilis.net/2009/04/06/a-critical-evaluation-of-tianyulong-confiusci-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1883 Dave Hone Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:03:52 +0000 http://reptilis.net/?p=224#comment-1883 I think you are being unduly harsh here. You seem to imply that a group of professional researchers (including one involved in the exposure of Archaeoraptor) never even considered that it might be a fake. You never write in a paper "we carefully examined the specimen, its preservation, taphonomy, anatomy and history to make sure it was not a fake", you only mention problems, not a lakc of them. The preservation of many of these specimens is typified by breaks, cracks, missing pieces, crushing and variations in preservation quality - thinks like the absence of ossiified tendons in one part only tells us that they are missing. One does not have the space in a Nature paper to discuss things in detail and these are quite probably absent through destruction or lack of preservation and might (I have not seen the specimen, only photos) be eaily noted through marks on the remaining vertebrae. Even so, dromaeosaurs do not have ossified tendons on the tail, but elongate chevrons and zygopohoyses and these are easy to tell aparp, especailly when the rest of the tail is still there. The skull might be the only think to diagnose it as a heterodontosaurid specifically, but the pelvis, vertebrae and pes are all characteristic of ornithischians. In short, being sceptical is good, but I think it's a mistake to try and second guess experience researchers who have been wroking directly on the fossil material. They do know their stuff and people are wary of fakes. I think you are being unduly harsh here. You seem to imply that a group of professional researchers (including one involved in the exposure of Archaeoraptor) never even considered that it might be a fake. You never write in a paper “we carefully examined the specimen, its preservation, taphonomy, anatomy and history to make sure it was not a fake”, you only mention problems, not a lakc of them.

The preservation of many of these specimens is typified by breaks, cracks, missing pieces, crushing and variations in preservation quality – thinks like the absence of ossiified tendons in one part only tells us that they are missing. One does not have the space in a Nature paper to discuss things in detail and these are quite probably absent through destruction or lack of preservation and might (I have not seen the specimen, only photos) be eaily noted through marks on the remaining vertebrae. Even so, dromaeosaurs do not have ossified tendons on the tail, but elongate chevrons and zygopohoyses and these are easy to tell aparp, especailly when the rest of the tail is still there. The skull might be the only think to diagnose it as a heterodontosaurid specifically, but the pelvis, vertebrae and pes are all characteristic of ornithischians.

In short, being sceptical is good, but I think it’s a mistake to try and second guess experience researchers who have been wroking directly on the fossil material. They do know their stuff and people are wary of fakes.

]]>