[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: In defense of Marsh and Cope (was Roewer award for BadTaxonomy)



From: "Ken Carpenter" <KCarpenter@dmns.org>
Reply-To: KCarpenter@dmns.org
To: <ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz>, <dinosaur@usc.edu>
CC: <WilsonY@CarnegieMNH.Org>
Subject: In defense of Marsh and Cope (was Roewer award for BadTaxonomy)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 09:24:52 -0600

As someone very much interested in the early works of Marsh and Cope (among others), I feel a need to defend them. Too much emphasis has been placed on what they did "wrong" rather than what they did "right."

First, put yourself in their shoes. At the time, very little is known about dinosaurs (or any other prehistoric vertebrates). The only dinosaur skeletons on display in North America were Hadrosaurus foulkii and Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, both mounted in 1868 at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. In 1877 (when the dinosaur "rush" of the West began), the major museums with fossil dinosaur bones were the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Princeton University, Barnum's American Museum (not the AMNH), and the Peabody Museum at Yale University. There were a few other, mostly smaller museums as well. None of these museums had anything like a complete dinosaur skeleton. Even Hadrosaurus and Dryptosaurus are less than 40% complete. The first complete dinosaur skeletons to be found (Iguanodon bernissartensis) were still over a year away.

How long did it take for *Compsognathus* to be classified as a dinosaur?

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines