Re: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

>  The mistake IMHO is with Wu et al. who scored Miodentosaurus as
>  subthecodont when the lingual dentary is just as high as the labial
>  dentary.

That's actually fairly common in taxa with subthecodont tooth 
implantation. It's not part of the definition, AFAIK.

>  Interdental plates cannot be verified in either taxa given
>  the images presented. Which author was hedging? We'll have to leave
>  this one for later. It is also very possible, Vancleavea arrived at
>  (or never lost) tooth dividers independently. After all, it's not far
>  from Helveticosaurus.  Not sure what it's status is, but given such
>  big teeth, evolution might have added some support there.

Not every wall between two alveoli is an interdental plate! We (and 
sphenacodontians in general) are thecodont (as opposed to aulacodont), 
yet lack any trace of interdental plates.

>  In the meantime, if Vancleavea is indeed an archosauriform, don't you
>  wonder where the antorbital fenestra and the temporal fenestrae
>  disappeared to (without a trace)?

It's normal for fenestrae, when they disappear, to leave no trace. ~:-|

>  Where's the  mandibular fenestra?

Perhaps ask *Tyrannosaurus*.

>  Why is the orbit in the front half of the skull?

For the same reason why the mandibular fenestra is missing, I suppose: 
to provide more attachment space for strong jaw muscles to operate those 
big teeth.

>  Then remember, "the
>  apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree" which is another way of
>  saying evolution works in small incremental steps.

Not all of which are necessarily 1) preserved and 2) discovered as of 
December 2009.

>  I judge referees
>  the same way. If they have nothing "nice" to say about several months
>  worth of work, then they probably have a personal agenda. The good
>  ones weigh the good against the bad.

The comments by referees _never_ spend a lot of space on listing the 
advantages of a manuscript. "It's good and interesting, let it through" 
is hard to say in 100 words. Listing problems and what to do about them, 
however, requires lots of space. Accusations of personal agendae are, 
consequently, rather laughable.

That you've invested several months of work is _normal_ and _expected_. 
If you hadn't invested that much, you shouldn't have submitted in the 
first place, except if the manuscript is about a nomenclatural 
correction or something similarly cheap (in short: not science). _I 
don't understand why you expect to be praised for merely not failing._

Have you never noticed how rare the people are who publish more than 
about five papers per year on average, and that with the help of several 
coauthors on almost every one of them?

Besides, it's not just in Soviet Russia that referees judge you.