Re: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?

[Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>]

>Sorry Michael but the important parts of that skull, i.e the squamosals,
>perietals, frontals, dome, spikes, etc are all real. Only the face and
>snout are reconstructed.
>>Okie dokie then. It's real. That's fine.. But I actually don't see any more 
>>than three squamosal horns in that picture anyway. 

Yes but the point is that you seemed to claim that the skull was fake, when the 
truth is that you clearly didn't know whether it was or not. We have a cast of 
the photographed specimen (the real part, not the
mocked up complete thing). It's a nice fronto-parietal dome, with the
squamosals etc complete at the back. It was observed for the Horner
Goodwin study.

You also made claim that Triceratops horns are longest in adults. Do you know 
this for certain? How many Triceratops skulls have you looked at (even in 
photos)? You might be surprised to see what the fossils actually show.


>I find it most interesting that you are so quick to make ad hominem
>attacks against Horner and Goodwin
>>Okay, the record needs to be set straight. First, I have never made any ad 
>>hominem attacks against Horner or Goodwin (nor have I seen anyone else do so).

I think if you read back through your comments you'll find that there is plenty 
of mocking tone, and suggestions that Jack's work is rarely any good. Do you 
think if Horner and Goodwin read your comments they'd see them as fair 
criticim, or snarky side-swipes? Some of your comments, and those of other 
people, have ridden very close to the line.


>Overall, as others have said, I think the best way (in fact, in a
>scientific sense, the *only* way) to refute Horner &c's hypothesis is to
>assemble data that supports an alternative hypothesis
>>First I'd like to see strong data assembled that supports *their* hypothesis. 
>>I'm with Ralph in that I find it odd how Horner's hypothesis, still in its 
>>early >>stages and in need of a lot more testing, etc. is being taken as The 
>>Real Truth and the burden is considered to have swiftly and automatically 
>>shifted to >>other models.

The term "trut
d the paper (and know maybe a little bit about histology) can form their own 
opinions, and it would seem that most pachy workers seem to quite like the idea 
that flat-headed forms are immature. They might be wrong, sure, but that's 
science. I just think Longrich et al were playing on "what if Horner & Goodwin 
are right, how would that idea fit into our model". You seem to be suggesting 
that they shouldn't even consider this, but that apparently, it is much more 
acceptable to take the approach that everything is a separate species until 
"proven" (somehow) otherwise.

And anyway, you're completely missing the point of the paper. Before this 
study, people thought that flat-headed pachys were adults, and potentially 
completely separate clades from domed forms, hence the convoluted comment in 
the Dracorex description about comparing bowling balls etc.. The work of 
Goodwin and Horner has shed some doubt on this orthodoxy, suggesting that 
non-domed forms might be immature. It would not be surprising to me if Dracorex 
and Stygimoloch might be conserved as separate taxa (at least at the species 
level) in the future, but it will not be based on the presence or absence of a 
dome (shape of dome: the jury is still out).