[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops
- To: dinosaur@usc.edu
- Subject: Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops
- From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:26:15 +0100
- Authentication-results: msg-ip0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <4F4EC698020000F4000193B9@gw-gwia2.iso.port.ac.uk>
- References: <4F4EC698020000F4000193B9@gw-gwia2.iso.port.ac.uk>
- Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
> Am I the only one who thinks that the dataset used for the determination
> of Torosaurus as a valid genus, or something synonymous with
> Triceratops, is capable of being used to support either view, depending
> on who's analysing the data.
Yes. It's not who analyses the data, but whether enough methods are used.