• Category Archives Uncategorized
  • Tuataras do it faster than anyone else.

    Oh yeah, that’s right. You know what I mean.

    This is what we call: subtext

    They evolve…at the molecular level.

    From: Trends in Genetics


    Hay, J., Subramanian, S., Millar, C.D., Mohandesan, E., Lambert, D.M. Rapid molecular evolution in a living fossil. Trends in Genetics
    Vol. 24 (3): 106-109

    Abstract
    The tuatara of New Zealand is a unique reptile that coexisted with dinosaurs and has changed little morphologically from its Cretaceous relatives. Tuatara have very slow metabolic and growth rates, long generation times and slow rates of reproduction. This suggests that the species is likely to exhibit a very slow rate of molecular evolution. Our analysis of ancient and modern tuatara DNA shows that, surprisingly, tuatara have the highest rate of molecular change recorded in vertebrates. Our work also suggests that rates of neutral molecular and phenotypic evolution are decoupled.


    Okay, so what does all that mean? It’s been well established that creatures evolve at rates proportional to their generation times. Animals that have a higher generational turn over, show higher rates of evolution. It’s a simple numbers game. The more offspring one has, the more chances for there to be a beneficial mutation. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction, the faster natural selection can act on these mutations.

    Hence why elephants are not exactly evolutionary racehorses, while insects rule the world. 🙂

    It’s been thought that evolution at the molecular level should mirror what we see on the phenotypic, or morphological level. It makes sense logically. There has to be some connection between molecular evolution and phenotypic evolution. We know that the former gives rise to the latter.

    So if one has a creature that has a short fossil history, or a particularly diverse one, then it suggests it is a fast evolver. Therefore one would expect to see speedy evolution on the molecular level too. This is one of the latest lines of evidence for automatic endothermy (i.e. warm-bloodedness) in dinosaurs and other fossil critters (don’t ask how we have molecular evidence for extinct animals. I just don’t know).

    This latest discovery throws a whole wrench into that mode of thinking. Tuataras (Sphenodon) are one of the slowest animals on the planet. They take a long time to reach sexual maturity (11-13 years). They are commonly referred to as living fossils (though, that really isn’t right). They are the last critter that one would expect to be an evolutionary Speedy Gonzalez.

    Yet, according to the work by Hay et al, that is exactly what has been discovered. Tuataras edge out all other animals studied so far. The closest any other creature comes, is the Ad?lie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) of Antarctica. Yet as the graph below shows:

    Tuatara evolution rate

    Tuataras are still significantly faster at their molecular evolution. So then, what does this mean regarding molecular evolution rates vs. morphological ones?

    That’s a good question. The argument of molecular phylogeny vs. morphology, is already a heated one. Morphologists scoff at molecular systematists, while the molecular systematists think morphological phylogeny is pointless since it’s all DNA based anyway. It doesn’t help that molecular data has repeatedly come up with results that fly in the face of morphological based orthodoxy.

    For example:

    Morphologically, tuataras are the sister group to squamates.

    Molecularally, tuataras have been found to nest with crocodiles and birds, in at least one study.

    Molecular systematists have found the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelli) to nest with the true gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), while morphologists have consistently found T.schlegelli) to be a convergent animal more closely related to true crocodiles. This has resulted in heated back and forth arguments

    Turtles, whose ancestry is still very nebulous, have been found to be anywhere from the base of the diapsid family tree (making them ancestral to all extant reptiles), to offshoots of pareiasaurs, which would place them as offshoots from the main reptile line (basically throwing another 30-50 million years on their divergence from other reptiles).

    Molecular systematics, on the other hand, has found turtles to nest with archosaurs (crocs and birds). A few times (beware: PDF bomb), despite the lack of morphological correlates.

    And then there was just weird stuff during the early days of molecular studies, that didn’t help with its validity problem.

    So both camps are already very skeptical of the other’s findings.

    Now this study suggests that rates of molecular evolution have no relation to morphological rates. Among other things, this seems to make the whole “molecular clock” idea even less tenuous.

    It should be interesting to see what repercussions come from this study.

    ~Jura


  • A Tribute to Alex

    This was something that I had meant to mention on my site for months now. In fact, I meant to write about it the day it was announced. It’s in regards to Alex, the African grey parrot.


    Alex and Dr. Pepperberg

    Dr. Irene Pepperberg and Alex

    Maybe I should be writing it: A.L.Ex. The name given to him was an acronym for: Avian Learning Experiment.

    Alex was the pet/research subject/friend of Dr. Irene Pepperberg. He and Dr. Pepperberg made headlines time and time again for Alex’s remarkable vocabulary.

    Alex could say over 150 words. That, in itself, is neat, but not noteworthy. What made things noteworthy was that Alex actually understood these words. Most parrots are taught words by their owners for the sheer novelty of it. The birds don’t really understand the meaning behind what they are saying, and the owners don’t really care about teaching them. Dr. Pepperberg and Alex showed that this need not be the case.

    Alex was taught the meanings behind words. This was done in a manner similar (though exaggerated) to how children learn the meanings behind words. Dr. Pepperberg and an associate would enact scenarios where the word in question would be used.

    For example:

    A research assistant knocks on the door. Dr. Pepperberg answers the door and says: “Hello Arlene” (or whomever). Then she would say: “Hello Irene.” After several reenactments, the Dr. would then go to Alex and say: “Hello Alex.” By going through this process, Alex was able to associate the words he was saying, with the actions being performed.

    Being a smart cookie, once Alex caught on to this, his vocabulary was able to increase substantially. Dr. Pepperberg did other studies. She showed that Alex could count to four (hmm, doesn’t that sound familiar), could distinguish the constitution of various objects (plastic, wood, wool, etc.), and could tell which items were larger than others. Towards the end of his life, Alex was even being taught to associate the written form of English words, to the spoken version. Alex’s accomplishments were astounding.

    So, too, was his criticism. Anytime a scientist shows animals acting like people, others are ready to pounce on the anthropomorphic idea in an attempt to discredit it. This is all fine. After all, science is nothing without a healthy dose of skepticism. Sometimes, though, I feel that the critics tend to take their assumptions a little too far. An infamous example of this was found with the horse Clever Hans. The horse’s owner insisted that Hans could count and do arithmetic. People from far and wide would come to test the horse’s skills. All were astounded at the remarkable prowess of this equine to calculate their math problems. All, that is, except for psychologist Oskar Pfungst. Through a series of tests he discovered that Hans was not actually doing any math at all, but was instead reading the subtle cues of the questioner. If the questioner was expecting a certain answer, then Hans would get the math right. If Hans could not see the questioner, or the questioner did not know the answer themselves, then Hans would keep stomping till the cows came home.

    Clever Hans

    One of Clever Hans’ performances

    The results were unequivocal. Hans was not a math genius. This was fine, and totally agreeable. The expression from there that the animal was not intelligent at all, was where I draw the line. There was obviously a degree of mental work involved. The horse knew its name, and was able to read subtle body language that no one, not even the psychologists who did the study, could see. That’s damned impressive.

    But I digress…

    So there were all these criticisms that Alex was just doing an even more complex “Clever Hans effect.” Yet, despite criticisms of the results, no one ever showed that Alex was faking it. In fact, Alex showed continual improvements throughout his life. His use of human words to express what he saw around him was amazing.

    More amazing, was how Alex would use his words to express his own feelings.

    When Alex was tired of testing, he would say: “Wanna go back,” (in reference to his cage)

    If the researcher was getting annoyed, Alex would say: “I’m sorry.”

    Alex learned not only the names of objects that he was being tested on, but he also learned the words for all the rewards he would get. When Alex would get something right, he would then have to say what prize he wanted to have.

    For instance, if he wanted a nut, he would say: “Want nut.”

    If it was a banana then he would say: “Want banana.”

    Throughout Alex’s thirty years of study, Dr. Pepperberg never once referred to what he was doing as language. She was always reticent of placing that symbol on Alex. This is understandable. Alex did learn to speak human words, but he had yet to learn syntax. That is to say, he couldn’t yet combine words for use in other situations other than their specific descriptions.

    But he got awfully close. In one instance, Alex was presented with an apple. Alex had not learned the word apple at the time, so he came up with his own word for it. He called it a “banery.” Alex knew “cherry” and he knew “banana.” The result was the portmanteau: banery. This was not the only time he coined neologisms. Presented with the same scenario, only this time involving an almond, Alex called it: “cork nut.” Other neologisms of Alex included: “rock corn” (unpopped corn kernels), “pah-corn” (popcorn) and “grey nut” (sunflower seeds). For these last group of words, researchers would, essentially, reward Alex with food that came closest to the words he was uttering. If Alex liked the food, it would become part of his normal rewards, and he would retain the word. If he didn’t like it (e.g. “rock nut” for a Brazil nut that Alex couldn’t open, and didn’t eat even after receiving help), then he would not use the word and it would leave his vocabulary.

    Alex and something

    Alex doesn’t understand silly straws either.

    Alex was amazing. Unfortunately Alex is no longer with us. Last September, Alex suffered an apparent heart attack and died in his sleep. He died at 31 years old; nineteen years short of the average lifespan for African grey parrots. Veterinary checkups two weeks before had found nothing suspicious, or at risk with Alex. His death came as a complete shock.

    Though gone, Alex’s accomplishments will live on in scientific knowledge. Alex was one of the trailblazers for animal intelligence, and the concept of animal consciousness. He was bought at a local pet store. There was nothing special about him when he was acquired. His unremarkable origin helped to show that Alex’s abilities and his potential could be found in all African grey parrots. Dr. Pepperberg laid the groundwork for studies of animal intellect and consciousness in other species. If an African grey parrot can learn all this, could a macaw? How about a raven? Suddenly the term “bird brain” was no longer a derogatory one.

    One of the most important things that Alex did for this field, was that he gave us ample proof that there is more going on inside a non-human mind than we are often willing to give credit. Much like Helen Keller, once Alex learned to talk, his personality and uniqueness became very apparent. Alex raised very pertinent questions about the use of animals in laboratory experiments, and the ethical ramifications that it brings up. Same for the slaughtering of animals for human consumption*.

    Alex will be missed by all whose lives his work has touched. I only wish I could have written this earlier.

    I’ll end this with the last words that Dr. Pepperberg (the last one to see Alex) heard Alex utter:

    “She recalls the bird said: ‘You be good. I love you.’ She responded, ‘I love you, too.’ The bird said, ‘You’ll be in tomorrow,’ and she responded, ‘Yes, I’ll be in tomorrow.'”

    ~Jura


    *Now don’t go thinking I’m about to join PETA. I’m an avid carnivore with no plans on quitting anytime soon. That said, I do believe it is important to kill things in a more humane way than we have been doing.


  • New study finds that numbers are inherent to humans…and…

    I came across this study today from The New Yorker.

    It’s a long (for the internet) read, so I’ll only do a few verbatim copies here. The gist of the study, by French scientist Stanislas Dehaene, is that the concept of integers (1,2,3 etc) is something that is hard wired in our brains. We have a natural ability to do rudimentary addition, and we can tell when one number is larger than another. Well, as long as the gap is large enough.

    According to the article:

    If you are asked to choose which of a pair of Arabic numerals?4 and 7, say?stands for the bigger number, you respond ?seven? in a split second, and one might think that any two digits could be compared in the same very brief period of time. Yet in Dehaene?s experiments, while subjects answered quickly and accurately when the digits were far apart, like 2 and 9, they slowed down when the digits were closer together, like 5 and 6. Performance also got worse as the digits grew larger: 2 and 3 were much easier to compare than 7 and 8. When Dehaene tested some of the best mathematics students at the ?cole Normale, the students were amazed to find themselves slowing down and making errors when asked whether 8 or 9 was the larger number.

    Dehaene conjectured that, when we see numerals or hear number words, our brains automatically map them onto a number line that grows increasingly fuzzy above 3 or 4. He found that no amount of training can change this. ?It is a basic structural property of how our brains represent number, not just a lack of facility,? he told me.

    This is fascinating. Especially the discovery of a “hard wired” number line (which goes right to left, apparently. See the article), which works really well up to about 4. The fascination comes not from the discovery of this in humans, but the fact that this degree of rudimentary math has been found in a wide variety of animals. The most recent being fish.

    In that study, scientist found mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) females were able to count up to four (right at the end of the number line). Also, like in human studies, the fish were able to tell which group of fish was larger, as long as the discrepancy was big enough (approximately 2:1).

    Keeping with the theme of my site, the most famous example of reptilian counting would be that of varanids. Studies on the white throated monitor (Varanus albigularis), found that they can reliably count to six (King & Greene, 1999).

    So it seems that the concept of math is so important that it has been hard wired in our genes for at least 400 million years.

    Think about that the next time you ignore a mathematical equation.

    Also, give the article a read through. It is very intriguing. It’s the closest that psychology has ever come to being a hard science, and the ramifications for education cannot be understated.

    ~Jura



    King, D. & Green, B. 1999. Goannas: The Biology of Varanid Lizards. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 0-86840-456-X, p. 43.


  • NOVA and the factor

    So as I mentioned a few days ago, NOVA had a special on Microraptor gui. Today the show was available for viewing online. After seeing it I must echo the sentiment of others who have watched it. This was not a good documentary at all. The most interesting part was the wind tunnel tests with the various foot positions. The whole “debate” between Larry Martin and the rest of the paleontological community need not have taken place.

    Then there was the life portrayals. My god, that has got to have been the worst modeling I have ever seen. CGI couldn’t have been that expensive, as they did use it during the show. I mean, even a half-assed CG attempt would have been better than what they gave us.

    Overall: a bust. Sorry NOVA. This time it was a failure.

    In other news, Utah paleontologist, Dr. Terry Gates, was featured on Bill O’Reilly last night (available here). It was basically a fluff piece. O’Reilly had Dr. Gates on to discuss some generic dinosaur information, and that’s it. The premise was whether or not global warming wiped out the dinosaurs. O’Reilly didn’t really push that angle though. Instead he opted to send a bunch of softballs to Dr. Gates, who in turn humoured O’Reilly by stating things like: if people were to go back to the Mesozoic, then we would be on the dinner menu of Tyrannosaurus rex. The funniest part of the segment would be when Fox News decided to run pictures of the Walking with Dinosaurs pterosaurs, when they were talking about dinosaurs evolving into birds.

    Overall: okay. It was more than I expected to get from a Fox News story. I don’t even think O’Reilly ever cut Dr. Gates’ mic.

    ~Jura


  • Scientists discover a huge pliosaur

    Pliosaur picture

    Just announced today on the BBC news website, scientists have unearthed the remains of a giant plesiosaur from the Arctic island of Svalbard.Coming in at 15 meters (50ft), it ranks as one of the largest known specimens of ancient marine reptile. Since there are other plesiosaur and mosasaur specimens that are known to approach 50ft in length, I’m assuming the reason that this species is given the term “monster” is because of its overall size. No species name has been given yet. Judging from past plesiosaur behemoths, I’m thinking that it might be Liopleurodon. Folks who saw the BBC series: Walking with Dinosaurs, might remember the Liopleurodon in one of the episodes. That one was a whopping 21m (70ft) in length. So, to date, it is still an unrealistic size.That said, there sure were a lot of giant marine reptiles swimming around the Mesozoic seas.

    It is interesting to note that there has yet to be a fossilized sea animal (or any animal) that approaches the monstrous blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in terms of overall size (giant jellyfish [Cyanea capillata] grow longer, but have nowhere near the mass). Off the top of my head, the largest prehistoric fish was the Jurassic giant: Leedsichthys problematicus, which has had length estimates very close to blue whales (~30m, or 98ft). There was one ichthyosaur that exceeded “the monster” in length, but might have fallen “short” in terms of overall mass (Shonisaurus sikanniensis). All in all, B.musculus stands alone in terms of oceanic giants. What was imposing this size limit on all the Pre-Tertiary marine fauna? One possibility that I’ve heard tossed about (and the only one that I happen to think is on the right track) is that the reason for the size of blue whales, is due to the prevalence of krill (order: Euphausiacea).

    Leedsichthys
    Liopleurodon swims by Leedsichthys; weighing its options.

    Krill are way down at the near bottom of the food chain. They eat plankton and are, in turn, eaten by a huge chunk of the marine ecosystem. Krill are global in their distribution, and their biomass is astronomical (500 million tonnes, according to Wikipedia). So why is this important?Well, if we look back at all the large marine reptiles, or most of the large prehistoric marine vertebrates; all of them were large predators. “The Monster,” Kronosaurus, Liopleurodon and most of the others, all had a taste for meat. The problem with this, is that a large meat eater requires lots of meat in order to survive. This imposes a size limit right away. Either a large marine animal is going to eat shoals and shoals of small fish (which may reproduce rapidly, but probably not rapidly enough to maintain a viable population of large carnivorous marine vertebrates), or it is going to eat any large animal that it can take down. If shoals of fish can’t maintain a viable population of marine behemoths, then anything bigger will certainly not. Large marine animals with big appetites, need something that can take the hit and keep on going.Krill and plankton provide the only real option for giant marine animals. And it just so happens that we are currently living in a time period where most of the oceans are temperate.This is important. Temperate waters mean that there is a section of ocean that is very cold and a section that is warm. This results in upwelling, or the pushing of nutrients from the bottom of the sea, up to the top where it can be used by other life forms (namely: plankton, squid and krill) to make energy. The importance of thermohaline circulation for all of this cannot be discounted either. Both result in the necessary conveyor belt like mixing of oceanic nutrients.

    So more nutrients results in greater biomass of krill, which allows for the evolution of large marine animals beyond the 15 meter / 30 tonne mark. Today that niche happens to be filled by mammals. Why?

    Is there something special about their physiology that allows only them to grow to this size?

    No…not really. Most likely, mammals just so happened to be big enough at the right moment in time.

    If Antarctica, or Australia had moved closer to the South Pole and iced over, then we would have had a thermohaline circulation in the Mesozoic, and most likely, giant planktivorous marine reptiles. It didn’t so the best we got was the smaller, yet equally impressive: Leedsichthys problematicus. Incidentally, it probably was a planktivore; though it probably relied on the less productive tropical plankton spawns (not much choice, given the time period).

    Nevertheless, these were all truly awesome animals. I look forward to seeing what else these Arctic islands are going to give up.

    ~Jura


  • _Microraptor gui_ to be featured in tomorrow night’s NOVA.

    Microraptor gui

    Tomorrow night on PBS (Tuesday, 26 Feb. Check local listings), NOVA will be doing a special on the “four winged dinosaur” Microraptor gui.Microraptor was a dromaeosaur (think Velociraptor or Deinonychus) that was discovered back in 2000. It was part of the infamous “Archaeoraptor” fiasco, in which Chinese collectors had tried to pull a fast one on paleontologists by selling a chimeric fossil that was part bird and part dinosaur. Though the truth was eventually sussed out, it didn’t come fast enough. National Geographic had jumped the gun on the find, touting it as the perfect transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. When the truth came out, NG had egg on their face and the creationist camp had more artillery in their cannons.

    Now eight years later we have a far more interesting story to accompany M.gui Not only was it the smallest dinosaur known (~0.5 to 0.7 meters, or a little under 3ft in length for the imperial crowd), but it had wings…

    on all its limbs.

    That’s right, it was a four winged animal. A creature that sounds more at home in an old Greek myth rather than reality. Yet it was real. How neat is that?

    So now we know of its existence, the next most obvious question is: How did it fly?

    Okay, for some the question might be: could it fly?

    Given the anterior wing proportions, and the fact that, well, it had a lot of wings, I find it hard to believe that Microraptor wasn’t flying. How it did so is the real kicker. Yeah, it might sound like an easy answer. “Why, it just splayed all four limbs out.” Okay, but did it flap all four limbs? Were the lower limbs used for balance, while the upper limbs did all the work? Could Microraptor have splayed its hindlimbs at all?

    As a dinosaur, it seems very unlikely. Dinosaurs achieved their infamous erect stances, partly by locking their femora (upper leg bone) into their acetabula (hip sockets). This made for a very stable stance, but one that was not very forgiving when it came to lateral excursions. To date, no dinosaur, and no dinosaur descendant (i.e. no birds) could/can splay their femora.

    So was Microraptor the exception that proves the rule? Judging from the NOVA trailer, there is at least one team that thinks so. Will they be proven right? We’ll just have to tune in tomorrow to find out.

    For folks (like myself) who don’t have access to the broadcast, the show will be available for streaming the day after on the official site. Make sure to check it out.

    ~Jura


  • Aetogate continues…

    My prediction yesterday held true…and sooner than expected. The latest comes from today’s issue of the ABQ journal (sit through the commercial to read the article).

    Before I go on, I would like to extend kudos to ABQ journalist John Fleck for keeping this story alive and in the public eye.

    Let’s take a closer look at this, shall we?

    In response to the backlash the entire state has received for essentially stonewalling the complaints of Jeff Martz and Bill Parker, the Dept. of Cultural Affairs chief, Stuart Ashman, has decided to re-review the matter.

    That’s good.

    Ashman, nor anyone else on the committee thought it necessary to inform the scientists who made the complaints in the first place, that this review was going on. Yet they did give Dr. Lucas a chance to defend himself.

    That’s bad.

    In order to be impartial, the Dept has sought the opinions of researchers outside the NMMNHS and even outside of the state itself.

    That’s good.

    However, these outside researchers are known friends of Spencer Lucas. We’re not just talking about the occasional coauthor here (not that 65 coauthored publications could be considered “occasional”). The folks brought in to provide an impartial view (Norman Silberling, and Orin Anderson) have both had publications dedicated to them. Silberling has even made it clear that he is an admirer of Lucas’s work.

    That’s bad.

    According to the ABQ journal article, the results of this inquiry will be made publicly available on March 3rd.

    That’s good.

    March 3rd also happens to be the last day of my 30 days challenge.

    Um, that’s also good; but totally irrelevant, so let’s move on.

    Norman Silberling wrote a letter to Mr. Ashman, that attempted to exonerate Dr. Lucas three days before the review panel’s meeting.

    That’s bad.

    Thus ends my little Simpsons parody. Things are pretty much bad, from here on out.

    As mentioned above, Silberling wrote a letter to Stuart Ashman, about this whole mess. I recommend that folks interested in the whole Aetogate drama, read what Silberling wrote.

    The letter starts off well enough. Silberling provides full disclosure, stating that he has worked in collaboration with Dr. Lucas on many occasions. He also states that he was the subject of a NMMNHS bulletin dedication, and that he is an admirer of Dr. Lucas’s work.

    Silberling then goes on to explain why the two cases of plagiarism brought on Lucas (technically there are 3) are not valid, and could be construed as a misunderstanding between all parties. This is just fine. Norman Silberling goes on to cite specific examples and counter examples. This is exactly what we are looking for; an actual meaty review.

    Silberling doesn’t cover everything though. He doesn’t explain why Lucas, who had publicly voiced his disagreement over the naming of a new species of aetosaur from particular fossil material, would have a sudden change of heart right around the time that Bill Parker was going to publish his paper on the animal. It’s also interesting to note that Norman Silberling’s defense of Lucas, was that Bill Parker never got express permission from Dr. Lucas, to publish on a specimen that was under his curatorial care. The irony of this comes from the fact that Lucas himself did this.

    So if Parker is guilty of publishing on a specimen without permission from the museum, the Lucas is just as guilty for doing the same thing with the Polish specimen.

    From here the letter goes downhill. At this point, Silberling seems to have felt that it was important to then attack the folks accusing Lucas of malfeasance in the first place.

    And by attack, I mean ad hominem attacks. Martz, Parker and Naish are all referred to as unemployed, or under-employed individuals that are just jealous of Lucas’s accomplishments. Silberling goes so far as to suggest that the reviewers attempt to get Bill Parker reprimanded/fired from his current position at Petrified National Forest.

    Silberling also mentions how the in-house review process is just as competent as, say the Bulletin of the AMNH. I can’t really speak for the latter, as I’m not aware of how the review process works there, but I’d find it hard to believe that other institutions would go so far as to stick in ghost reviewers on publications (7th comment down).

    Silberling argues that it is okay to have friends of the author review their work, since they would have a vested interest in not seeing the author do “something dumb.” That’s all fine and good if one is trying to reduce typos and methodological errors, but if it’s a scientific paper, then I believe it would be more prudent to make sure that the science itself, is sound. Unless the NMMNHS is employing paleontologists who cover every aspect of Triassic paleontology, then I don’t see how passing a paper around to the local folks to review, could be considered valid.

    From the ABQ journal article:

    Silberling, in a telephone interview Friday from his Colorado home, dismissed questions about his ability to be impartial.
    “This was in no way a jury trial, so there’s no way friends of Spencer and people who have been with him shouldn’t comment,” Silberling said.

    It’s all fine and good to comment on what is going on, but it’s completely different to act as a reviewer in a case against a friend. It’s the same reason why lawyers and police officers are refrained from working on cases involving friends and family. When one is too close to the subject, it is harder to maintain objectivity. If Norman Silberling wants to cheer in Lucas’s corner, then he should have the right to do so.

    But he shouldn’t be “on the jury,” when it comes to the actual case.

    Let me wrap this all up by just saying that this isn’t a witch hunt. To some it might look that way, especially when the NM folks throw everyone a bone, and then get castigated for it. No one is upset that the reviewers haven’t found Lucas and co. guilty. The complaints arise from the fact that no one has actually given this situation a fair trial. The case against Lucas has been dismissed once already, with no reason given. Now with this re-review showing heavy signs of bias already, we’re all just a little worried that history might repeat itself.

    Needless to say, we are all looking forward to March 3rd’s report.

    ~Jura


  • More about the NM plagiarism case

    No sooner do I hit publish, then I remember something that did come to light a day, or so ago. There has been some recent development in the case of Spencer Lucas and plagiarism.

    For those who need a catch up, you can find it here.

    It turns out that the Dept of Cultural Affairs (who fund the NMMNHS bulletin) has decided to hold a new inquiry into the allegation against NM paleontologist Spencer Lucas (one must sit through a brief commercial in order to read the piece).

    The catch (it’s New Mexico; there’s always a catch) is that none of the folks who have accused Dr. Lucas of plagiarism, have been contacted about this. If it weren’t for the Abq journal article, no one outside of the Dept. of Cultural Affairs would even know about it.

    Thickening the plot even further, the two scientists who have been brought in to review the allegations, are known collaborators of Dr. Lucas. Hell, they both have books dedicated to them by Dr. Lucas. None of this sounds at all like a fair hearing, and seems far more like cronyism at work.

    Needless to say, all of us in the paleo community are watching intently to see what the results of this inquiry will be.

    Stay tuned…the first turd looks like it’s about reach the fan blades.

    ~Jura


  • Jack Thompson and meh.

    I was hoping that there might have been something of substance to say today. Not much I’m afraid. There’s nothing new in terms of herp news, and not much else has really caught my eye other than the fact that nutcase Jack Thompson is doing everything in his power to get disbarred.

    Thompson and Andy Dick

    One’s an insane wacko who is hooked on gay sex. The other is Andy Dick.

    The word file that is available on gamepolitics, is worth reading. I’m surprised that he didn’t get kicked out of court for that nonsense.

    Short of that, it’s been a slow day.

    ~Jura

    Credit to Hunter for bringing this to attention.