tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3302078021633810166.post9204332266177642978..comments2023-11-28T20:43:13.582+00:00Comments on New Views on Old Bones: Theropod envy?Paul Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12957963650104505341noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3302078021633810166.post-55593757543240967252014-09-20T23:27:41.572+01:002014-09-20T23:27:41.572+01:00I work on (non-avian) theropods, I love them for t...I work on (non-avian) theropods, I love them for their morphological diversity, their diverse diet, their evolution, and many other aspects of their palaeobiology. But I couldn't agree more with you, Paul. We, theropod workers, have a much bigger facility of publishing articles in high ranking journals, especially when we are dealing with large creatures. I almost feel ashamed that Torvosaurus gurneyi had such media cover, only because it was one of the largest terrestrial predators from Europe (found hitherto). I put this in the title, knowing it would help attracting peole attention towards this study. And I could realize the effect on it, as surprising as it was, something I was absolutely not expecting. BBC, National Geographic, and ABC interviews, Belgian TV, second most viewed dinosaur article in PloS ONE, etc. For what? The description of a few bones and a theropod (Torvosaurus) already known from the paleontological community. Tyrannosaurus (tyrannosaurids) and Spinosaurus (spinosaurids), have their success, leading articles on those dinosaurs to be accepted with much more easy in journals like Science and Nature. Most of the last articles on theropod dinosaurs from those two journals do not, according to me, deserve to be published in such very high ranking journals indeed. This is illogical and unfair. The description of additional feathered theropods do not add any important knowledge in the evolution of the whole group, same for reviews on tyrannosaurid biology. I, however, do not deny that those papers are interesting, and I do not discredit their scientific content nor their seriousness, absolutely not. Yet, yes, I do not understand why they are still published in Science in Nature. Well, I do. Only because the non-specialist community like them more than ornithopods and ankylosaurs, or algae's and brachiopods. And this is unfair. But one cannot change people preferences towards dinosaurs, and towards the predators, the largest ones, and towards Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus. Yet it's undoubtedly frustrating, especially for the paleontological community... Christophe Hendrickxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14252978164855691830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3302078021633810166.post-37886606018460588872014-09-17T22:19:35.472+01:002014-09-17T22:19:35.472+01:00We could try testing the hypothesis with Lurdusaur...We could try testing the hypothesis with Lurdusaurus. The similarities are uncanny. Both African dinosaurs, previously named but now known from better material, which show that the postcranial proportions were really weird for the group and suggests that they may have been aquatic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3302078021633810166.post-25187346728133033112014-09-17T06:55:22.528+01:002014-09-17T06:55:22.528+01:00At first I assumed the main reason the new Spinosa...At first I assumed the main reason the new Spinosaurus paper got in was the claim for rather extreme Ambulocetus-grade levels of aquatic adaptation (hence my concern about discrepancies in the data regarding those claims) but now that you mention it I wonder if a similarly adapted (and previously named) ornithischian would stand a chance of making the cut?Scott Hartmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00195833796668977878noreply@blogger.com