tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post832958440066606035..comments2024-03-17T01:48:59.504-07:00Comments on The Theropod Database Blog: Sauropod ThoughtsMickey Mortimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-78852880642911328952016-02-18T16:48:33.483-08:002016-02-18T16:48:33.483-08:00Yeah. It's 300 pages long; nobody but the most...Yeah. It's 300 pages long; nobody but the most determined are going to read the whole thing in the first place so it does seem like a strange omission.<br /><br />Looking at the description of Normanniasaurus myself, it seems to have a pretty weird combination of characters, such as hyposphene-hypantrum articulations and non-procoelous mid-caudals (unlike derived titanosaurs) and strongly inclined caudal centra (like aeolosaurs), so despite the poor quality of the type specimen, I am cautiously optimistic about its diagnosability.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14361437858302104070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-17291131061618050182016-02-18T16:06:10.494-08:002016-02-18T16:06:10.494-08:00Cut for length in a purely electronic journal?! T...Cut for length in a purely electronic journal?! Thanks for giving us a paper with less information. :| Honestly, some of the advice sounds more like advertising than science- "some of the more pertinent and important details of the research may be lost to the reader in a sea of text, tables, and figures. In my opinion, aspects of the paper (particularly apomorphy lists) could be moved to supplementary information or presented more succinctly than given here..." The very concept of supplementary information in the digital age is nonsensical outside of the tabloids, with the exceptions of NEXUS/TNT files, spreadsheets, 3D figures and other information that is inefficient for pdfs. Interested scientists will dig through huge papers to get the info they want. No one told Welles he should separate his 154 page description of Dilophosaurus from his 22 page comparison with other theropods, or Walker he should split his 53 page description of Ornithosuchus from his 24 page theropod discussion. Ah well, thanks to PeerJ's format, the original draft including the description of SMA 0011 is downloadable, so in a sense we have its description anyway (though lacking measurement tables). It's not like peer review would notably change it. Funny that Tschopp et al. were going to describe it as a new species of Galeamopus, whose name and diagnosis are redacted in the draft. I think they oversplit taxa as it is, but that's a topic for another day.<br /><br />As for somphospondyl taxonomy, the main issue is that so many clades are defined using Saltasaurus. A Sereno-ism just like how he plagued ornithischian definitions with Parasaurolophus. Also, because there are a billion Cretaceous basal somphospondyls and Late Cretaceous South American titanosaurs being described every year, I'm sure we have a ton of synonymies to look forward to once someone critically reviews them.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3248412803814730250.post-72879869417361905742016-02-18T13:37:52.605-08:002016-02-18T13:37:52.605-08:00According to the review history on PeerJ, a descri...According to the review history on PeerJ, a description of SMA 0011 was originally part of the paper that named Galeamopus, but was cut due to length. I can't speak for the authors, but I assume that that paper is forthcoming.<br /><br />Somphospondyl taxonomy is 'fun,' isn't it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14361437858302104070noreply@blogger.com