headers
vilandra@austin.rr.com | 1 Jan 2011 05:00
Picon

Re: Why purchasing cultured granite for your kitchen counters helps conserve fossils

Limestone kitchen counters?  Uh-uh!   I don't think so!  Don't tell me 
someone has actually suggested such a thing!

Yours,
Villandra Thorsdottir
Austin, Texas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Chure" <danchure <at> easilink.com>
To: "vrtpaleo" <VRTPALEO <at> usc.edu>; "DML" <dinosaur <at> usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 9:21 AM
Subject: Why purchasing cultured granite for your kitchen counters helps 
conserve fossils

> The remains of a new species of metriorhychid crocodylomorph, Neptunidraco 
> ammoniticus, have been discovered in limestone slabs slated to become 
> kitchen counter tops.  Paper to be published soon in Gondwana Research. In 
> the meantime, a news story, with photo of slabs, can be seen at
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101230-new-prehistoric-crocodile-science-paleontology/
>
> Dan
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jaime Headden | 1 Jan 2011 06:15
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico


David wrote:

<Does that mean it's wrong?>

  No. What I have argued (all that I have argued) is that the data as PUBLISHED is unsupportive of the claims
(also published) publicized, spoken of, or alluded to in response to said publication (which has NOT been
published). I would say have these people either show up, or shut up, but that might be deemed RUDE, no? I
have been waiting for the paper, I was NOT present for SVP, but was under the _illusion_ that unpublished
data is USELESS for dialogue or debate on this form, especially when dealing with a publication on that
level of detail.

<_Please_ stop making terms up.

I mean, you know what "reductionism" without a modifier means, don't you?>

In the general, yes, at least as far as adjectives go:

"2. the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, esp. to the point of
minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it."
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reductionism) [The first definition used it the one I am
sure YOU are thinking of, which is philosophical.]

Technical "reductionism" as referring to causation, also yes, although in a more limited regard. In this
case, I am attempting an adjective for an action to "reduce" the taxonomic entities as though they were
real, and as Scannella and Horner argued, as if it were more simplistic and therefore better. This is not
wholly consistent, and even while the authors may argue for anagenesis, this does not mean that the
various stages of a lineal progression may not be adequate to split into taxonomic categories. It is still
"reduction" to lump after the fact, and on this level without the prepared presentations to support it, I
would argue less than viable.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Denver Fowler | 1 Jan 2011 12:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Latest K dinosaurian diversity trends (was Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico)

One of the problems that we have is that we need a better term than  
"diversity", that incorporates time. To me, "diversity" refers to the  number of 

taxa present at a single point in time (ie. contemporaneous).  There is no 
evidence for diversity in the centrosaurinae (for example)  as none of the taxa 
overlap (although this may be set to change  slightly).

Tom Holtz wrote:

>... the high-resolution GIS data of dig sites ... is showing that many dinosaur 

>species of the same
faunal stage/NALMA/whatever you want to call it are NOT contemporaries at
all. Instead, they are falling in distinct very short phases. So it may
well be that throughout the Campanian and Maastrichtian (for instance)
there was never more than one or two comtemporaneous centrosaurine species
in the same region, only one or two chasmosaurines, etc.

Right. This does reduce the number of taxa at any given point, but it doesn't 
radically alter the drop in diversity towards the K-T. My view would be that we 
only have one chasmosaurine lineage in the Late Maastrichtian, whereas other 
people might think there are 3 or 4. However, we all agree that there is only 
one clade (the Triceratops clade) whereas there used to be at least 3 ceratopsid 

clades in the Campanian (possibly even more: another talk at SVP that was 
genuinely exciting). The same situation with hadrosaurs: you can split the only 
North American Late Maastrichtian hadrosaurid (Edmontosaurus) into 3 taxa if you 

like, but it's still only the one clade, whereas in the Campanian we had 
multiple clades (3-4 hadrosaurines, 3-4 lambeosaurines). So diversity is just
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Augusto Haro | 1 Jan 2011 19:25
Picon

Re: Latest K dinosaurian diversity trends (was Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico)

2011/1/1 Denver Fowler <df9465 <at> yahoo.co.uk>:

> Right. This does reduce the number of taxa at any given point, but it doesn't
> radically alter the drop in diversity towards the K-T. My view would be that we
> only have one chasmosaurine lineage in the Late Maastrichtian, whereas other
> people might think there are 3 or 4. However, we all agree that there is only
> one clade (the Triceratops clade) whereas there used to be at least 3 ceratopsid
> clades in the Campanian (possibly even more: another talk at SVP that was
> genuinely exciting). The same situation with hadrosaurs: you can split the only
> North American Late Maastrichtian hadrosaurid (Edmontosaurus) into 3 taxa if you
> like, but it's still only the one clade, whereas in the Campanian we had
> multiple clades (3-4 hadrosaurines, 3-4 lambeosaurines). So diversity is just
> modified by a multiplier depending on whether you are a splitter or not.

But, supposing you have some splitter dividing Edmontosaurus in 6-8
different taxa (which also would be lineages or clades) you would not
infer there was a reduction in the number of clades independently of
the lumping-splitting disjunctive. I think you would have less clades
originated in the Campanian or earlier, but not necessarily more
clades (I mean, clades originated in whatever moment). And, as long as
we refer to the number of clades originating previously to a given
period, if my logic is right, they will always be greater in the
immediately previous period than in the first mentioned (and
temporally later) period, as long as we accept the existence of
extinctions between both times, regardless of the actual total
diversity of each period (I am not sure this sentence is clear). This
partially explains why you have a greater diversity of phyla in the
Cambrian (produced by earlier cladogeneses) than in subsequent
periods.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Jaime Headden | 1 Jan 2011 22:50
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico


Augusto Haro wrote:

  <But, in case you cannot refer Torosaurus latus to either Triceratops prorsus or T. horridus (suppose
you cannot differentiate the old adults of these two, perhaps because of lack of old adults in one), there
is also the theoretical possibility you can refer it to Triceratops as incertae sedis.>

  The ICZN (or any other Code) lacks anything about "incertae sedis." This is a bit of wishy-washy
nomenclature dreamt up when some authors felt it easier to flub their contemporaries by subsuming named
taxa without using said nomenclature. If *Torosaurus latus* (the species) is a member of a clade called
*Triceratops*, and we accept that this clade is a genus, there are only two options: *Torosaurus latus*
must be a species OF *Triceratops*, where A) it is a junior synonym of an established species, or B) is an
additional, unique species alongside other established species.

  Note, again, that this argument is strictly nomenclatural. I do not think the authors have established
yet an explicit species concept by which to compare or evaluate a morphological find (although I suspect,
as has been alluded to, they may in the future).

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mickey Mortimer | 2 Jan 2011 10:04
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico


Augusto's idea is better expressed by latus being an indeterminate species of Triceratops.  I agree with
Jaime you can't just throw a species away as "Triceratops incertae sedis" or "Triceratops indet." *cough
Mochlodon cough*, but you can have Triceratops latus as a species which is not a definite synonym of
another species, and is also not necessarily unique.  Not that I have an opinion on the actual
Triceratops vs. Torosaurus issue.

Mickey Mortimer

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:50:42 -0700
> From: qi_leong <at> hotmail.com
> To: augustoharo <at> gmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List <at> listproc.usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
>
>
> Augusto Haro wrote:
>
>   
>
>   The ICZN (or any other Code) lacks anything about "incertae sedis." This is a bit of wishy-washy
nomenclature dreamt up when some authors felt it easier to flub their contemporaries by subsuming named
taxa without using said nomenclature. If *Torosaurus latus* (the species) is a member of a clade called
*Triceratops*, and we accept that this clade is a genus, there are only two options: *Torosaurus latus*
must be a species OF *Triceratops*, where A) it is a junior synonym of an established species, or B) is an
additional, unique species alongside other established species.
>
>   Note, again, that this argument is strictly nomenclatural. I do not think the authors have established
yet an explicit species concept by which to compare or evaluate a morphological find (although I suspect,
as has been alluded to, they may in the future).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harris, Jerald | 2 Jan 2011 16:41

Re: Latest K dinosaurian diversity trends

>you can split the only 
North American Late Maastrichtian hadrosaurid (Edmontosaurus) into 3 taxa if 
you like, but it's still only the one clade, whereas in the Campanian we had 
multiple clades (3-4 hadrosaurines, 3-4 lambeosaurines). So diversity is just 
modified by a multiplier depending on whether you are a splitter or not.

    This doesn't make any sense.  Using this same logic (using clades, rather than species, to define
diversity), one could say that there's only one clade present in the Late Maastrichtian terrestrial
gnathostome fauna: Gnathostomata.  Really low diversity, that.  Or among arthropods, one could say that
there's only Hexapoda.

    Because phylogenetic systematics jettisoned the Linnean rank system, there's no longer any way of which
I'm aware (real or artificial) to compare clades of "equivalent" "degree," which appears to be what
you're doing here -- you're saying that you can use Hadrosauridae and Ceratopsia as units useful for
measuring diversity, whereas Gnathostomata and Hexapoda aren't.  Certainly I get that you're looking
for relatively small units, which is fine, but what criteria do you use to draw the line between what is a
useful unit and what isn't?  Why not Ornithopoda and Marginocephalia?  Or Ornithischia and Saurischia? 
This is why it matters whether or not various lineages represent species or genera: each one is a unit that
presumes some sort of comparability; most people would only consider sp
 ecies as "real" (remember that a genus is just another clade).  Is counting Hadrosauridae as a single unit
useful if it contains 6-8 internal units (3-4 hadrosaurines, 3-4 lambeosaurines) as opposed to
Hadrosauridae as containing 100 units?  Or 2? That is, does Hadrosauridae really capture anything useful
about diversity in the Late Maastrichtian if you don't know how many units it contains?

--

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry D. Harris
Director of Paleontology
Dixie State College
Science Building
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
David Marjanovic | 2 Jan 2011 16:53
Picon
Picon

Re: Latest K dinosaurian diversity trends

>  most people would only consider species as "real" (remember that a
>  genus is just another clade)

Under some species concepts, species are necessarily clades, too.

As I always say: as of February 2008, there are 147 species concepts out 
there; depending on the species concept, there are from 101 to 249 
endemic bird species in Mexico; there's nothing all species concepts 
have in common except the _word_ "species".

To measure biodiversity, use the Phylogenetic Diversity Index (Faith 
1992, 1994).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Denver Fowler | 2 Jan 2011 17:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: Latest K dinosaurian diversity trends

----- Original Message ----

From: "Harris, Jerald" <jharris <at> dixie.edu>

DF
>>you can split the only 
North American Late Maastrichtian hadrosaurid (Edmontosaurus) into 3 taxa if 
you like, but it's still only the one clade, whereas in the Campanian we had 
multiple clades (3-4 hadrosaurines, 3-4 lambeosaurines). So diversity is just 
modified by a multiplier depending on whether you are a splitter or not.

JH
 >   This doesn't make any sense.  Using this same logic (using clades, rather 
than species, to define diversity), one could say that there's only one clade 
present in the Late Maastrichtian terrestrial gnathostome fauna: Gnathostomata.  
Really low diversity, that.  Or among arthropods, one could say that there's 
only Hexapoda.

Yes, I'm not sure I have the words as to how to put this properly. Maybe this 
works: There is less morphological diversity among late Maastrichtian dinosaurs 
compared to Late Campanian dinosaurs. Whether or not you split the taxa into 
multiple species does not alter this. I would say that the low morphological 
variation is probably reflective of true taxonomic diversity, and that most of 
the described taxonomic variation is actually ontogenetic or stratigraphic, 
(which are both testable hypotheses and not merely individual judgement calls). 
I'd love to go into further details of species in the Hell Creek, but its other 
people's (in progress) research.
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Augusto Haro | 2 Jan 2011 19:30
Picon

Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

Yes, I was thinking this: if you discount all the ontogenetically
variable features within Triceratops, and you have that Torosaurus
latus bears the apomorphies of the clade Triceratops, but does not
preserve the anatomical region or the ontogenetic stage bearing the
distinction between both Triceratops species, and you have no unique
features distinguishing it from the said Triceratops species, you have
also the alternative that you cannot with the present materials refer
Torosaurus latus to either a different species or one of the two
Triceratops species. This is a common situation, at least for
incompletely preserved fossils. I do not claim this is the case in the
present problem, although it may, considering the ontogenetic stages
of Torosaurus and Triceratops do not seem to overlap.

2011/1/2 Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111 <at> msn.com>:
>
> Augusto's idea is better expressed by latus being an indeterminate species of Triceratops.  I agree
with Jaime you can't just throw a species away as "Triceratops incertae sedis" or "Triceratops indet."
*cough Mochlodon cough*, but you can have Triceratops latus as a species which is not a definite synonym of
another species, and is also not necessarily unique.  Not that I have an opinion on the actual
Triceratops vs. Torosaurus issue.
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:50:42 -0700
>> From: qi_leong <at> hotmail.com
>> To: augustoharo <at> gmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List <at> listproc.usc.edu
>> Subject: RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
>>
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane