Thursday, January 14, 2016

By the way - that groove is also seen in...

the type specimen of Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis, Bistahieversor sealeyi, the type specimen of Daspletosaurus torosus, the two Medicine tyrannosaurine, Raptorex, Alioramus, Tyrannosaurus bataar, and the type specimen of T. rex.

Also, the contact of the maxillary fenestra with the rostral margin of the antorbital fossa is seen in adult T. rex, not in Jane, Albertosaurus libratus or A. sarcophagus; and the ridge along the pneumatic recess of the ectopterygoid is seen in Jane and adult T. rex, but not in A. libratus or A. sarcophagus. The contact between the antorbital fossa and nasal is very long in Jane and adult T. rex, whereas in A. libratus and A. sarcophagus, if a contact is present, it is very short.

The medial postorbital fossa is in all tyrannosaurids, including adult T. rex.

No, I wasn't the anonymous reviewer!


  1. Nor was I. If I was, I would have had a lot of recommendations for them.

    Such as:
    * Restricting your examination to only (or mostly) holotypes is not an effective strategy to evaluate the variation of a trait in a population.
    * To assert a priori that a trait is invariable in a species, then use the difference in that trait between two individuals at least hypothesized to be members of the same species as evidence that they are really separate taxa, is circular reasoning.
    * There is confusion between the diagnosis and the definition of a taxon. (Granted, this is hardly the only paper in which this idea is present)

  2. I wonder how sad the Nanotyrannus fanboys are right now...

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. There is every good aspect that one has to consider with some experience and objective parts to their experience so indeed a vital chance to did actually whats been considered so important. pediatric neurosurgery fellowship

  5. Thomas Carr in 2001 (when Thomas Carr was a PhD student) told a college student that Thomas Carr would not talk to or help the student until the student achieved a "doctorate" as a way to punish the student out of Thomas Carr's jealousy and vindictiveness because the student gave an opinion to another paleontologist about a dinosaur topic without Thomas Carr giving the student permission to give the student's opinion. In other words, Thomas Carr likes to blackball people when he has the power to do so.

  6. Hi Todd - Are you sure this is the way you want to go about this issue, without knowing my side of it? Clearly this is unresolved (after more than a decade!) and I think it would be most helpful if you just gave me a call and we can discuss this instead of thrashing me publicly, multiple times here, and on ratemyprofessor. Get in touch with me and we'll talk.

  7. We must needs to put our best effort to sort out the best issues and to put some good review regarding those analysis so this would of course be so easy to move forward. do my thesis

  8. Hmm. I think that Unknown person needs to calm down.

    Anyway, as a continuation of my previous comment, I’d like your opinion on the following blog, when time allows, as I know that you have much more important stuff on your plate than reading a silly blog. But, when you do have time, here’s the link:
    In particular, the posts entitled: “Allosaurus: More of a Vulture than a Falcon” and “What Do Face-Biting Birds: Including Turkeys: Tell Us About Face-Biting Theropods?”

    For a short summary of each: The Allosaurus post mentions a theory of his called “the bone-saw-shimmy”, which is based on the feeding habits of vultures and how they supposedly employ “choanal grinding” to consume flesh. The line of evidence of this bone consumption is a coprolite, supposedly from the aforementioned taxon, which is full of bone. Link here:
    At first I thought this was a likely scenario, but after a friend made the point that “Theropod teeth are NOT made for sawing bone, because doing so would destroy the denticles as well as break the teeth”, I feel like I’ve been duped by something that, on the surface, seems like a sound scientific argument but may, in all actuality, just be pseudoscience. If this is, in fact, nothing more than pseudoscience, I feel like an expert must comment on this to dissuade others from being misled by it…

    The other one, link here:
    I commented on in some length. I feel like his argument is fairly weak for the broad, sweeping generalizations he is making about facial integument here. I’m also not a fan at all of his actual theropod reconstructions, finding them to be far too overly speculative and lacking in the evidence he seems to think so strong…

    Of course, I’m no expert, and an expert’s opinion is what’s truly needed here! Again, when time permits…

    -Leandra W.

  9. Excellent post. Security Blog Melbourne gives complete end-to-end advancement and foundation benefits through totally approved specialists and experienced program and improvement heads.