| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 7 2013, 02:59 AM (4,361 Views) | |
| JD-man | Feb 7 2013, 02:59 AM Post #1 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I originally posted the following in my DA journal ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
Edited by JD-man, Mar 31 2013, 12:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 7 2013, 07:06 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, the size estimates in "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" shouldn't be used anymore? About my list, don't really have one yet, but according to MantisShrimp, Thulborn had some not very good papers, so I will maybe put him into my bad or semi-good zone. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 7 2013, 07:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| JD-man | Feb 7 2013, 03:22 PM Post #3 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not sure how to answer your question. If I had to choose, I'd use the size estimates in "The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs". Why do you ask?
Assuming you're referring to what I think you're referring to ( http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9808221/1/#new ), I wouldn't take MantisShrimp too seriously. As you can see, he seemingly didn't even read the paper in question. He seemingly only read the abstract & assumed the worst. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 7 2013, 03:33 PM Post #4 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suppose because you've put it in your bad list, but that is because of the extreme lumping and unneeded name changes of clades by Paul rather than his reconstructions, right? |
![]() |
|
| JD-man | Feb 7 2013, 04:21 PM Post #5 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you mean? GSPaul is listed under "Semi-good". Edited by JD-man, Feb 8 2013, 12:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 7 2013, 04:43 PM Post #6 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
God, I didn't saw that it was also under the "clarifications" part (the explanations for * and **) haha, I wonder if Jinfengopteryx made the same mistake. Edit: also, it is indeed in the semi-good and under the "clarifications", below the bad too, only saw it below bad at first. Edited by blaze, Feb 7 2013, 11:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 7 2013, 05:12 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I did. |
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Feb 7 2013, 06:45 PM Post #8 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, new bad source, JD-man, because he did not even understand my argument I am not the only one who is critcal of Thulborns new paper, he may have a point but some things that he writes are simply not true. If his paper would hve been purely technical without missinformation then I would not have a problem with it. I admire his earlier work, but lately it has become overly defensive and sometimes not so well researched, like his paper about Bückeburgichnus. Oh, and yes, I read the paper, did you? In good faith I assumed that it only sounded harsh because Thulborn was passionate about this subject, but when I read the paper and found false allegations in it, and later, when I read Thulborns own message on the DML, I started to reject his harsh critique. He is right that the paper probably is somewhat incomplete, but it only is part of a larger project. I also hope that you apologize for your allegations towards my reasearch ethics and methodology. You seemingly have not idea about them, and I regard such wild speculations as an insult. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 7 2013, 06:48 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
BTW JD-man, I was rather reffering to his post in the therad about "Das Monster von Minden". |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Feb 8 2013, 12:02 AM Post #10 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Examples: Good: Most scientific papers Semi-good: Factual documentaries(like Planet Dinosaur) Bad: Dinosaur George and Jurassic Fight Club Worst: Clash of the Dinosaurs |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 8 2013, 02:03 AM Post #11 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good: peer-reviewed, published scientific papers. Paleontologists' blogs like SV-POW (Mike Taylor, Matt Wedel), Archosaur Musings (Dave Hone), Tetrapod Zoology (Darron Naish). There are many more. I also consider theropod database to be a good source, since Mortimer seems to get his references from mostly scientific papers. Books written by paleontologists. Semi-good: Wikipedia, Dinodata, GSP, blog posts from dinosaur enthusiast like Jaime Headden, Zach Armstrong, or Nima Sasani, mainly because there are not degreed paleontologists. Bad: Mocumentaries, random outdated websites. Most internet forums. I don't really consider Dino George to be a source. He mostly express his own opinions in his Q&A session. It's like the O'Reilly Factor, but not as bad. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 05:08 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'll make my list (these are of course just examples). Good: The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) (2012), svpow, http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/ Semi-Good: The Theropod Database, Wikipedia, Holtz Genus list (not bad, but no sources cited and some lengths are outdated) Bad: reptileevolution, some of Thulborn's papers, Alan Feduccia (pretty much all these guys who try to seperate birds from dinosaurs, with rather poor argumentation) |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 05:24 AM Post #13 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^I think you might be generalizing a bit too much. I would usually consider the theropod database and holtz genus list a far better source than wikipedia, and do you really mean the thulborn I know (the one who published abouzt the broome trackmaker)? If yes, what can a real scientist possibly publish that is comparable to people who want to seperate birds from dinosaurs or the sad guy running reptileevolution? My list Good: peer reviewed papers (but never blindly believe anything please!) and scientific books, scientific blogs (SVPOW, Archosaur Musings...) and websites (eg. theropod database) or other things such as lectures, direct statements of scientists (eg. askabiologist, dml, but one always has to differentiate between facts and opinions) semi-good: sites of dinosaur enthusiasts and palaeoartists like Palaeocritti, DinoData or PalaeoKing, good wikipedia articles (rare enough), some youtube videos, good popular books bad: most of wikipedia, documentaries, sites of wannabe scientists (eg. reptileevolution/pterosaurheresis), most youtube videos, newspapers, guessed statements that are taken litterally, popular scientific books, ordinary people's websites Edited by theropod, Feb 8 2013, 05:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 05:27 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I rather ment what he published about Bückenburgichnus. I only have the abstract, but MantisShrimp said it was quite bad resarched and he didn't write very good papers in the last time. About Wikipedia, I ment good articles and no stubs or something like that. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 8 2013, 05:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 05:31 AM Post #15 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have written some wikipedia articles in my life, and be ensured, most articles that are not classified as stubs are nto reliable either. mostly, they are extremely one sided, if they actually present scientific information. Some can be good of course, but often articles by a certain author simply are not classified as stub because he/she has a good reputation. often the ones who do the quality control there simply don't have a clue about the topic themselves, so it is not checked whether an article reflects the topic properly but rather whether it has some sources in its references section and whether it is long enough. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
9:36 AM Jul 11
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





9:36 AM Jul 11