On 2/17/24 14:22, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/17/24 10:36 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/24 8:37 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
preservation, but is mainly painted. However, under the paint
there are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil. The >>>>> new paper concludes with
"Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about
the preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using
T. antiquus in phylogenetic studies." "Caution" is the word for it. >>>>>
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be
discovered.
I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet). I expect there will be
one before long. But I did a little searching, and came across the
very relevant gem:
https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/
Let's not bring Peters into it, though all his fakes are apparently
sincerely intended. Is digital paint better than physical paint?
I'd guess that physical paint is easier to spot than good digital
"paint". Misused AI ought to carry the scientific death penalty.
Thet Teyler museum has a whole exhibit on this...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)