3 ms·

I read this article and got curious so I went to reddit looking for any sign of it on /r/paleontology. I figured there would surely be someone in the field comm

I read this article and got curious so I went to reddit looking for any sign of it on /r/paleontology. I figured there would surely be someone in the field commenting about it since it is a really big deal to fee like you need to call out a colleague in such a public manner. In a thread about another Hell Creek dinosaur that may turn out to be a chimera fossil instead of a distinct species [0] I found this Twitter thread from someone familiar with DePalma [1]. Seems like more than one person suspects that DePalma may not be on the level [2], [3] or that his work may not stand up to close scrutiny. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/zfj0ll/sad_and_frustrating_dakotaraptor_update/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/zfj0ll/sad_an... [1] https://twitter.com/paleopaws/status/1600520038070587395 https://twitter.com/paleopaws/status/1600520038070587395 [2] https://thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/nuking-anzuraptor/ https://thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/nukin... [3] https://twitter.com/TomHoltzPaleo/status/1600577537868181504 https://twitter.com/TomHoltzPaleo/status/1600577537868181504 Pretty interesting. I'm pretty sure I watched a movie about this discovery detailing how they narrowed the season of the asteroid strike down to spring and it was an informative movie and entertaining too. Anyway, we get to see how this all shakes out.

andrewflnr 4y ago
I think your [2] is actually defending DePalma, or at least refuting a particular objection to Dakotaraptor, which appears to be one of his finds. Am I reading it wrong?
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
  I read that the same way - seems to defend his claims rather than refute them.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    I agree that the poster in link [2] defends DePalma's taxonomic placement of Dakotaraptor.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  I agree that link [2] is defending his (DePalma's) taxonomic placement of Dakotaraptor or possibly making the case that it is not out of the question based on comparisons that can be made. I am not a dinosaur expert at all so I don't know how one goes about assigning specimens to species and placing them on the family trees. There are lots of challenges to the process in identifying adult versus juvenile individuals that lend enough confusion that I have to let others make those calls. I believe the criticism that the author is rebutting in the post has partly been handled by DePalma, namely that part of the material used to define the Dakotaraptor was actually chimeric in that it did not come from the same animal. That seems likely since other posts I read mentioned that the Dakotaraptor fossil was co-mingled with other fossils and DePalma later removed the questionable material (from a turtle?) to correct that problem. The author of the post did not address the other issues noted about DePalma and how he approaches his work and manages his relationships with peers. Those characteristics are discussed on the other threads of the other links and mentioned in the original article.

andrewflnr 4y ago

I think your [2] is actually defending DePalma, or at least refuting a particular objection to Dakotaraptor, which appears to be one of his finds. Am I reading it wrong?

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
I read that the same way - seems to defend his claims rather than refute them.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  I agree that the poster in link [2] defends DePalma's taxonomic placement of Dakotaraptor.
doodlebugging 4y ago
I agree that link [2] is defending his (DePalma's) taxonomic placement of Dakotaraptor or possibly making the case that it is not out of the question based on comparisons that can be made. I am not a dinosaur expert at all so I don't know how one goes about assigning specimens to species and placing them on the family trees. There are lots of challenges to the process in identifying adult versus juvenile individuals that lend enough confusion that I have to let others make those calls. I believe the criticism that the author is rebutting in the post has partly been handled by DePalma, namely that part of the material used to define the Dakotaraptor was actually chimeric in that it did not come from the same animal. That seems likely since other posts I read mentioned that the Dakotaraptor fossil was co-mingled with other fossils and DePalma later removed the questionable material (from a turtle?) to correct that problem. The author of the post did not address the other issues noted about DePalma and how he approaches his work and manages his relationships with peers. Those characteristics are discussed on the other threads of the other links and mentioned in the original article.