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 c

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.