morphometrich.bsky.social
Chicago area Paleontologist š¦; I dabble with dinosaurs š¦ and morphometrics. Science Educator. Mostly teach Intro Geology šŖØ. Too much baseball ā¾ļøsometimes. Go Cubs š»! Go Ducks š¦! Go Hoosiers! He/Him. Opinions are my own
553 posts
458 followers
295 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yep!
comment in response to
post
Honestly, sometimes I feel like Paleo is the popular table high school: all the stuff happens there and you only know if you're lucky enough to be connected to it.
comment in response to
post
The speed at which all the āno warā MAGA & āfiscally responsibleā GOPāers (and even many Democrats) get behind this military action will make Wās head-spin
comment in response to
post
3rd one was asking for an explanation/support/reasoning for 1-2. But what about #4?
comment in response to
post
My questions would be:
1-what part(s) of the consensus do you reject?
2-why do you reject them?
3-what do you feel is mis-accounted for in the consensus?
4-what evidence would you need to be shown to accept the consensus as it currently is?
comment in response to
post
There are ways around it; not easy or straightforward but the ICZN could be petitioned. I not a hill I'd die on. First names can be overruled (see: Manospondylus).
And if you don't agree with a scientific consensus part of me would question if you're doing science or clinging to a belief.
comment in response to
post
(4/4) Right now, the data does not support NanoT. I would need a histologically old specimen with autapomorphies that are not onto variable to accept its validity. What evidence has convinced you otherwise?
comment in response to
post
(3/4) The old arguments are the slew of morphology cases and the ecology one. The new paper doesn't add anything new to either; in fact it omits/ignores new data (ie Carr's onto work and Schroeder's and Holtz's ecology papers). My annotations on the figs are big šØ...
comment in response to
post
(2/4) This blog post I wrote was in response to that one paper and I highlighted few areas in it that literally doesn't make the argument. For the full breakdown of NanoT (and to save posts), have a look at this 2020 summary I wrote: dinointhedugout.home.blog/2020/01/05/n...
comment in response to
post
(1/4) I got 300 characters so I'll do my best to condense. The nomen dubium is my own opinion. Given all the debates & baggage around the name NanoT, even if its shown to be distinct, I vote nuking it from orbit and starting clean with a new name with less history....
comment in response to
post
Itās crazy but I heard it before (2012). Seriously: folks argued that mandatory holidays took away the choice to work and earn. And these were normal co-workers, not politicians.
comment in response to
post
Right now, the consensus is that it is a juvenile Trex. The evidence presented in the two most-recent papers were just a rehashing of the same old talking points.
And the specimens are juveniles; histo pretty much clinched that. So even if they are not Trex , Nano is nomen dubium as a name.
comment in response to
post
I am utterly heartbroken over what we are likely to lose. Iāve been on my Congresscritters about it, but they (1) agree with me and (2) likely have ābiggerā fights to deal with; Medicaid (rightfully) is a higher priority
comment in response to
post
And to add further deliberate insult to injury today, the ongoing genocide against trans folks in this country continues by cutting a potential lifeline for them.
thehill.com/homenews/lgb...
comment in response to
post
Some of us in Illinois would like a word about thatā¦
comment in response to
post
And to add further deliberate insult to injury today, the genocide against LGBTQIA+ in this country continues by cutting a potential lifeline for them.
thehill.com/homenews/lgb...
comment in response to
post
Furthermore, the comments made by Justice Barrett undermine the plight of trans individuals across the world.
bsky.app/profile/stmd...
comment in response to
post
thehill.com/regulation/c...
Whatās more insulting is Justice Thomasā reasoning that in these matters it is okay to ignore experts, a continuation of the USās cultural acceptance of ignorance over information so long as your personal beliefs are protectedā¦
comment in response to
post
I have no good words for the 6 āJusticesā who have put our most vulnerable youth in harms way. This was an idealogical crusade masquerading as lawful measuresā¦.
comment in response to
post
15 yrs ago I was on a field trip & we drove thru Yellowstone. As we entered, I made a joke that the GOP would sell park naming rights like sports venues.
At this point, I wish thatās the worst theyād do
comment in response to
post
Whereās your natural spaces & wild places?
Call our representatives. Protect and preserve our public lands.
These lands belong to you and me.
comment in response to
post
Thatās part of my question for sure. My default assumption was that those critters were nesting in different habitats that donāt preserve. WWD1 had Diplodocus in a deep forest where hatchlings have cover & food. But who knows.
comment in response to
post
Within Sauropoda having different lineages with oviparity and viviparity arising multiple times? That's not something I had on my Evolution BINGO card.
A more interesting questions would be nesting habitats. We know where titanosaurs laid eggs, are we not finding those depo envirs in the Morrison?
comment in response to
post
Didnāt she also tell us she was *sure* Trump ālearned his lessonā and wouldnāt act that way againā¦ explaining why she would not vote to impeach him?
comment in response to
post
If we did, the agency would be accused of being ābiasedā and theyād lose access. Iām sitting here hoping for us to rediscover the adversarial journalistic system we used to have
comment in response to
post
But if they offend Dear Leader, he will cut them out. How will they survive?
Besides, chaos is good business. Youāve seen āTomorrow Never Diesā.
comment in response to
post
The National guard is a distraction from ICE arrests which was a distraction from Elon Musk which was a distraction from legislation which is a distraction from