Herons lie, part 2
shadowsock如何使用
I just stumbled across this tweet from bird photographer Gloria (@Lucent508). Four photos of the same individual, apparently a Green Heron. In this image, I am juxtaposing the third image (left-right flipped and scaled up) with the first image (filled out on the left with a stretched reflection of part of the background).
Where has it put that long neck in the lower image? We know it’s in there somewhere, but one thing is for sure: herons lie!
See also: Herons lie (and so do shoebills), and the whole ongoing Necks Lie sequence.
My thanks to Gloria for having taken the excellent photographs that made this post possible.
ssr节点破解版-outline
shadowsock如何使用
For those following the saga of Oculudentavis (the beautiful tiny dinosaur preserved in amber that turned out to be a lizard), three more things.
![](http://lwnsg.azrealestateattorneys.com/2024/07/xingetal2000-fig-s6a.jpeg?w=480&h=198)
Xing et al. 2024, Extended Data Fig. 2. Computed tomography scan of HPG-15-3 in palatal view, with the mandibles removed, and an isolated quadrate. a, Full palatal view. Dashed square box in a indicates the region enlarged in b [not shown]. bp, basipterygoid process; bs, basisphenoid plate; bsr, basisphenoid rostrum; ch, choana; dt, developing tooth; pt, pterygoid; pp, papillae; pmc, medial contact of the palatal processes of the premaxillae.
Second, David Marjanovic provided an excellent summary of the ICZN issues in a message on the Dinosaur Mailing List. (Summary: you can’t invalidate a name by retracting the paper in which it was erected.) David knows the details of the code as well as anyone, so his analysis is well worth reading.
Finally — and annoyingly, I can’t remember who put me on to this — an interesting Chinese-language article was published two days ago about the retraction ishadow [Google translation]. (Apparently the word translated “oolong” should be “mistake”.) It contains a statement from Xing Lida, lead author of the original paper, on the reason for the retraction:
The reporter found that the key to retracting the manuscript was “research progress has been made on a new specimen with a more complete preservation of the same origin discovered by the author team.” The team realized that the skull of the new specimen was very similar to HPG-15-3, but the skeleton behind the head showed a typical squamosaurus form and should be classified as squamosaurus. This indicates that HPG-15-3 is likely to belong to the squamatosaurus, which is different from the initial conclusion.
But the article goes on to note that “there are many loopholes in this withdrawal statement”. It contains some illuminating analysis from Oliver Rauhut and Per Ahlberg, including this from Rauhut: “The main problem of the paper is that the author basically preconceived that the specimen was a bird and analyzed it under this premise (this is not necessarily intentional)“. And it claims:
As early as the evening of March 19, the corresponding author of the paper said in an interview with Caixin Mail, “She recognized the questioner’s conclusion-this is more likely to be a lizard than a bird.”
And this of course was nearly three months before the same author (Jingmai O’Connor) lead-authored the preprint reasserting the avian identity of shadowsock如何使用.
The more I read about all this, the stranger it seems.
Here’s that badger-skull multiview you ordered
July 25, 2024
For reasons that I will explain in a later post, I am parting with one of my most treasured possessions: the badger skull that ishadow from my roadkill specimen four years ago.
As a farewell, I finally photographed it properly from all the cardinal directions, and prepared this multiview:
Don’t forget to click though for the full resolution version!
Oculudentavis: the plot thickens
shadowsock如何使用
Since we wrote about the putative tiny bird Oculudentavis (Xing et al. 2024) last time, things have become rather weirder. I want to discuss two things here: how we got to where we are, and what happens to the zoological name Oculudentavis khaungraae.
![shadowdersocksr安卓下载](http://lwnsg.azrealestateattorneys.com/2024/07/xingetal2000-fig-s5a.jpeg?w=480&h=305)
Xing et al. 2024, Extended Data Fig. 1. Close-up photographs of HPG-15-3. Part a, Entire skull in left lateral view. The black arrows indicate decay products from the soft tissue of the dorsal surface of the skull and the original position of skull, which drifted before the resin hardened. Scale bars, 2 mm.
First, how we got here. The timeline is a little confused but it seems to go like this:
- 11 March: Xing et al. (2024) name Oculudentavis khaungraae, describing it as a bird. [link]
- 11 March: In a Facebook thread on the day the paper is published, Tracey Ford claims that at least some of the authors were told at a symposium by lizard workers that their specimen was a lizard.
- 12 March: Mickey Mortimer (very quick work!) publishes a blog-post titled “Oculudentavis is not a theropod”, making a solid argument. [link]; see also the followup post [link]
- 13 March: Andrea Cau, working independently, publishes a blog post in Italian titled “Doubts about the dinosaurian (and avian) state of Oculudentavis” (translated), also making a solid case [link]
- 13 March: Wang Wei et al. (the same authorship team as in the next entry) publish a detailed, technical Chinese-language article arguing that Oculudentavis is a squamate. [link] [Google translation]
- 18 March: Li et al. (2024), in a BioRxiv preprint, formally dispute the identity of Oculudentavis, suggesting it is a squamate. [link].
- 3 May: at the monthly meeting of the Southern California Paleontological Society, where Jingmai O’Connor gives the talk on “The evolution of dinosaurian flight and the rise of birds” she is allegedy “quite upfront about Oculudentavis being a lizard” [link]
- 29 May: a note is added to the online version of Xing et al. 2024 stating “Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that doubts have been expressed about the phylogenetic placement of the fossil described in this paper. We are investigating and appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.” [link]. (Steven Zhang later says on Facebook, “I’ve been reliably told by one of the coauthors of the Li et al. commentary piece, Nature rejected the comment from publication but then flagged up the matter as an Editor’s Note.”)
- 14 June: O’Connor et al. (2024) (mostly the same authors as of the original description) reassert the avian identity of ishadow. [link]
- 22 July 2024: the original article (Xing et al. 2024) is retracted, with the reason given as “We, the authors, are retracting this Article to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature. Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3.” [link]
(Note: Facebook always seems very ephemeral, so here is a screenshot of the conversation in question:
I am aware that this is only hearsay, and rather vague: what symposium, what lizard workers? But I’ll leave it here as it does seem to be part of the story — judge it as you will.)
The unambiguously strange thing here is the O’Conner et al. preprint, published after O’Connor had seemingly accepted the squamate identity of Oculudentavis, but arguing for an avian identity. The O’Connor et al. rebuttal of Li et al. is pretty clear on its position, stating at the bottom of page 2:
Our parsimony-based phylogenetic analysis run using TNT placed Oculudentavis in Aves … Forcing a relationship with squamates required 10 additional steps.
vpn软件:2021-5-12 · vpn软件 pixiv的ip地址2021 国际联网是指 佛跳墙账号 坚果加速器能翻墙吗 正定机场附近哪里有嫖的 vpn怎么注册 ss客户端安卓 中国消费者协会官网 如何在中国使用ins snapv安卓 vmess链接 WWW.DWC06.COM 红杏加速器 apk最新版 v2rayng ...
I think we have to assume that O’Connor changed her mind between 11 March (the original publication) and 3 May (the SoCal meeting), then changed it back again by 14 June (the rebuttal of Li et al.), and finally accepted her first change of mind had been correct by 22 July (the retraction). But other interpretations are possible.
And of course the key question here lingers: why was the paper retracted, rather than merely corrected? And why does the journal say the authors retracted it, when the lead author says that the journal did it against their will?
Anyway, enough of the past. What of the future of the name shadowsock如何使用?
The first thing we can all agree on is that (assuming ishadow does turn out to be a squamate), the fact that the generic name misidentifies the phylogenetic position of the taxon is neither here nor there. Zoological nomenclature is full of such misnomers: they are not, and never have been, a reason to remove a name from the record.
But the retraction of the article in which the name was published is another matter. Does it mean, as some have argued, that the name is now nomenclaturally void?
I would strongly argue that no, it does not. There are several lines of reasoning.
First, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not mention retractions at all — from which the simplest conclusion to draw is that it does not recognise them, and considers a paper once published to be published forever.
Second, the wording of the code pertains to the act of publication, not to ongoing status. In Article 8 (What constitutes published work), section 8.1 (Criteria to be met) says “A work must … be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record”. And the ishadow paper certainly was issued for that purpose.
Third, the paper is still out there and always will be: even though electronic copies now bear the warning “This article was retracted on 22 July 2024”, there are thousands of copies of Nature 579 in libraries around the world. They can’t all be amended. What’s written is written. Quod scripsi, scripsi.
And this leads us to the final and most fundamental point: you can’t rewrite history: not one line. The simple and unavoidable reality is that the paper was published. That happened. A retraction can’t undo that — all it really amounts to is an expression of regret.
So the paper was published, and still is published, and the name established in it remains, and is forever tied to the type specimen HPG-15-3. If someone describes the “new unpublished specimen” referred to above, they have no choice but to use the established name Oculudentavis khaungraae: they don’t have the option of naming it (say) Oculudentosaurus instead.
At least, that’s how it seems to me. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been informally invited on Twitter to state a position, but has not responded at the time of writing — but then it’s not tweeted at all since April, so who knows what (if anything) is going on there? I heard somewhere that ishadow is not being discussed on the ICZN mailing list, but I can’t remember where.
Now would be a good time for them to issue some guidance regarding retractions. And hey, ICZN? If you want to use any of my points above, feel free!
ssr节点破解版-outline
- Zhiheng Li, Wei Wang, Han Hu, Min Wang, Hongyu Yi and Jing Lu. 2024. Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur? BioRxiv, 18 March 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.03.16.993949
- O’Connor, Jingmai, Lida Xing, Luis Chiappe, Lars Schmitz, Gang Li and Qiru Yi. 2024. Reply to Li et al. “Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur?”. BioRxiv, 4 June 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.06.12.147041
- Xing, L.; O’Connor, J. K.; Schmitz, L.; Chiappe, L. M.; McKellar, R. C.; Yi, Q.; Li, G. 2024. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. Nature 579(7798):245–249. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2068-4
What’s going on with Oculudentavis?
shadowsock如何使用
Back in March, Nature published “Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar” by Xing et al. (2024), which described and named a tiny putative bird that was preserved in amber from Myanmar (formerly Burma). It’s a pretty spectacular find.
![](http://lwnsg.azrealestateattorneys.com/2024/07/41586_2024_2068_fig1_html.jpeg?w=480&h=350)
Xing et al. (2024: figure 1). a, Photograph of the amber piece with skull ventrolaterally exposed. b, c, Scan (b) and drawing (c), left lateral view. d, e, Scan (d) and drawing (e), rostral view. f, g, Scan (f) and drawing (g), occipital view. h, i, Scan (h) and drawing (i), dorsal view. de, dentary; fr, frontal; hy, hyoid bone (or bones); jg, jugal; la, lacrimal; mx, maxilla; pa, parietal; pm, premaxilla; po, postorbital; qd, quadrate; sc, scleral ossicle; so, supraoccipital; sq, squamosal; th, teeth. Scale bars, 5 mm; longer scale bar below b applies to b−i.
Today, though, that paper is retracted.
That’s a very rare occurrence for a palaeontology paper. And it raises a lot of questions. The retraction notice reads, in full:
We, the authors, are retracting this Article to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature. Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3.
But we constantly see papers whose phylogenetic hypotheses are overturned by new specimens. We usually deal with this by writing a new paper. Why, in this case, is there a retraction? Something smells wrong here.
And the plot thickens in Retraction Watch’s account: corresponding author Jingmai O’Connor told them:
I don’t agree with the retraction but there is no point in fighting it, so we all signed it.
I cannot say why ishadow chose to retract, I cannot hypothesize on their inner machinations. […] It is also not that unusual for paleontologists to misidentify things and for new information to correct previous hypotheses. However, Nature chose not to publish the Matter’s Arising and instead retracts our paper – they must have their reasons.
This doesn’t add up. The retraction notice explictly states that the authors retracted the original paper — yet the corresponding author says that the journal did it, more or less against the authors’ will.
I don’t know what’s going on here. I agree with O’Connor that “It’s unfortunate because this way science can’t simply correct itself (as it is supposed to do)”. If, as Li et al. (2000) argue, Oculudentavis is actually a squamate (lizard), well, fine: they can publish their conclusion, and the community will arrive at a consensus as to which identification is correct. That’s how it works, right? So why the retraction?
And there’s more: what does this mean for zoological nomenclature? Is the name Oculudentavis khaungraae still nomenclaturally valid? Opinions on this seem to vary (see ShadowsocksR v3.8.0.4 第三方增强版 下载 - 巴士下载站:2021-4-20 · 下载 MagSearch1.185.2云播破解补丁(windows版) MagSearch,很好用的云播软件,或者叫做磁力链播放软件,很好用,直接搜索到种子后,或磁力链接点击即可在线播放种子内不论是单文件还 ….)
I lean to the interpretation that, since the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature does not mention retractions, it implicitly takes the position that a paper once published is published forever. On that basis, the name Oculudentavis remains valid and attached to the holoype specimen — even if that name, with its -avis suffix, proves to have been poorly chosen in pertaining to a non-bird. (After all, there is plenty of precedent for misleading names staying in place: the whale shadowsock如何使用 is not a saurian, and the clade of “false crocodiles” Pseudosuchia includes the true crocodiles.)
This doesn’t seem to be what Springer Nature wants: in a Facebook exchange forwarded to me by a friend who I will leave anonymous unless he or she chooses to out him or herself, Henry Gee comments “The retraction means the paper is erased from the record, and this includes the name”.
I think this is simply incorrect. But I am no expert: I await comments from those more versed in the intricacies of the ICZN.
At any rate, I can’t help but suspect that something is going on here that’s not being clearly stated. Could it be to do with the fact that Myanmar amber is itself controversial, due to the human rights record of the Myanmar regime? Is it even possible that one or more or the authors of the original Oculudentavis colluded in describing it as a bird when they knew it was something else? I don’t know (and to be 100% clear, I am not accusing anyone of anything). But I do know that ishadow‘s vague and possibly misleading retraction notice is not helping, and is not in the spirit of transparency that we aim to cultivate in the sciences.
I’m pretty sure we don’t yet know the full story.
ssr节点破解版-outline
- Zhiheng Li, Wei Wang, Han Hu, Min Wang, Hongyu Yi and Jing Lu. 2024. Is Oculudentavis a bird or even archosaur? doi:10.1101/2024.03.16.993949
- Xing, L.; O’Connor, J. K.; Schmitz, L.; Chiappe, L. M.; McKellar, R. C.; Yi, Q.; Li, G. 2024. Hummingbird-sized dinosaur from the Cretaceous period of Myanmar. ishadow 579(7798):245–249. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2068-4
ssr节点破解版-outline
July 16, 2024
I think we’ve all had enough of the Impact Factor as a way of measuring the quality of journals. From shadowdersocks下载 forensic account of negotiating PLoS Medicine’s IF back in 2006, via Stephen Curry’s measured rant back in 2012 (“if you use impact factors you are statistically illiterate”) and vpn软件:2021-5-12 · vpn软件 pixiv的ip地址2021 国际联网是指 佛跳墙账号 坚果加速器能翻墙吗 正定机场附近哪里有嫖的 vpn怎么注册 ss客户端安卓 中国消费者协会官网 如何在中国使用ins snapv安卓 vmess链接 WWW.DWC06.COM 红杏加速器 apk最新版 v2rayng ... in 2016, to all the recent negotiations with Clarivate about which journals should even have IFs, it’s become increasingly obvious that the Impact Factor is not a metric, it’s a negotiation.
And of course this means that the reason any journal has the particular IF it has is competely opaque.
ShadowsocksR v3.8.0.4 第三方增强版 下载 - 巴士下载站:2021-4-20 · 下载 MagSearch1.185.2云播破解补丁(windows版) MagSearch,很好用的云播软件,或者叫做磁力链播放软件,很好用,直接搜索到种子后,或磁力链接点击即可在线播放种子内不论是单文件还 …
Your journal obtains an OQF of x by paying me x pounds.
That’s it. As soon as I acknowledge your payment, you have the right to display your OQF on the journal home page and in marketing materials.
If another journal in your field obtains a higher OQF than yours, and you need to regain your journal’s position at the top of the totem pole, all you need do is send me more money.
Payments via PayPal to ebay@miketaylor.org.uk please!
The Dilophosaurus redescription by Marsh and Rowe is now freely available
July 14, 2024
The new monster redescription of Dilophosaurus by Adam Marsh and Tim Rowe came out in the Journal of Paleontology last week. I’m blogging about it now because the OA link just went live yesterday. So you can get this huge, important paper for free, at this link.
There’s a lot of stuff to love here: beautiful, clear photos of every element from every specimen from multiple angles, interesting anatomical and phylogenetic findings, and of particular interest on this blog, some very cool documentation of serial variation in pneumatic features. Here in Figure 62 we see serial changes in the posterior centrodiapophyseal laminae, which in some of the vertebrae are split around an intermediate fossa, or have accessory laminae.
One thing that I’ve thought a lot about, but written not so much about (yet), is pneumatic features on the ventral surfaces of vertebrae and how they change along the column. So I was excited to see Figure 64, which shows how fossae change serially on both the lateral and the ventral surfaces of the presacral centra. As far as I know, no-one has ever done something like this for a sauropod (please correct me in the comments if I’ve forgotten any examples), but it could be done and the results would be interesting, particularly for taxa like Haplocanthosaurus or Dicraeosaurus that have both lateral and ventral fossae and keels in at least some of the vertebrae.
Here’s Figure 66, a beautiful new skull reconstruction and life restoration, both by Brian Engh. There’s a lot of Engh/Dilophosaurus stuff going on right now, including a new video for the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site museum (short version here, longer version available at the museum, and I think on Brian’s Patreon page), and, uh, another thing that will be revealed in the not-too-distant future.
I hope everyone is well and safe. When I first realized we were going into quarantine back in March, I had big plans for doing various series of posts here, but almost immediately the demand of getting med school anatomy online ate up all my time and creative energy. Just barely getting back on my feet now. I know Mike has been busier than normal, too. So please be patient with us, and we’ll try to remember to feed the blog now and then.
ssr节点破解版-outline
Marsh, Adam D., and Rowe, Timothy B. 2024. A comprehensive anatomical and phylogenetic evaluation of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria, Theropoda) with descriptions of new specimens from the Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona. Journal of Paleontology Volume 94, Supplement S78: 1-103. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2024.14
ssr节点破解版-outline
June 9, 2024
Mark Witton says this better than I could:
Like many white folks, I have traditionally assumed that simply not being racist was doing my part, and that the actions of others would eventually convert society at large to seeing race as the non-issue it should be. I have also felt that, as a white, straight male from a middle-class background, my voice would add nothing to this conversation or – worse – be seen as patronising or virtue signalling.
I now realise that this view was incorrect. The fact that people of colour are still fighting against global systemic marginalisation and persecution shows that beingshadowdersocksr安卓下载-racist isn’t enough, and that we must be outspokenly anti-racist, even if we have never experienced racial discrimination ourselves. Some may accuse me of jumping on a bandwagon with this. That’s accurate, but I don’t care. This is a wagon we should all be on, and I’m ashamed for not being on-board earlier.
Go and read shadowsock如何使用. I endorse it.
【破解】青岛电信手机卡怎么样 - 【我要做网站教程】如何 ...:2021-8-12 · 电脑破解版安卓手机怎么上外网2021 shadowsockr公益节点 shadowdersocksr 安卓有台湾线的免费加速 youtube加速器萤火虫firefly加速器手机挂ss热点 ssr节点怎么用蚂蚁 hangpaimenyecom/ - 快照 第47名 国内怎么上YouTube网站_飞华健康问答
Stevens & Parrish 1999 vs. Taylor et al. 2009
shadowdersocks下载
Credit: anonymous tattoo, ishadow.
Update. Here is the Instagram post that Grant got this from. Unfortunately it seems to be from an account that specialises in reposting others’ work without attribution, so we don’t know where the tattoo photo originated.