Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mythusmage" data-source="post: 1101572" data-attributes="member: 571">Learn something new.So the Virginia Opossum is aberrant because it's descended from a South American lineage? Or have I got that wrong? Sounds like anti immigrant bias here.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Considering geographical conditions during most of the Cretaceous, I find it unsurprising that such late appearing animals such as ceratopsians and tryannosaurids are found in only one or two areas. For that matter, wasn't there a dromaeasaurid analog from the Jurassic found only in South America? (It starts with an 's', but danged if I can remember the name.) With the break-up of Pangea and the subsequent break up of Laurasia and Gondwana of course faunal assemblages were going to diverge. Some regions more than others.Evidence doesn't have to be new. Sometimes all it needs is a reconsideration. Much as a reconsideration of the Burgess Shale fauna gave rise to a rethinking of early Cambrian life. It also helps if the involved parties are willing to give the evidence an honest appraisal in the first place, especially when said evidence could upset what they learned years before. The controvery regarding paleontologital evidence versus genetic evidence regarding mammalian relationships going on today for instance. The nigh pathological reluctance of the bulk of the zoological and primatological communities to even look at readily available evidence supporting the existence of the yeti and bigfoot is another example. Scientist are not immune to being close minded.Didn't sound like it to me.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> It sounded like an argument. It pays to be attentive to the tone of your writing. BTW, much of what I wrote is also based on publically available writing.As to the mailing list you mentioned, does it have an edress and how does one go about subscribing to it?Mr. Dyal, consider not only what you say, but how you say it. No need for euphemisms that wind up offending all by trying to offend none, but something much akin to, "I've heard differently, and here's what I've heard." That should help.Forgot this part: FYI, Scientific American articles are not written by journalists, but by scientists. It is a popular science magazine, but more rigorous than the typical specimen. It is the scientific community's way of communicating new and interesting things to the general public. At least that segment of the general public interested in such matters. My mom was a trained biologist, she subscribed. That's good enough for me.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification