Paranthropus + Eophyseter + Bienotheroides wucaiensis + Erevnoichnus + tetrapod tracks glossary + more free pdfs

ZHU Xu-Feng, CHANG Fei, LI Yu, ZHANG Xu-Huang, GAO Dian-Song, WANG Qiang, QIU Rui, WANG Xiao-Lin, LIU Di, JIA Song-Hai, JIA Guang-Hui, ZHANG Jian-Hua & XU Li (2025)
The first discovery of non-avian dinosaur egg clutch (Macroolithus yaotunensis, Elongatoolithidae) from the Upper Cretaceous Qiupa Formation of Tantou Basin.
Vertebrata Palasiatica (advance online publication)
DOI: 10.19615/j.cnki.2096-9899.250212.
https://www.vertpala.ac.cn/EN/10.19615/j.cnki.2096-9899.250212

====

Thomas L. Adams, Dianna Price, Alexis Godet, Judy Neuman, Charles Davis, Asmara A. Lehrmann & Daniel J. Lehrmann (2025)

Revisiting Bird’s swimming sauropod: new insights on Manus-dominated Dinosaur Tracks from the Mayan Dude Ranch in Bandera, Texas

Historical Biology (advance online publication)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2025.2461068

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2025.2461068

Free pdf:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/08912963.2025.2461068

===

D. K. Hoffman, E. R. Goldsmith, A. Houssaye, S. C. R. Maidment, R. N. Felice & P. D. Mannion (2025)

Evolution of growth strategy in alligators and caimans informed by osteohistology of the late Eocene early-diverging alligatoroid crocodylian Diplocynodon hantoniensis

Journal of Anatomy (advance online publication)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14231

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.14231

Free pdf:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joa.14231

=====

Riccardo Rondelli & Davide Battilani (2024)

Analisi paleontologica dell'orizzonte grossolano basale della Formazione di Pantano e revisione degli elasmobranchi miocenici dell'Appennino Modenese

[Paleontological analysis of the basal coarse horizon of the Pantano Formation and review of the Miocene elasmobranchs of the Modena Apennines]

Notiziario della Società Reggiana di Scienze Naturali (2024): 1-38 (in Italian)

https://srsnsite.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/n2024_art1-analisi-paleontologica-orizzonte-basale-pantano.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388954328_ANALISI_PALEONTOLOGICA_DELL'ORIZZONTE_GROSSOLANO_BASALE_DELLA_FORMAZIONE_DI_PANTANO_E_REVISIONE_DEGLI_ELASMOBRANCHI_MIOCENICI_DELL'APPENNINO_MODENESE

=======

Riccardo Rondelli, Enrico Borghi, Mauro Borghi (2024)

Denti di elasmobranchi nel Piacenziano della Cava di Campore (Appennino Parmense)

[Elasmobranch teeth in the Piacenzian of the Campore Quarry (Northern Apennines)]

Notiziario della Società Reggiana di Scienze Naturali (2024): 148-178 (in Italian)

https://srsnsite.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/n2024-art11-denti-di-eelasmobranchi-nel-piacenziano.pdf

====

Nongmaithem Amardas Singh, Ningthoujam Premjit Singh, K. Milankumar Sharma, Rajeev Patnaik and Raghavendra Prasad Tiwari (2024)

Miocene cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) from India: A review on global palaeobiogeography

Indian Journal of Geosciences 78(3): pp. 311-330

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388895371_Miocene_cartilaginous_fishes_Chondrichthyes_Elasmobranchii_from_India_A_review_on_global_palaeobiogeography

====

Jens N. Lallensack, Giuseppe Leonardi, and Peter L. Falkingham (2025)

Glossary of fossil tetrapod tracks

Palaeontologia Electronica 28(1): a8

doi: https://doi.org/10.26879/1389

https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2025/5439-glossary-of-tetrapod-tracks

Free pdf:

https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/1389.pdf

===

Elena A. Pearce, Florence Mazier, Charles W. Davison, Oliver Baines, Szymon Czyżewski, Ralph Fyfe, Krzysztof Bińka, Steve Boreham, Jacques- Louis de Beaulieu, Cunhai Gao, Wojciech Granoszewski, Anna Hrynowiecka, Małgorzata Malkiewicz, Tim Mighall, Bożena Noryśkiewicz, Irena Agnieszka Pidek, Jaqueline Strahl, Hanna Winter & Jens-Christian Svenning (2025)

Beyond the closed-forest paradigm: Cross-scale vegetation structure in temperate Europe before the late-Quaternary megafauna extinctions

Earth History and Biodiversity 100022

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hisbio.2025.100022

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950475925000061

===

Peter A Siver, Alberto V Reyes, Andrzej Pisera, Serhiy Buryak & Alexander P Wolfe (2025)

Palm phytoliths in subarctic Canada imply ice-free winters 48 million years ago during the late early Eocene

Annals of Botany, mcaf021

doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcaf021

https://academic.oup.com/aob/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aob/mcaf021/8006661

===

S.S. Nawarathne, P.L. Dharmapriya, A.U. Wijenayake & E.K.C.W. Kularathna (2025)

Unravelling Paleoenvironmental Dynamics across the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) Boundary in the Offshore Mannar Basin of the Northern Indian Ocean

Evolving Earth 100062

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eve.2025.100062

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950117225000068

====

Maria Luisa Sánchez Montes, Erin L. McClymont, Hirofumi Asahi, Joseph Stoner, Christopher M. Moy, Sophie Gleghorn & Jerry M. Lloyd (2025)

Ocean warming, icebergs, and productivity in the Gulf of Alaska during the Last Interglacial

Frontiers in Earth Science 12: 1485521

doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1485521

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2024.1485521/full

===

Mickey Mortimer

unread,

Feb 22, 2025, 6:21:24 AM2/22/25

to Dinosaur Mailing Group

"Carlos Mauricio Peredo, Nicholas D. Pyenson & Mark D. Uhen (2025)

Retraction Note: Lateral palatal foramina do not indicate baleen in fossil whales

Scientific Reports 15: 5029

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88714-w

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-88714-w

Retraction of: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15684-8, published online 06 July 2022"

Going to the page, it says "Following publication concerns were raised by Ekdale et al.¹ about the reproducibility of the methods used and analysis of the data, including the undercounting of the number of foramina in mysticetes and the inflated number in terrestrial artiodactyls. Post-publication peer review has confirmed the validity of these concerns. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.

The authors disagree with this retraction."

And indeed, reading Ekdale et al.'s paper it seems Peredo et al. were sloppy and wrong a lot, though of course this is outside my area of expertise. But I don't generally think this should be cause for retraction, as opposed to faking data. Or else almost everything Feduccia or Martin wrote about dinosaurs would be retracted, for instance. Or see my many, many posts about phylogenetic analyses being done lazily and inaccurately. The scientific literature is all about people being wrong and being right, and being sloppy and being organized. The truth filters through given time. And unlike the Oculudentavis retraction, which in my mind was also wrong, the authors didn't agree in this instance. Sure Ekdale et al. seem correct in this case, but what's guaranteeing future editors will be right in their judgements? I'm sure Feduccia thought he was right and just in his BAND publications, and he held positions of power over the decades ( https://bio.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/353/2011/04/CVfeduccia2020.pdf ). I think if this is the future of retractions, it's bad for science. Thoughts?

Mickey Mortimer

Jura

unread,

Feb 22, 2025, 3:04:54 PM2/22/25

to Dinosaur Mailing Group

The fluidity of the scientific publication process goes both ways here. If the authors disagree with the journal's decision to retract the paper, they can still submit to a different journal. There are no shortage of journals out there that they can submit to. Worse comes to worse, they can submit to eLife and get it published on the spot. It all depends on how certain the authors feel about the validity of their data vs. how much they want the impact factor.

Jason

Russell Engelman

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 12:20:35 AM2/23/25

to Dinosaur Mailing Group

I honestly had the same reaction. If the authors no longer had confidence in their results and wanted the paper pulled that is one thing, but in this case the editors chose to have the paper pulled while the authors disagree with this decision.

It strikes me as very odd because there are many cases where a scientific paper ends up being inaccurate in the long run, and yet like you said papers getting their initial judgements wrong and having to be corrected by future works is part of the scientific process. For example some of my work has been very critical on methodological issues in previous studies on the body size/form of Dunkleosteus, and yet I would never wish for those papers to be pulled.

The precedent this sets is rather concerning, especially as it puts the call on whether a paper is retracted or not on editors who may not have specialist-level knowledge to tell if the points raised by the rebuttal were reasonable. This is especially true for larger journals like Nature, Science, PNAS, or Proceedings B, where due to greater scope there is often more distance between an editor's speciality and the topic of a paper.

Gregory Paul

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 11:17:47 AM2/23/25

to dinosaurma...@googlegroups.com, larramen...@gmail.com

The argument can be made that the Sanders et al. 2021 Science paper that offered that Triassic ichthyosaurs were four times larger than they actually were, and the Bianucci et al. 2023 paper in nature that Perucetus was two to eight times more massive than it actually was, should both be formally withdrawn by the authors or the editors. The reason is that the overestimates were literally massive and there is not the slightest excuse for them. All the authors of both papers needed to do was produce the needed profile-skeletals and from those measure the volumes and do the specific gravities which is about the same as water, and get reasonably accurate masses to test their extreme results. Which is of course standard and necessary scientific procedure which these papers flagrantly ignored -- but which may have destined the papers to appear in the paleo journals with limited news coverage hint hint. Profile-skeletals are easy to do, and while Bianucci et al actually did one -- a little crude and a dash too large -- they did not even go to he minor trouble of using it to produce a volume/mass estimate that would have been 50-60 tonnes, aborting their it was 85-340 tonnes paper. Why that happened is not entirely clear, but one has reason to be suspicious. So it was up to myself, Asier, Montani and Pyenson to publish refutations that have exposed as widely errant the results of the super whale and super ichthyosaur papers. Hopefully these have disciplined researchers. Why publish extreme mass estimates in the future without backing them up with good old fashioned profile-skeletals because there are -- obviously -- people out there who will do the volumetric models and find out what the probable mass actually is, and if it differs seriously from the original publication will go public with it, damaging the reputation of those who published the unnecessarily excessive calculations.

Even so, it should be made official that the Science and Nature papers are wrong -- unless of course the authors or others can show otherwise which shows no signs of happening. That can be done by the papers being withdrawn. That will get the attention of the science news media, and the public will be then firmly informed that the blue whale remains by far the largest known marine creature -- the M&P paper refuting B et al. got modest coverage, my and Asier's none despite a PR being sent to essentially every science reporter. Such an action will further constrain researchers from not properly testing their big big mass estimates.

Because they were so far off base and the impossible mass estimates are not being defended, the Science and Nature papers were more errant than the below study that the journal editors retracted. So even if the below retraction was questionable as some think, official withdrawal of the S and N papers is necessary. If the editors at Nature and Science do the retractions that may have the added beneficial effect of forcing the authors to cease evading the issue and at long last publicly state whether or not they think their high mass estimates were plausible or not, and if they think they are why. At the least the authors of those debunked (why debunked, isn't bunk already bunk?) papers could release formal statements and or papers saying they had made big boo-boos and that Paul, Larramendi, Motani and Pyenson are correct.

That would be ever so nice.

I have constantly corrected my mass estimates as necessary. Especially in the wake of the specific gravity study Asier and I did in The Anatomical Record (https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24574). After that I had to recalculate every damn one of the hundreds of mass estimates in the 3rd edition of the dinosaur guide. It was brutal, took forever, and I hated having to do it. But I take the results I publish in papers of books seriously and either defend them or change them. Time for others to own up.

GSPaul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/30c580d2-2bb0-4eae-9520-39ee3f58e6b4n%40googlegroups.com

.

Gregory Paul

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 11:21:41 AM2/23/25

to dinosaurma...@googlegroups.com

Feduccia still thinks birds are not dinosaurs. May be the last of that flock, all others who thought that being themselves extinct (Martin, Lingham-Soliar, Czerkas who was a good friend and died much too young:(.

GSPaul

On Saturday, February 22, 2025 at 06:21:27 AM EST, Mickey Mortimer <therizino...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dinosaur Mailing Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DinosaurMailingG...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/30c580d2-2bb0-4eae-9520-39ee3f58e6b4n%40googlegroups.com

.

Jeff Hecht

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 9:34:01 PM2/23/25

to 'ricardo.araujo@tecnico.ulisboa.pt' via Dinosaur Mailing Group

As Max Planck said,

"Science advances one funeral at a time"

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/1951743227.1904009.1740327695535%40mail.yahoo.com.

Jeff Hecht, science and technology writer
525 Auburn St. Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
https://www.jeffhecht.com
je...@jeffhecht.com, v. 617-965-3834
Blue Sky jhecht.bsky.social

Twitter @jeffhecht

Gregory Paul

unread,

Feb 23, 2025, 10:06:49 PM2/23/25

to dinosaurma...@googlegroups.com

Well that's not entirely true. Most paleos opted for Ostrom's dino hypothesis in the 70s, and it became increasingly so in the 80s and solidified in the 90s what with the feathery Chinese dinosaurs. Which Lingham-Soliar said were collagen fibers (I noticed he stopped a few years ago and wondered why until I saw he was deceased). Why his papers got published is beyond me.

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/1DD0E9F3-9F30-42B7-B463-B613AADA1EDD%40jeffhecht.com.

Mickey Mortimer

unread,

Feb 25, 2025, 7:24:40 AM2/25/25

to Dinosaur Mailing Group

As an author of heterodox ideas, you should be against papers being retracted for their supposed wrongness, Greg. You published a paper on Tyrannosaurus species that immediately had an attempted rebuttal by seven authors including experts in tyrannosaurs. Which paper do you think a naive editor would be most likely to retract? I know how deeply YOU think you're right, but it's flawed human editors doing the retracting.

Mickey Mortimer

Gregory Paul

unread,

Feb 25, 2025, 10:26:28 AM2/25/25

to dinosaurma...@googlegroups.com

Whether the ideas in a paper are atypical is not is not a concern of mine. It is the in/correctness of the data and basic analysis that can be an issue. The stratigraphic data in the Tyrannosaurus species paper was not debated in the reply as being in actual error, and there are just a few typos in the long set of measurements. There remains a big and unique among tyrannosaurid samples statistical difference in the robustness of the specimens and anterior tooth dimensions linked to stratigraphic levels. And there are extensive problems with the reply (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.02.502517v1 where the data set has been expanded and other cool characters added).

The whale and ichthyosaur papers are so defective because they produced masses that were many times higher than are plausible according the the fossil remains, and this happened due to failure to do the simple standard procedure of modeling and measuring the resulting volumes of the pertinent specimens.

Likewise, I published a rebuttal to the 2010 Science paper that controversially claimed that Archaeopteryx could not power fly because the primary feather shafts were too slender to take the high bending loads (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192963). That result was errant because, as I realized in about an hour, they under measured the diameter of the protobird's shafts by twofold! Oops. That paper should have been withdrawn.

GSPaul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/DinosaurMailingGroup/2aa3e3b6-51d4-4459-808b-f571121008e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward