Some Harsh and Wise Words.

So that you all understand, this blog entry is about a post from ’s webpage Theropoda.blogspot.com translate.google.com/translate… . The links obviously don’t work properly anymore…, so I copied and pasted the post. I have not altered anything, so this is rough from his page. I hope you enjoy .

Paleoart and Paleoartismo.

A picture says a thousand words.

Unfortunately, this is also true, especially when 900 of these 1000 words do not have any concrete foundation. In recent years, mediated by the network, it has spread a disease to which all those who are interested in paleontology are more or less infected (me included). Some are healthy carriers, others are true chronically ill. I'm talking about a disease iconographic extreme, for which the ultimate goal of paleontology seems to have become an iconic representation of the production, at any cost ... And if this disease can be, in fact, a healthy manifestation of a professional (I think of those who, by trade, does the naturalist illustrator), for others it is more like a compulsion induced by fever, rash due to a hyper- sensitivity to a toxic agent, such an obsession.

I speak of the excessive production of illustrations, designs, works and images related to paleontological concepts, which are then placed online without any filter. The term "excessive" denotes a number of works that are not supported by the same amount of science behind it works.

I hate to repeat the obvious, but the wire is beaten until hot (indeed, feverish): paleontology is a science, an elaboration of concepts. Specifically, paleontology is rational elaboration of concepts derived from the survey of fossils. I know it may be blasphemy what I'm about to write, but NOT everything that deals with paleontology must necessarily have a pictorial representation. I am fully aware that paleontology - as every science - has media iconography, which may extend also in the area of ​​disclosure, and also create works of art ends in themselves. We call these emanations iconography of paleontology with the term "paleoart" (words that do not all love each other, but it passes the monastery). I myself have used for my research, in collaboration with some of the most important Italian professionals. So I'm not naive in not recognizing the value and strength of paleoart. But such cooperation was always a means to allow the dissemination of paleontological, not an end goal of every aspect paleontological.

What I talk about in this post is different from paleoart, even if not everyone can tell the difference.

The pathological tendency that is rampant in the network, the paleoart become not only an end in itself but that is self-perpetuating and reproduces itself in an obsessive way the name is "paleoartismo." The paleoartismo is the will always translate a concept into a representation paleontological paleoartistica, even and especially when the scientific foundations of the concept are weak and still in training, even if that concept does not have sufficient empirical or factual substance to be translated into a visual representation that is - at least - supported by the original data.

To make you understand the difference between paleoart and paleoartismo, with another medical metaphor: if a paleontologist sneezes, the paleoart hands him a handkerchief, the paleoartismo takes to sneeze and puts it in a drawing.

Think about the proliferation of "new Deinocheirus with the hump" from a mere abstract, although, at present, no technical description, and - above all - no image is available for these new remains. For this reason, in the days of online distribution of those images, I suggested to all of toying her: we have not even seen pictures of these new skeletons, and already the net abounds with versions more or less garish. This is no longer paleoart! Create an image of "Deinocheirus with a hump" without even a single picture of the new bone is a form of paleoartismo: the "paleoart" that is self-produced and perpetuated without even having an image support paleontological, without being processed and weighted, discussed and compared with the corresponding illustrations included in the scientific data.

Or, think of online production (now serial) reconstructions of dinosaurs more or less stereotyped and mannered, production that now goes beyond the need to have a consultation paleontological. For example, we published a new kind, based on a limited number of bones, and within a couple of days we have someone who has invented the animal, he explained, compensating for the missing parts with a bountiful inference more or less naive, it has colored the way he likes, and he sent into the network. And since the design is associated with the scientific name of the taxon, this work of pure fantasy can become the iconography of the "official" of the taxon (check Wikipedia, and you'll see ...).
This is not a criticism of the freedom of expression, but a criticism of the lack of a culture of illustration naturalistic, shortcoming that causes a disproportionate proliferation of self-teachers-free culture paleontological and above (in this case) devoid of artistic culture.
The network now, is invaded (plagued?) Of paleoartismo.

For example, enter the word on Google Images " Deinonychus ": the majority of the results are works of paleoartismo, followed by a minority of works by professional illustrators, from an even smaller minority of images of skeletal reconstructions (often in turn based on casts, not on fossil remains true), and finally, a handful of poor images of bones real Deinonychus! Since only the images of the bones are real images palaeontologically valid Deinonychus, it appears that the iconography online Deinonychus is for the great majority misleading and fanciful. In a sentence, the vast majority of the images available for Deinonychus is made ​​by paleoartismo.

In this case: the first, third and sixth picture are found to be relevant to the fossil taxon Paragondolella, the fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth are related to scientific papers, the second and the fourth, although at least they are not relevant pictures real fossils. So you see that the Google Image search results scientifically "more useful" than with Deinonychus. This is not surprising, given that the conodonts are less popular, little known and certainly not "cool" to the illustrator average, thus more immune to paleoartismo. Note, however, that there are at least 2 images in the first results of paleoartismo: reconstructions of coeval Triassic tetrapod Paragondolella. If the conodonts are (in a limited way) with paleoartismo, it is clear that we are in the midst of a pandemic ...

How to find out if a person is suffering from paleoartismo?
Here is a short list of symptoms of paleoartismo (each can control himself on the degree of infection):
- Just published is a new dinosaur, have the urge to draw it.
- Just published is a new hypothesis paleontological want to translate it into a design "in vivo".
- Dwelling on the aesthetic aspects of a reconstruction paleoartistica rather than scientific correctness.
- Consider the works of paleoart (including skeletal reconstructions) as "palaeontological".
- Drawing caricatures of dinosaurs, or comic book characters paleontological, to spread a message paleontological (more or less correct).
- Mix together elements of fantasy and science dell'iconogragia paleoart (ie, draw fantastic creatures inspired by the paleontology, or draw inspiration from extinct animals to creatures of fantasy).

Final consideration, also to mitigate the inevitable criticism * my words: There is nothing wrong with being affected by paleoartismo. Everyone is free to express their artistic inclinations as it sees and hears. However, it would be very positive if the paleoartismo was recognized as such, both at the individual level (if you are affected, it is good that you are aware of!) At both the community and paleontological paleoartistica.
The paleoartismo the long run, it can escalate and engulf completely paleoart. This would not be a good thing.

* An Act of web says: do not worry, there will always be someone online who does not share your opinions.

On the Dispute relating to the feathers of angels and devils of the scales of Sir Andrea Cau, Anno Domini MMXIII.

The discussion on the integument of the dinosaurs is experiencing a very intense and burning, with debates (of varying depth and interest) inspired by the new fossil discoveries. Together with the fossilized remains of theropodi covered with structures clearly homologous to bird feathers (rachis and equipped with standard, barbs and barbules), we also have specimens (not necessarily in association with "real" pens) show filamentary structures, often called the term of "proto-feathers". However, they continue to be discovered even specimens of dinosaurs with the remains of a integument almost universally identified as "chips." The result was a heated discussion about what is the "ancestral integument" of the dinosaurs, if the "filaments" found in some ornithischi are homologous to those of theropodi, if the "filaments" are evolutionary precursors of feathers, if animals with feathers and / or filaments can "re-evolve" the scales if the scales and feathers may be present together in the same individual / taxon, if the feathers and the scales are homologous structures, if the filaments are homologous to those of pterosaurs, dinosaurs, scutellature if the legs of birds are homologous with reptilian scales or are a derivation of the modified plumage.

In most of these discussions, we often fall into an error.

The condition of "feather" or "flake" requires histological and embryological investigation, and both are - at present - impossible to perform in Mesozoic dinosaurs. Therefore, to be rigorous, fossil structures with no obvious synapomorphies scales or feathers could not be called such.

An explanation with an example. If there are no doubts that the structures of the spine and tegumentarie with flag, inserted along the second finger, the second metacarpal and the ulna in Caudipteryx are homologous to the flight feathers of birds, the absence of doubt derives from what I have just described: a robust correspondence morphological (presence of rachis and banner) and topological (corresponding position along the front limb, in relation to the same bone on the same side) that is observed between the structures in Caudipteryx and those in birds. But this strength is lacking for the majority of structures in other dinosaur fossils. The "flakes tubercolate" dinosaurs are not automatically verifiable to the scales of reptiles, crocodiles or other non-avians. The "proto-feathers" of pterosaurs and heterodontosauridi are not automatically verifiable feathers Aviane. In short, not everything that is "scaled" may be homologous to the scales that we observe in living reptiles, and not everything that is "feathered" could be homologous to the feathers in birds that we see today. Warning: I am not denying that such homology exists, I'm pointing out the fact that this homology must be testable, and that this control is primarily ontogenetic and histology, or, based on data that, for now, are not possible to be obtained in the fossil record.

Example paradoxical, but that is used to clarify the meaning of my words. The scales of pangolins and armadillos, although at first glance may appear to be "reptilian scales" are histologically and ontogenetic non-homologous to the reptilian scales, and in fact are structures derived from the skin of mammals (remember that the hair mammaliano is NOT homologous to the scales reptilian, although both share common characteristics data from a common origin amniotic: reptilian scales, for example, have a type of keratin absent in mammals). If armadillos and pangolins were extinct, and we did not know anything of their ontogeny, how can we discriminate the nature of their scales than the scales? It would be legitimate to call them "chips" using the same term used for reptiles? At the level of fossil imprint, in fact, may look much like the scales, so it would be reasonable to think that they are "the same thing", but it would be a mistake.

Therefore, in the absence of clear evidence and histological ontogenetic, any statements regarding the homology of the structures dinosauriane (fossils), Aviane and reptilian (living) is hypothetical, and often spoiled by our expectations relating to pre-conceptual "how" evolved the integument in dinosaurs. Again, I am not denying the possibility that the scales dinosauriane are homologous to those of crocodiles, I'm just keeping an approach based on caution: the condition of "throws" is first of all based on data in the fossil record may be incomplete or completely absent, then it would not be fair to say that something "scaly" in a dinosaur is automatically a flake.

A method by which roam the problem of non-sondabilità ontogenetic and histological integument dinosauriano is given by phylogenetic analysis: we infer homology based on the most parsimonious distribution of the states of the characters in a phylogeny. For example, the close proximity between phylogenetic Caudipteryx (a oviraptorosauro) and birds (of paraviani) makes the origin of the flight feathers pen a single evolutionary event occurred at the base of the node "Oviraptorosauria Paraves +", and not necessary to hypothesize evolutionary events accessories to explain the absence of this integument in other dinosaurs: this phylogenetic hypothesis thus confirming the similarity between the morphological and topological structures in Caudipteryx and birds. By the same reason, the "feathers" of Longisquama (whatever they are) is highly unlikely to be homologous to the pens Aviane since Longisquama is morphologically external Maniraptora, Coelurosauria, Tetanurae, Theropoda, Saurischia, Dinosauria, and perhaps Archosauria even Diaspida, all clade that currently do not seem to have the presence of flight feathers as their sinapomorfia: if we admit a homology between the longisquame and pens, we must assume a very high number of "loss of plumage" in all lineages closer to birds than Longisquama series of events that currently are not confirmed by any paleontological data.

In conclusion, I suggest you take an attitude of "neutral" in describing the structures tegumentarie of Mesozoic dinosaurs, when such facilities are not so robust to approvable "equivalent" living. Instead of "flings" I suggest using "tuberculate integument" instead of "proto-feathers" I suggest using "filamentous integument." It will result in the rear of a robust phylogenetic investigation to determine the reliability of any homology between these structures.

The neutral terms also have the advantage (not less in these times of fanboys obsessed with the names of their myths) to avoid impegolarci in convoluted discussions between denominational "haters" and "lovers" with scales or feathers.