Comments on: Fossil foetus shows that early whales gave birth on land

By: Harkett

Harkett — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:47:46 +0000

Great story. Thanks for the interesting read.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:50:43 +0000

OK, everybody agrees on that. Apologies for misunderstanding.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:24:12 +0000

I meant specifically that I think he’s right about the incorrect use of the word “ancestral”.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:15:31 +0000

It’s hard to know what you’re agreeing with Dave about.
You feel it’s better to splash a bucket of facts on ignorant reporters, and let them try to put together a coherent story, and then complain when they fail, than to give them an engaging story, including some background and context, that they can run as is?

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:22:33 +0000

Heh. Interesting discussion over there. On balance, I think David’s right though and I value accuracy in science writing above all else. What’s interesting to me is that I specifically avoided this mistake in an earlier post on Indohyus, another key fossil in the whale evolution story.
Disappointing, then, that it’s cropped up here. All I can really say is that I, just like any other science writer/journalist, will inevitably make mistakes. Even with the best will in the world, it’s going to happen.
I will, however, always correct stuff here if the right reasons are given. It’s part of the ethics of blogging and part of what I think makes the medium strong. You get feedback from much more learned and informed people than yourself, which can only help people like us to be better at our jobs. Only an idiot would turn a deaf ear to that.
So thanks Nathan. And for the compliment over at Archosaur Musings too. Appreciated.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:42:17 +0000

Me, I think the interesting distinction is between “might have been ancestral” and “was not ancestral because…”. Invariably (unless the intermediate form is just a damn tooth or something) there’s some collection of derived features not present in the next taxon up (shovelwise). Exactly what those features are makes an interesting sidelight: “they fused some wrist bones, but it didn’t save them!”
I have read that mammalogists are particularly sloppy about this sort of thing. Is that your impression? (I think it was one of the Zachs who mentioned the phenomenon.)
Dave Hone hosted an interesting, if slightly apoplectic, exploration of the issues at http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/anchiornis-a-new-basal-avialian-from-china/ . You’re mentioned there, by the way, entirely non-ironically.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:16:34 +0000

Actually sod it – I’ve mulled it over and Nathan’s right. “Ancestral” is ambiguous verging on wrong. Out it goes.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:41:53 +0000

Yeah it’s meant to be a shorthand. But you’re right – it could be misinterpreted. Tell you what – let’s take a poll. Anyone else think that “ancestral” in this context is a misfire. Is this one of the things that science writers do that pisses off scientists? Let me know so I can continue/refrain as appropriate.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:25:40 +0000

When you’re talking about mammals, it’s apparently considered OK to describe any old transitional fossil as “ancestral”, even though (a) it’s almost certainly not an ancestor of anything living, and (b) if it was, you would have no way to demonstrate it. I see that as a convenient shorthand, but it seems that if you step back to the Mesozoic and say “ancestor”, or even “possible ancestor”, you will assuredly be scalped.

By: Coturnix

Coturnix — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:23:48 +0000

If you tried to send a trackback – don’t worry. TOPAZ upgrade saved them elsewhere and will automatically put them on the paper once the process is over.