Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has now
been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue preservation,
but is mainly painted. However, under the paint there are a few poorly
preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil. The new paper concludes with

"Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about the
preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using T.
antiquus in phylogenetic studies." "Caution" is the word for it.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690

On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has now
> been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue preservation,
> but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint there are a few poorly
> preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The new paper concludes with
>
> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about the
> preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using T.
> antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690

Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be discovered.

On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
>> now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
>> preservation, but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint there
>> are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The new
>> paper concludes with
>>
>> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about the
>> preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using T.
>> antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>>
>>
>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
>
> Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be discovered.

I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet). I expect there will be
one before long. But I did a little searching, and came across the very
relevant gem:

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/

On 2/17/24 8:37 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
>>> now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
>>> preservation, but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint there
>>> are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The new
>>> paper concludes with
>>>
>>> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about the
>>> preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using T.
>>> antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
>>
>> Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be
>> discovered.
>
> I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet).  I expect there will be
> one before long.  But I did a little searching, and came across the very
> relevant gem:
>
> https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/

Let's not bring Peters into it, though all his fakes are apparently
sincerely intended. Is digital paint better than physical paint?

On 2/17/24 10:36 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/17/24 8:37 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
>>>> now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
>>>> preservation, but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint there
>>>> are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The new
>>>> paper concludes with
>>>>
>>>> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about the
>>>> preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using T.
>>>> antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
>>>
>>> Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be
>>> discovered.
>>
>> I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet).  I expect there will be
>> one before long.  But I did a little searching, and came across the
>> very relevant gem:
>>
>> https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/
>
> Let's not bring Peters into it, though all his fakes are apparently
> sincerely intended. Is digital paint better than physical paint?
I'd guess that physical paint is easier to spot than good digital
"paint". Misused AI ought to carry the scientific death penalty.

On 2/17/24 11:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/17/24 10:36 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/17/24 8:37 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
>>>>> now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
>>>>> preservation, but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint
>>>>> there are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The
>>>>> new paper concludes with
>>>>>
>>>>> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about
>>>>> the preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using
>>>>> T. antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
>>>>
>>>> Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be
>>>> discovered.
>>>
>>> I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet).  I expect there will be
>>> one before long.  But I did a little searching, and came across the
>>> very relevant gem:
>>>
>>> https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/
>>
>> Let's not bring Peters into it, though all his fakes are apparently
>> sincerely intended. Is digital paint better than physical paint?
> I'd guess that physical paint is easier to spot than good digital
> "paint".  Misused AI ought to carry the scientific death penalty.

I suppose you've seen this by now:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a389b/ai-midjourney-rat-penis-study-retracted-frontiers

On 2/17/24 14:22, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/17/24 10:36 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/17/24 8:37 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 5:59 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 4:42 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> Tridentinosaurus antiquus (1931) from early Permian in the Alps has
>>>>> now been discovered not to represent remarkable soft-tissue
>>>>> preservation, but is mainly painted.  However, under the paint
>>>>> there are a few poorly preserved bones, so it is, in a fossil.  The
>>>>> new paper concludes with
>>>>>
>>>>> "Modern tomographic methods might reveal novel information about
>>>>> the preserved skeleton but, until then, we suggest caution in using
>>>>> T. antiquus in phylogenetic studies."  "Caution" is the word for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12690
>>>>
>>>> Now that's bizarre. I wonder if the forger's identity could be
>>>> discovered.
>>>
>>> I tried Wiki, but there isn't an entry (yet).  I expect there will be
>>> one before long.  But I did a little searching, and came across the
>>> very relevant gem:
>>>
>>> https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/tridentinosaurus-antiquus-a-glider-ancestor-not-a-protorosaur/
>>
>> Let's not bring Peters into it, though all his fakes are apparently
>> sincerely intended. Is digital paint better than physical paint?
> I'd guess that physical paint is easier to spot than good digital
> "paint".  Misused AI ought to carry the scientific death penalty.

Thet Teyler museum has a whole exhibit on this...