My Shiva Crater Art And Our Official Disclaimer

As an undergraduate and grad student at Colorado State University and Texas Tech University, I occasionally did scientific illustration for various individuals. My skull drawings and life portraits of Puerto Rican bats were published a few years ago, and the "delightful drawing of bat faces" alluded to in this review of the book are mine, oh yes. I thought they could have been printed a little bigger, and at better resolution, because they are indeed delightful little bat faces. Unfortunately I cannot find them online, and my copies are in storage in Lubbock.

Artwork I did for Chatterjee pops up online from time to time. I did most (but not all) of the figures for this Microraptor paper, and also this life reconstruction. This one on Shiva Crater was just posted on Dragon's Tales.

Part of what makes me a good scientific illustrator is that I do as I am told.

On an unrelated note (no, I am not being facetious this time), Bill and I have some concerns to express. The text below is presented as our formal disclaimer, which may end up having to find its way into the cover letter of every paper we submit for the rest of our lives. Although we have not yet experienced any real problems yet from the attitude described below, which has mostly been pretty subtle, we want to nip this in the bud before it becomes a real nuisance. If you ever find yourself reviewing one of our papers, please read the following carefully before you even THINK of accusing us of personal bias in our scientific work. If we criticize someone's science, it is because we think the science has problems.

In the time since the ruling by the SVP Executive Committee and the New Mexico DCA on our allegations in Aetogate, we have begun to detect a certain curious attitude in some of our colleagues as to how we should interact professionally with Spencer Lucas and his colleagues in the future. Specifically, we have received the distinct impression from certain colleagues that we are expected to tone down our criticisms of their scientific work. We are not certain if this feeling is based on the assumption that we are too unprofessional to separate personal animosity from our evaluation of their science, or simply that we should go out of our way to not appear vindictive. We wish to address both of these possible rationales here.

We make no apologies for our insistence on publicly standing up for ourselves and for ethical scientific practice, or for inconveniencing certain members of the vertebrate
paleontological community with our refusal to mince words or peaceably accept rulings on our allegations that we still consider to have ignored or downplayed the issues we raised. However, our anger and disappointment is directed at behavior that we consider detrimental to the integrity of good scientific practice, and the objective evaluation of the work of colleagues is just as important to that integrity. Presenting misleading and vindictive attacks on colleagues is bad for science. So is cushioning valid criticisms merely so that they do not create the appearance of vindictiveness. We intend to do neither.

Our professional interests on Late Triassic stratigraphy and systematics mean that citation and commentary on the work of Lucas and his colleagues is unavoidable. Moreover, our own research (well as those of the many colleagues who share our interest in the Triassic) have raised discrepancies between our observations and the claims of Lucas and his colleagues. As a result, published conflicts in opinion are unavoidable, and probably will be for the rest of our careers. The only alternative is to leave the field of vertebrate paleontology, or at least not publish on the same subjects as Lucas and his colleagues. However, although this tactic has been adopted by some of our colleagues, and has been suggested to us from time to time, we have chosen not to pursue it. This is because letting dubious scientific claims go unchallenged just to avoid controversy seems counterproductive to us.

Being accused of ethical misconduct does not make Lucas and his colleagues immune to scientific criticism. Nor does being the accusers deprive us of our professional right and obligation to make such criticisms, in peer review or in our own manuscripts, if they are warranted. We certainly hope that reviewers of manuscripts will point out if our comments seem more vitriolic than strictly needed to make our case. However, we also ask that they not assume that criticisms are motivated solely by personal animosity, or expect us to tone down critiques if it means obscuring a valid argument against what we consider to be questionable scientific claims.

Thanks.