#reptile evolution

[altamaranempire]

I’ve realised that the fact that tumblr’s new ‘you gotta use those urls you’re holding onto or we’ll re-release them’ policy means I’m gonna have to reveal that I’m the one holding onto reptileevolution.tumblr.com to stop david peters from posting nonsense and getting into slap fights with palaeontology blogs on tumblr

I have ‘Petersaur’ art ready to go at any time I’m just lazy

[the-awkward-turt]

Anybody have good articles or papers on the evolutionary relationships between birds and reptiles?

I’m taking Avian Biology this semester and I have a big presentation on avian evolution. We are encouraged to put our own spin on the topic so part of mine is going to focus on the evolutionary connections between birds and reptiles.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

Do you know of a post anywhere that gives a good summary of all the things wrong with david peters? i want to show a friend how terrible it is.

Here is a lovely post by Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/

Also, my friends and I have a blog http://pteresies.tumblr.com/ that was sort of dedicated to bashing David Peters, but we never do anything with it

[alphynix]

Why the world has to ignore ReptileEvolution.com | Tetrapod Zoology, Scientific American Blog Network

Notice to those who see that this article is incredibly long and then decide not to read it: here's the take-home point... ReptileEvolution.com does not represent a trustworthy source that people should consult or rely on. Students, amateur researchers and the lay public should be strongly advised to avoid or ignore it.

Searching for reference material for pterosaurs or other non-dinosaurian prehistoric reptiles is very likely to bring up images from ReptileEvolution.com as some of the top results, especially for anything reasonably obscure. The site is the work of David Peters, a web designer and skilled paleoillustrator who -- to put it as politely as I can -- appears to have been descending into Photoshop-fueled scientific insanity over that last couple of decades.

As slick and professional as Mr. Peter's work may look, it should not be considered at all accurate or reliable.