Neural spine paper: new file available

March 16, 2013

Wedel and Taylor 2013 bifurcation Figure 7 - small Diplodocus cervical

Figure 7. BYU 12613, a posterior cervical of Diplodocus or Kaatedocus in dorsal (top), left lateral (left), and posterior (right) views. It compares most favourably with C14 of D. carnegii CM 84/94 (Hatcher, 1901: plate 3) despite being only 42% as large, with a centrum length of 270 mm compared to 642 mm for C14 of D. carnegii.

The original version of the PDF of our new paper (Wedel and Taylor 2013) had a couple of obvious errors: Kaatedocus was misspelled in the caption to Figure 7 (as Kaatedocu), and the submission date was given as June 24, 2012, not the correct date of June 14. Both of these errors were introduced during the editorial handling, so I politely asked  if they could be fixed, and thanks to the kind offices of the folks at PalArch, now they have been. However, to avoid confusion (or perhaps propagate it, depending on your feelings), the corrected PDF has a different filename. The original version will continue to be available at:

and the corrected version (with an extra ‘1’ on the end of the filename) is at:

Two things:

  • I will go around changing the links here and elsewhere (FigShare, etc.) to the new version, but I probably won’t have time today, as I have an all-afternoon community outreach at the local public library to help organize.
  • I realize that some people, including possibly my coauthor, will hate this because now we have created some uncertainty about which is the version of record. So we’re not going to ask for any more changes, no matter how egregious the errors we find (and we are certain to find a few more, that’s just the nature of the beast); as far as I’m concerned, the second corrected version is the final version. Also, the changes made are tiny and don’t affect the science at all, so it’s not like we’ve moved any important goalposts here.

If you have strong feelings about this either way, feel free to sound off in the comments.

2 Responses to “Neural spine paper: new file available”

  1. monsters Says:

    Misspellings aside, I take issue with the paper because it fails to mention how freaking awesome lots of species of coeval diplodocids must have looked all living in the same geographic range and needing to recognize their own species. Should’ve included a full color figure, if you catch my drift…

  2. Matt Wedel Says:

    Guilty as charged! A full-color figure of a bunch of coexisting diplodocoids would rock. I assume you’re volunteering for next time–I will definitely keep that in mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: