Q: [asked by 6 people] "So, what exactly does "cephalic skeletal
mandibular/maxillary morphology" mean?"
A: Ed got a medical dictionary for Christmas?
Its not in any of the morphometric literature I own or have read. I
suppose Ed is attempting to say "Craniodental" or "Odontal" morphology.
But if he was seriously doing such a study, he would have read the
published literature on such matters and known the correct terminology.
In anatomy, "cephalic" is generally (not always, but usually) reserved for
either the head as a whole, or the brain. "Cranial" is generally (not
always, but usually) reserved for the skull. Using "cranial" eliminates
confusion and does not requires a modifier (cephalic skeletal?).
"Morphology" simply means structure, shape or form (or the study), and
"morphometrics (or morphometry)" means the measurement of structure, shape
or form (or the study). A study of ferret body shape sans measurements
would be a morphological study; one with reproducable measurements would be
morphometrical. "Mandible" and "maxillary" are cranial (aka skull) bones.
Both contain teeth, but in ferrets, some teeth are in the "incisive" (aka:
"premaxillary") bone as well. Since some species lack teeth in one or
more of these bones, studying a bone (by name) does not necessarily imply
you are looking at teeth. The study of dental structure is called
"Odontology." "Craniodental" means the skull and dentition.
In English, when using several modified terms at one time, such as
"cephalic skeletal mandibular/maxillary morphology," one places a hyphen
between the word and it's modifier to eliminate confusion. Does Ed mean he
is studying the structure, shape or form of the head, skeleton, mandible
and maxillary? Or does he really mean he is studying ferret teeth? Based
on "cephalic skeletal mandibular/maxillary morphology," I have no clear
idea of what Ed means. What is wrong with "ferret teeth" or "odontology?"
It gives me a cephalalgia....please pass the acetylsalicylic acid.
-------
I have recieved one other very nasty email asking why I am opposed to
studies of ferret teeth or publication of pictures of ferret teeth to be
used for aging ferrets. I have been quite specific in my objections and
refer questioners to my previous posts on the matter. There is no reason
to rehash them again.
However, there is a basic tenent in scientific research. One never repeats
past research unless the intial study requires independant verification,
you are adding new data to a statisticly insignificant sample, you can show
the past study to be faulty, or you are reporting something new. Because
the shape of ferret skulls have been shown (with large samples) to be
highly variable depending on diet and exercise, and other studies have
shown tooth wear is also highly variable depending on diet, skull shape
and teeth, Ed's study AS ED HAS DESCRIBED IT would give no new or reliable
information. If Ed does what he has said he wants to do, then he is
wasting his time and contributed resources. Worse, if such work WAS
published, such as on the web or in a magazine that does not use experts
to verify the work, Ed could do more harm than good. Do you know how hard
it is to correct a misconception once accepted into the ferret mythology?
Sucking blood or Egypt origins, it is next to impossible. Now, Ed may be
striving for personal illumination (very admirable), but it is hardly a
scientific study deserving financial support. I would not recommend
support UNLESS the research generates useful information.
There are several problems brought up by Ed's public appeal for people to
finacially support his study. Since Ed has not released a research design,
there are legal questions regarding the ultimate disposition of the
research and the utilization of funds. Anyone who has accepted monies for
research can confirm my point. The public appeal for funds can be cause of
concern by several governmental agencies, including those who worry about
interstate fraud. Now, DON'T anyone accuse me of accusing Ed of fraud; I
HAVE NOT!!! I am simply pointing out that if someone asks for money (or
resources having monetary value) for one thing and uses them for another
(or does not publish the results), some governmental agencies might
investigate. It could even cause legal/tax problems for organizations
who might have finacial links with Ed. Ed needs to be extremely careful
and should consult a lawyer trained in such matters PRIOR to accepting
contributions. And if *I* were to support Ed's research, I would want to
know EXACTLY HOW the money WAS spent and the research resulting from the
study. If Ed accepted money but didn't do as he said with the
contribution, it is a serious matter. Considering the interstate nature of
the FML, it could be federally investigated. Should the government decide
Ed's research isn't tax deductible (even though his shelter may be) and
you already sent in a check, you could not use that contribution as a
deduction. Funds donated to research, unless to a federally accredited
research facilty, are rarely considered tax deductable and such donations
are considered income (i.e., Ed would have to pay taxes on them).
This isn't a "Me against Ed" thing. This isn't jealosy. Hell, if that was
the case, I would wait until Ed goofed up and THEN call attention to the
problem. In truth, I am MORE than willing to point Ed to the literature,
show how to construct a research design, how to set up his null and
alternative hypotheses, how to clean the skeletons and teeth to prevent
damage and the spread of disease, how to do the morphometric study, how to
generate reproducable measurements, and how to statistically interpret the
data. For free; no brochures, funds or requirements. Nor would I ask to
be an author on anything he publishes. I just want such studies to be done
right, for the right reasons, and be scientifically valid. Anything else
is a waste of time and resources. Not to mention the legal concerns when
publically requesting financial support for research.
Bob C and 16 Mo' Scientifically Scared Sofasharks (Missing Trillian)
[Posted in FML issue 2916]
|
