We have many times been in the position of having the reference for a paper and wanting to find the full text. But I think this is a first: I have the full text of a paper, and I want to find the reference!

I’ve been in contact recently with Matt Lamanna, Associate Curator in the Section of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History — which is obviously the best job in the world.

Matt’s drawn my attention to a bizarre fact: despite 17 separate posts about Xenoposeidon on this blog (linked from here and here), we’ve never shown a decent scan of Lydekker’s (1893) original illustration of NHMUK PV R2095, the partial mid-to-posterior dorsal vertebra that since Taylor and Naish (2007) has been the holotype specimen of Xenoposeidon proneneukos — and since Taylor (2018) has been known to represent a

I have before me the reviews for a submission of mine, and the handling editor has provided an additional stipulation: In other words, the first time I mention Diplodocus , I should say “ Diplodocus Marsh 1878″; and I should add the corresponding reference to my bibliography.

A couple of weeks ago, I said I was going to toss out my hardcopy issues of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology unless someone wanted them and was prepared to pay for shipping. The good news is that Andrew Stuck did want them. We got in touch and arranged shipping, and they arrived at his house a few days ago.

I’m trying to free some space in my office, and I’m going to let my run of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology go: {.aligncenter .size-large .wp-image-13145 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“13145” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2016/03/24/free-to-a-good-home-sixteen-issues-of-the-journal-of-vertebrate-palaeontology/2016-03-24-07-42-13-2-stack-of-jvp/”

Ten years ago today — on 15 September 2005 — my first palaeo paper was published: Taylor and Naish (2005) on the phylogenetic nomenclature of diplodocoids. It’s strange to think how fast the time has gone, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I get a bit self-indulgent and nostalgic.

I just read this on The Scholarly Kitchen and nearly fell out of my seat: I think this may be the most revealing thing ever written on The Scholarly Kitchen . It’s hard to see a way of reading it that isn’t contemptuous of everyone outside the Magic Circle. Ideally, the great unwashed should be excluded altogether;