Morphological comparisons of metacarpal I for Australovenator wintonensis and Rapator ornitholestoides: implications for their taxonomic relationships

WHITE, M.A., FALKINGHAM, P.L., COOK, A.G., HOCKNULL, S.A. & ELLIOTT, D.A., 2013. Morphological comparisons of metacarpal I for Australovenator wintonensis and Rapator ornitholestoides: implications for their taxonomic relationships. Alcheringa 37, 1 - 7. ISSN 0311-5518.

Various comparisons of left metacarpal I of the Australovenator wintonensis holotype have been made with Rapator ornitholestoides. These specimens were identified as being morphologically more similar than either was to that of the neovenatorid Megaraptor namunhuaiquii. Owing to the poor preservation of A. wintonensis and R. ornitholestoides, distinct morphological separation between the two appeared minimal. The recent discovery of a near perfectly preserved right metacarpal I of A. wintonensis enables a direct and accurate comparison with R. ornitholestoides. Distinct morphological differences exist between the metacarpals of the two species. A re-evaluation of the age of the A. wintonensis holotype site (AODL 85 ‘Matilda Site’) with zircon dating reveals a maximum age of 95 Ma, 10 Ma younger than the Griman Creek Formation at Lightning Ridge, from which R. ornitholestoides was recovered. This age difference detracts from the probability that the specimens belong to the same genus.

Matt A. White? [fossilised@hotmail.com], School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Peter L. Falkingham? [pfalkingham@rvc.ac.uk], Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Structure and Motion Laboratory, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK; Alex G. Cook [alex.cook@y7mail.com] and Scott A. Hocknull [scott.hocknull@qm.qld.gov.au], Ancient environments, Queensland Museum, Hendra, Queensland, 4011, Australia; David A. Elliott [david.elliott@aaod.com.au], Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, The Jump Up, Winton, Queensland, 4735, Australia. ?Also affiliated with Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, The Jump Up, Winton, Queensland 4735, Australia. ?Also affiliated with Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, USA. Received 22.9.2012; revised 13.1.2013; accepted 17.1.2013.     

Post‐truth anthropology

Countless commentators have announced the advent of the post‐truth era, but while everyone seems to be talking about it, there is little agreement about what it really means. This article argues that anthropology can make an important and distinctive contribution to understanding post‐truth by treating it ethnographically. Commonly proposed explanations for post‐truth include changes in political culture, in the structure of information in the digital age and universal cognitive weaknesses that limit people's capacity for critical thought. While all these are likely important factors, they do not account for the role of culture in creating and sustaining post‐truth. In fact, it is likely that culture, especially in the form of metacognition, or thought about thought, plays an important role by providing knowledge practices, techniques for allocating attention, and especially competing theories of truth. Ethnographic methods provide anthropologists with a distinctive window on post‐truth cultures of metacognition.