J Pardo
@jdpardo.bsky.social
NSF EAR Postdoctoral Fellow at the Field Museum of Natural History. Tetrapods in deep time: evolution, development, and paleontology. Also: mountains.
I think the question marks are the darling in question here
November 12, 2025 at 3:19 AM
I think the question marks are the darling in question here
November 11, 2025 at 3:18 AM
After every extinction:
November 6, 2025 at 3:34 PM
After every extinction:
Technically it's posting in a different niche
November 6, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Technically it's posting in a different niche
Some but not all. It seems there are points where has himself a conception of what the lore is but feels that revealing it will diminish the role of that lore in the story rather than improve it. Which is a very nuanced take at odds with the current state of genre fiction.
November 1, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Some but not all. It seems there are points where has himself a conception of what the lore is but feels that revealing it will diminish the role of that lore in the story rather than improve it. Which is a very nuanced take at odds with the current state of genre fiction.
Full-on constitutional crisis that, simply put, does not need to happen right now and should not be forced by provincial premiers given the current circumstances.
October 31, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Full-on constitutional crisis that, simply put, does not need to happen right now and should not be forced by provincial premiers given the current circumstances.
...with Spinosaurus. And etc. So we do need an honest postmortem on the factors that made this such a heated and disrespectful debate. Not because Nanotyrannus is important but because this reflects an emerging widespread problem in how our field does business.
October 30, 2025 at 11:19 PM
...with Spinosaurus. And etc. So we do need an honest postmortem on the factors that made this such a heated and disrespectful debate. Not because Nanotyrannus is important but because this reflects an emerging widespread problem in how our field does business.
Some of those folks want us to memory hole that or say "this was the scientific method working as intended" but most of the essential observations here were already made in the literature 20+ years ago and have been made repeatedly ever since. And some of these folks are doing the same thing...
October 30, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Some of those folks want us to memory hole that or say "this was the scientific method working as intended" but most of the essential observations here were already made in the literature 20+ years ago and have been made repeatedly ever since. And some of these folks are doing the same thing...
I think this is perhaps the core problem. Where there were one or multiple tyrannosaurids in the Maastrichtian is a pretty prosaic research question that elsewhere nobody would care about. But some people staked a huge amount of outreach/fan engagement on Tyrannosaurus ontogeny and...voila
October 30, 2025 at 11:11 PM
I think this is perhaps the core problem. Where there were one or multiple tyrannosaurids in the Maastrichtian is a pretty prosaic research question that elsewhere nobody would care about. But some people staked a huge amount of outreach/fan engagement on Tyrannosaurus ontogeny and...voila
Lot of respect for those who have admitted to being wrong but a lot of key folks are just pointing fingers at PL's likability. I'm not seeing a broader discussion of how we circled the wagons at the first hint of heterodoxy instead of rigorously reassessing the evidence for the orthodox view
October 30, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Lot of respect for those who have admitted to being wrong but a lot of key folks are just pointing fingers at PL's likability. I'm not seeing a broader discussion of how we circled the wagons at the first hint of heterodoxy instead of rigorously reassessing the evidence for the orthodox view
The unfortunate counterpoint is that the data have been there and have been compelling since Phil Currie published on the braincase back in the 90s. The ontogimorph hypothesis has always been based on ambiguous data and dodgy methods but a lot of non-scientific factors kept it mainstream
October 30, 2025 at 7:07 PM
The unfortunate counterpoint is that the data have been there and have been compelling since Phil Currie published on the braincase back in the 90s. The ontogimorph hypothesis has always been based on ambiguous data and dodgy methods but a lot of non-scientific factors kept it mainstream
I'll also point out that the discourse around another controversial theropod follows this same pattern.
October 30, 2025 at 3:49 PM
I'll also point out that the discourse around another controversial theropod follows this same pattern.
For the longest time, these visits just made hate RRR who had half the specimens I wanted to see on loan.
October 29, 2025 at 2:34 PM
For the longest time, these visits just made hate RRR who had half the specimens I wanted to see on loan.