#365papers for March 29, 2017
What’s it about?
In paleontology, we define species by what they look like. This can be problematic if males and females of one species look markedly different from one another. Some authors have claimed to see sexual dimorphism, the difference in shape between males and females in a species, based on size. Here, the author shows that it is essentially impossible with the fossil record to make such determinations.
Why does it matter?
It’s important to avoid making claims that can’t be supported. The author here uses statistical means to show that prior claims aren’t as strong as originally thought and that caution should always be used when attempting to distinguish males from females in fossils.
Why did I read this?
Size is a big problem in paleontology. Sometimes the only provided distinction between species is the size, which to my mind is not often really acceptable. Sexual dimorphism could also lead to mis-identifying species, or naming two species when there really is only one. I was interested to know that none of the claims of sexual dimorphism that Mallon studied really stood up to rigorous analysis.