Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum - America's "Bigfoot Professor"

[DennyT]

Anyone seen this book by Sharon Hill?

 

[Resume]

Anyone seen this book by Sharon Hill?

Heard about it; haven't read it. I assume it exposes the pseudoscientific methods of most woo-slingers, but I wonder if the "scientifical" NAWACers get any mentions.

 

[DennyT]

From from I can see she is critical of academics who encourage pseudoscience. If so Don Jeff would have to be at the top of that list. Amirong?

 

[DennyT]

Hot shot Sloan Kettering cancer doctor hasn’t been disclosing his financial ties to industry.
Wonder if anthropologists are bound by financial disclosure rules? Hmmmm. Meldrum’s dog and pony shows/book signings for the rubes might pass muster but movie appearances not so much.

 

[DennyT]

From from I can see she is critical of academics who encourage pseudoscience. If so Don Jeff would have to be at the top of that list. Amirong?

We are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen...

—-Hunter S. Thompson

 

[DennyT]

In the 2007 paper
http://wwwDOTfloridabigfootDOTcom/wp-content/27-MeldrumNAHominoid.pdf
Meldrum writes:

Type Material: Holotype: Preserved portion of Patterson-Gimlin
trackway, with Smithsonian Institution (SI) specimen 390041, left pes rubber mold and duplicate cast and SI 390042, right pes duplicate cast, representing left and right feet respectively.
Additional material relevant to the holotype: An additional 10 casts from the site, eight of these comprise SI 390043-50 (CA-11-18), including molds for SI 390047 and SI 390050.

As was pointed out in a critical piece, he doesn’t have “a preserved portion of Patterson-Gimlin trackway.” He also doesn’t have the original casts.

The “additional material relevant to the holotype” idea? In the abstract he seems to say something different: “The initial pair, originally cast by Patterson, and the remaining casts made by Titmus, are designated the holotype...”

(Holotype – a single specimen expressly designated as the name-bearing “type” by the original author of the species.)


Discuss...

 

[Drewbot]

His response is: I am not naming the species, only the tracks.

Science's response is: You can't use a cast of an animal's work to do that either.

His response is: They had no problem with it in the paper about the human trackway found in South America, so it's ok for me to do it here.

 

[HarryHenderson]

..."The initial pair, originally cast by Patterson, and the remaining casts made by Titmus, are designated the holotype...”

(Holotype – a single specimen expressly designated as the name-bearing “type” by the original author of the species.)

Discuss...

And of course they're the "holotype" because they can't show you the actual beast that made them or the jig would be up. He's a little different looking than the big hairy beast they're selling. He's a scrawnier, shorter, more devious kind of animal.

The 'tell' that it's all a ruse is the fact Meldrum, a supposedly credentialed college science professor, not only allows such a thing to occur - holotype-by-proxy basically - but is also its biggest promoter. I doubt you'd get very many scientists in the entire country to agree on using only the traces of an animal to identify/classify and otherwise recognize it as a new species. And not just a new species of field mouse, it's a new species that would otherwise change mankind, if it were real.

 

[HarryHenderson]

His response is: I am not naming the species, only the tracks.

Science's response is: You can't use a cast of an animal's work to do that either.

His response is: They had no problem with it in the paper about the human trackway found in South America, so it's ok for me to do it here.

Not that it's obscure, but to save time do you have a link to where he expressed such a daft idea?

 

[DennyT]

I’m just trying to figure out this naming stuff. I found this:

Type specimens are the objective standard of reference for the application of zoological names.
Holotype – A single specimen designated or otherwise fixed as the name bearing type of a species name when it was first described (Article 73).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is a widely accepted convention in zoology that rules the formal scientific naming of organisms treated as animals. It is also informally known as the ICZN Code, for its publisher, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (which shares the acronym "ICZN").

The code is meant to guide only the nomenclature of animals, while leaving zoologists freedom in classifying new taxa.

In other words, whether a species itself is or is not a recognized entity is a subjective decision, but what name should be applied to it is not. The code applies only to the latter. A new animal name published without adherence to the code may be deemed simply "unavailable" if it fails to meet certain criteria, or fall entirely out of the province of science (e.g., the "scientific name" for the Loch Ness Monster).

 

[DennyT]

more:

An ichnotaxon (plural ichnotaxa) is defined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as "a taxon based on the fossilized work of an organism", that is, the non-human equivalent of an artifact.
Ichnotaxa are names used to identify and distinguish morphologically distinctive ichnofossils, more commonly known as trace fossils. They are assigned genus and species ranks by ichnologists, much like organisms in Linnaean taxonomy. These are known as ichnogenera and ichnospecies, respectively.
...
Most researchers classify trace fossils only as far as the ichnogenus rank, based upon trace fossils that resemble each other in morphology but have subtle differences

 

[DennyT]

Seems to me that the naming and the code have almost nothing to do with scientific merit, aside from a requirement that the taxon be published.

From the way Meldrum talked, it seemed to me as though he submitted this new taxon in 2007, and some scientific body would have a chance to review it; if there was no objection raised in 5 years it “became official” in some sense, like it got approved by science.

It’s really not like that, according to what I have posted above and other stuff at the ICZN website. They pretty much just see if you picked a name that hadn’t been used, put it in italics, capitalize the genus name, tell where the specimen is, etc. The scientific merit is not assessed. As long as all the boxes are checked, the ICZN says “the name is available.”

That is the status of Meldrum’s ichnotaxon. The opinion of the scientific community is separate and apart from this. It may be completely negative.

It may be just me but I think he is deceiving the rubes about all this.

 

[DennyT]

So there is a third thing in this system besides the Code written by the Commission; and that is the Zoobank, also connected to ICZN, which is the registry of all the nomenclature events, publications, type specimens and authors. This was first proposed in 2006 to keep track of all this stuff.

Again, I don’t see any evidence that Zoobank is making any judgments on the science of these naming. I seem to recall Melba Ketchum registering some Bigfoot name in Zoobank.

I still don’t know the source for the 5 year waiting period that I recall Meldrum talking about.

 

[Drewbot]

Not that it's obscure, but to save time do you have a link to where he expressed such a daft idea?

I can't remember the name of the journal, but it was in the comments, he was responding to me saying what Ron Pine said. It was that journal where Shrike was outed in the comments, and the editor had to come in and delete posts.

Can anyone remember that?

 

[Drewbot]

Found it
https://beta.capeia.com/zoology/201...dal-primate-species-existing-in-north-america

Drewbot
1. Nov 2017
Dr. Meldrum said: "The classification was published in the peer-reviewed proceedings of an international symposium on Cenozoic tracks and traces. The abstract was invited and reviewed by the organizing committee. It was subsequently presented in a conference room populated by several dozen experts on footprints and ichnology. Furthermore, the manuscript benefited through numerous discussions with expert colleagues in ichnology, and ultimately went out for anonymous review to five reviewers, plus the editor of the Bulletin. I don’t know where Dr. Pine is coming from, but none of these experts in this specific field felt it inappropriate to classify non-fossilized footprints in this instance. "

Dr. Meldrum, regarding the Anthropoides ameriborealis name, it really doesn't matter who was at the symposium, if your reviewers and or editors don't know the rules of the ICZN regarding the classification of the work of extant animals. The arbiter on this would be the ICZN

1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed

1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;

In other words, the ICZN does not recognize footprints (work) of any extant creature as a basis for zoological naming.

Jeff Meldrum
1. Nov 2017

You are correct that ICZN does not want traces of extant animals named. There has been a precedent established with the naming of Hominipes modernus, by Lockley et al for the Acahualinca, Nicaragua tracks, which are footprints of extant Homo sapiens, though the type specimen is a few thousand years old. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that there are a number of traces named from fossils, indistinguishable from traces being made today by extant species (especially among invertebrates) with no resolution of that issue. Bear in mind, for a long time ICZN did not regulate trace fossil names, and certainly the way they now regulate them is open to discussion. The proposed rationale for this “exception,” which was accepted by the symposium attendees and reviewers, was that while the alleged footprint-maker was unrecognized by science and therefore “unknown” to science, we nevertheless needed to deal with the existence of consistent, and apparent to some, credible footprints. This sets this case apart from the intent of the ICZN's exclusion, such as naming the footprints of the extant black bear.

My point was made to address the charge that my research has not withstood “peer review,” not whether naming traces of an “unknown”or unrecognized, but potentially extant species was counter to current conventions of the ICZN. The footprints exist. A description and diagnosis, accompanied by an analysis, based on a type and referred material, plus numerous additional examples, exist and have withstood peer review and publication. Anyone is welcome to write a rebuttal of the paper and seek peer-reviewed publication. Knock yourself out. It will only have merit and warrant publication by a serious editor if it gets beyond the perception of a mere technicality and fully addresses the data and their interpretation. That sort of discourse was the very motivation for publishing the paper in the first place! I welcome and encourage it!

Drewbot
30. Oct 2017
Does the ICZN even recognize track impressions that are not fossilized? You are naming the tracks based on plaster casts, according to Dr. Ron Pine at the University of Kansas, this hasn't been recognized since 1931.

Jeff Meldrum
30. Oct 2017
The classification was published in the peer-reviewed proceedings of an international symposium on Cenozoic tracks and traces. The abstract was invited and reviewed by the organizing committee. It was subsequently presented in a conference room populated by several dozen experts on footprints and ichnology. Furthermore, the manuscript benefited through numerous discussions with expert colleagues in ichnology, and ultimately went out for anonymous review to five reviewers, plus the editor of the Bulletin. I don’t know where Dr. Pine is coming from, but none of these experts in this specific field felt it inappropriate to classify non-fossilized footprints in this instance.

 

[Castro]

His response is: I am not naming the species, only the tracks.

Science's response is: You can't use a cast of an animal's work to do that either.

His response is: They had no problem with it in the paper about the human trackway found in South America, so it's ok for me to do it here.

So, well aware of the fact that he will never be able to present a specimen of santa claus bigfoot, he desperately tried to dodge the (huge!) issue by attempting to scientifically name some fake tracks?... as it would change anything . If this guy was of good faith he would spend his free time trying to collect a specimen, not playing mind games for bigfootery. What a clown.

 

[DennyT]

So, well aware of the fact that he will never be able to present a specimen of santa claus bigfoot, he desperately tried to dodge the (huge!) issue by attempting to scientifically name some fake tracks?... as it would change anything . If this guy was of good faith he would spend his free time trying to collect a specimen, not playing mind games for bigfootery. What a clown.

If you notice in his paper and in statements he and his “mini-Meldrum” * have made over the years, he tries to make it seem that all the casts/tracks are footprints and from the same creature/species. I would surmise that would have been crucial to persuading his audience/reviewers to acquiesce to his nonsense.
*Cliffie

A large sample of footprint casts and photos, representing a wide temporal and geographic range, has been evaluated by Meldrum (1999, 2004, 2006) and others (e.g. Bindernagel, 1998; Krantz 1999; Murphy, 2004). Statistical summary of linear metrics and proportions of a large sample of footprints are reported by Fahrenbach (1998), offering a summary of the range of variation in footprint dimensions. It is not widely known that more than 200 footprints have been examined and evaluated, with duplicates and some originals of a significant number of casts housed in the author’s research lab at Idaho State University. These include material from important collections made by previous generations of researchers. In order to both make these specimens more readily accessible to serious researchers, and permit quantitative geometric morphometric analyses of the specimens, a project was undertaken to scan the casts and create an archive of 3D virtualized models. These are accessible on-line through the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory webpage (http:// ivl.imnh.isu.edu/).

 

[DennyT]

I particularly loved his idea that the Wallace tracks are from the Patterson individual i.e Patty. He was inspired to figure that out from watching his now-ex curl up her toes while watching TV.
This is what passes for science.

 

[Castro]

If you notice in his paper and in statements he and his “mini-Meldrum” * have made over the years, he tries to make it seem that all the casts/tracks are footprints and from the same creature/species. I would surmise that would have been crucial to persuading his audience/reviewers to acquiesce to his nonsense.
*Cliffie

Well, if by species he means human hoaxer, he's actually not far from the truth imo. Anyway who cares about Meldrum's trolling/nonsense outside of bigfootery nowadays? Not many I guess. Unfortunately for him, this absence of specimen is an inescapable fact.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I can't remember the name of the journal, but it was in the comments, he was responding to me saying what Ron Pine said. It was that journal where Shrike was outed in the comments, and the editor had to come in and delete posts.

Can anyone remember that?

I surely do as I was one of the deleted posts I think even before he was outed. I totally missed those absurd Don "The Snake" Meldrum claims there. It's special pleadings for a special guy.

Found it
https://beta.capeia.com/zoology/201...dal-primate-species-existing-in-north-america

And once again his con's tells are pretty vivid. Why would an "I promise I'm legit" scientist want to game the system so fervently as to create an entirely new precedent within an organization that in most cases couldn't care less what you want to do? More cashish.

Look at who actually reaps whatever-the-benefits from the "exception" he sought. Almost diabolically it's only Meldrum himself because all the other real scientists are out practicing real science and waiting for the real beast to show up before "officially" recognizing it. And maybe just as importantly, they're not wasting the cosmo's time serenading terrorizing the ICZN with dubious tales of fiction and fantasy to see how much they can get away with.

"I declare these footprints were made." is just not enough evidence, Don.