Home Stretch for Specimen Combinations

We’re on the home stretch for combining specimen data. . .I just updated the spreadsheet (accessible, as always, here); feel free to edit as appropriate to combine all of the final entries. Note that I have temporarily removed the already combined entries, as well as the singletons.

The first combined entry has been left as an example. As before, please color the original data orange, and the combined line that you insert yellow.

This entry was posted in Progress Reports, To-Do List. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Home Stretch for Specimen Combinations

  1. William Miller says:

    Sometimes it looks like averaging two numbers gives an impression of more precision than is really there; Dryosaurus altus AMNH 834’s MT IV has 102 and 105.9, so averaging them gives 103.95; but this has created an extra decimal place. Is this going to cause issues?

  2. Andy Farke says:

    You’re absolutely correct – I think we’ll want to round to the nearest millimeter for most of our measurements.

  3. Several times I have tried to access the Google docs spreadsheet to combine data. Sometimes I have been successful and saved my combined data. But other times I can open the file but am unable to save it. Is this because someone else has the file open at this time so it prohibits all but one user from saving changes at one time? Or is my computer just angry at me for some reason?

  4. Andy Farke says:

    Hmm. . .I haven’t had that issue, but perhaps the multiple user thing is behind it. I thought that Google docs were supposed to avoid that issue, but perhaps I was wrong. Anyone else running into this?

  5. William Miller says:

    Andy Farke :
    I think we’ll want to round to the nearest millimeter for most of our measurements.

    So should we do that on each measurement as we combine them?

  6. Andy Farke says:

    William Miller :

    Andy Farke :
    I think we’ll want to round to the nearest millimeter for most of our measurements.

    So should we do that on each measurement as we combine them?

    I think we’ll leave it as is for now, and do the rounding at the very end. It’s easy enough to have the computer do so.

  7. William Miller says:

    Ah, OK then, I won’t round yet. Thanks, that makes sense.

  8. William Miller says:

    AMNH 5271 is listed once as Saurolophus osborni and once as Saurolophus? sp; DMNH 2818 is listed once as Stegosaurus armatus and once as Stegosaurus stenops. What name should we use?

  9. Andy Farke says:

    Probably Saurolophus sp. for AMNH 5271? The DMNH should probably be S. armatus, because I think that’s the only valid one now (unless anyone else has contrary opinions).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s