It seems a fair few different blogs (inc. pterosaur.net & tetrapod zoology and others) have today launched new blogs about the palaeoartist and 'palaeontologist' Dave Peters. I won't explain too much here, as the various articles explain a lot themselves, but basically, be very careful around his websites, as they are created using his misguided and erroneous approaches to palaeontology, which has lead to him publishing many 'findings', which are fraught with error and have very little to no scientific accuracy.
The main link (well worth reading if you have the time): http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/07/03/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/
(Tet. Zoo, a very good blog by palaeontologist Darren Naish, on various animals, extinct or extant.)
http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/pterosaurnet-wades-in-against.html
Pterosaur.net, ran by a few pterosaur-orientated palaeontologists, including Mark Witton who wrote this post (on his birthday!)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/pterosaurs-done-wrong/
As the above authors say, it is not an attack against Peters, simply an attempt at letting people who may end up his sites know that they are not credible, referable sites, as they look good as sites, and appear readily on search engines and many who may come across them may end up using them as what they think are credible links.
The main link (well worth reading if you have the time): http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/07/03/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/
(Tet. Zoo, a very good blog by palaeontologist Darren Naish, on various animals, extinct or extant.)
http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/pterosaurnet-wades-in-against.html
Pterosaur.net, ran by a few pterosaur-orientated palaeontologists, including Mark Witton who wrote this post (on his birthday!)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/pterosaurs-done-wrong/
As the above authors say, it is not an attack against Peters, simply an attempt at letting people who may end up his sites know that they are not credible, referable sites, as they look good as sites, and appear readily on search engines and many who may come across them may end up using them as what they think are credible links.