In two trackbacks to our paper, Matt Wedel offers a misleading, longwinded, ad hominen critique of this paper on the new theropod dinosaur, Aerosteon riocoloradensis, and the significance of its pneumatic features. Some personalized aspects of the commentary and erroneous claims push the limits of the “good practice” guidelines posted for commentary in this journal (http://www.plosone.org/st...).

In this paper, we did our best to:
1) Present the pneumatic evidence as clearly as possible (Figs. 4-16).
2) Cite the literature thoroughly and fairly (95 citations).
3) Critique available hypotheses for the evolution of avian intrathoracic air sacs and respiratory mechanics.
4) Outline more clearly in tabular format our osteological correlates (Table 4).
5) Diagram more specifically particular stages as supported by current fossil evidence (Fig. 17).

In the short first trackback, Wedel outlines and agrees with all of the main points of the paper. He then digresses to critique earlier papers and ends by explaining what “we’ve been up to”, referring to papers by himself, Pat O’Connor and Leon Claessens—research we cited many times in the paper, both positively for evidence and in critique. Much of the personalized negativity of the second trackback is clearly generated by Wedel’s sense that the press unfairly aggrandized our work compared to theirs, which we somehow slighted and miscited.

Neither we nor Pat O’Connor (pers. comm.) feel that personalized, ad hominem blogs like Wedel’s advance scientific understanding or enhance collegiality.