User talk:Y tambe

Archaeopteryx timeline
Here are some comments:

One person who has looked it over says that it checks out with Wellnhofer's article in "Feathered Dragons". There's been a change in status in some of the specimens, though, after Mayr et al.'s 2007 paper, that reintroduces A. siemensii. I don't have the article, unfortunately. A summary can be found here and below:
 * "An interesting outcome of this study is the distinction of two species: *A. lithographica*, including the London (1), Maxberg (3), Haarlem (4), and Solnhofen (5) specimens, and *A. siemensii*, including the Berlin (2), Munich (7), and Thermopolis (10) specimens. *Wellnhoferia grandis* is sunk because, while distinct from *A. siemensii*, it cannot be told apart from *A. lithographica*, and *A. bavarica* is sunk because the supposed sternum is part of the coracoid, removing the main difference between it and *A. siemensii* -- various proportions differ between the Munich specimen and the Berlin specimen, but in these the Thermopolis specimen is intermediate. The very small Eichstätt specimen (6), the very incomplete 8th specimen, and the inaccessible 9th specimen are not assigned to a species. -- *A. lithographica* is larger, has much larger flexor tubercles on the toe claws, different limb proportions, a stouter metatarsus, and a constriction in the middle of the premaxillary tooth crowns; the other features previously considered diagnostic for *Wellnhoferia* could also be diagnostic for *A. lithographica*, but are not preserved in the other three specimens; the end of the tail is not preserved in the Solnhofen specimen, so its tail length, previously considered diagnostic, can only be estimated."
 * Mayr, Pohl, Hartman and Peters, 2007. The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 149 (1), 97 -- 116.

As to the other questions: this looks like your best bet for a clear version of the running order for the 1861-62 names. This has every name and misspelling as of 1999. Wagner appears to have used Griphosaurus in 1861 without a species name (note that in the pdf listing, 1862 is in parentheses, and the reference says 1861); Woodward indeed used Griphosaurus problematicus in 1862, not Wagner; Griphornis longicaudatus was published in 1862 by Woodward from a manuscript by Owen, for unknown reasons. The combinations and citations look good, and the Burgermeister-Muller is the 8th, the "chicken wing" the 9th.

Anyway, I love the diagram, and hope you finish it. J. Spencer 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for image of Vero cells
I wanted to thank you for uploading and referencing your micrograph of Vero cells. The article is much improved, and thanks for your work! ManVhv 04:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hemolysis
hii i was reading the article for hemolysis and ii see u uploaded the picture of the test tubes with the blood cells iin iit. do you know why the middle one looks different from the left one, which also has no hemolysis added to it???

ii LUV MY MYSPACE FAM!! MiiZ SPECTAC (say what?) ''' 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. You can find the answer in the description page at commons. The minimum comparison needed for the explanation of hemolysis is of left (without hemolysis) and right (with hemolysis), which indicates opaque and transparent, respectively.  It is also important, however, to show the supernatant of the no-hemolytic sample is not colored (because no hemoglobin leaked from RBCs).  So I added the middle tube, which was left at rest for a while, to this photo. --Y tambe (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bridge animations
These movable bridge animations are really great! The tilting bridge is especially nice. Only one small change needed on the curling bridge if it is possible - can it be made to roll up into a ball? In this case it would form a hexagon when completely rolled up (see this webpage article). The new images are now installed in the movable bridge article and I will distribute them also to the relevant articles. If you have time there are only a few more to do, Did you hand code these or do you have a graphic construction tool? Only a few to go and the page will be uniformly complete. Thank you very much, Leonard G. (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for late reply. As you have already known, I uploaded the improved version for curling bridge. And now I've uploaded another two animations for drawbridge and transporter bridge (frankly speaking, making them was more difficult than formers...;-)  For your question: I did not use any modelling tool, but always hand-code my source file in POV-Ray.  I'll publish the source files of the animations newly added later.  Thanks. --Y tambe (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)