New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[nwrep]

New Dinosaur Species Found in India

2 hours, 55 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

AP Photo Missed Tech Tuesday? Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget

The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.

[VadeRetro]

Stop the "you're not taking responsibility" garbage. BTW, I have read what I have posted.

Let's look at the scoreboard! In this case, that would be the replies to 1375.

1378. No replies. (OK, I wasn't expecting one here as I promise more to come. Already, though, I'm saying 1375 comprises "deliberate AiG fallacies.")

1379. No replies. (But this was a joke from Stolar Storm; no reply needed.)

1380. Aric describes the evidences as wrong and discredited. No replies.

1386. RWP attacks the helium argument with a research paper on the topic. No replies.

1409. ThinkPlease links the Meritt FAQ. No replies.

1446. I link How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? and make personal observations on mud deposition, strata folding, and sandstone intrusions. No replies.

1476. Ichneumon responds with a proposal for a detailed autopsy of 1375. This gets several replies, eventually even from you. You seem to be one of the least enthusiastic.

Again, you're looking like the usual creo drive-by-shooter, time and again dumping a bit of AiG (or TrueOrigins, or ICR) onto the thread and running off to get another one without so much as a look over the shoulder to see how the last one is playing in Peoria.

[Right Wing Professor]

There is a fundamental level of unfairness about what you propose. I have been for 1500 or so replies largely standing alone against a team of evolutionists, some of whom are claimed to be scientists. Even if I had a PhD. in physics, I would personally not be an expert in all of the fields of science represented here on Free Republic and would not be able to tell if the arguments presented to me are valid or not.

Yet you will tell those people, whom you say are far more expert than you, how they should teach science?

Most of us are amateurs in most of the fields we discuss. When you posted the list of creationist scientists, for example, I had heard of Cuvier, but I wasn't completely familiar with what he thought. So I looked up one of his own works on line and found out.

I have gone to sources that are more well trained than I in the area of science, but those sources are rejected outright.

The sort of stuff you've posted has in general been posted many times before on these threads. If a source of information has been shown in the past to be unreliable, you have to expect people to react with 'not this !@#$ again!'. It's not just creationist sites; look at the reaction on a mideast thread when someone posts something from Debka.

That being said, I think we have made efforts to rebut creationist material on a substantive basis. If you're going to post, for example, the claim that we can't explain helium levels in the atmosphere based on an 5 billion year old earth, you have to expect that I or someone else is going to research that claim, and try to find a rebuttal, which I did.

Perhaps you should take from this thread that scientists are not backing evolution, the big bang, the age of the earth, etc., for ideological reasons. All the scientists posting here are conservatives or libertarians; I'd say the majority are Christians. We have looked skeptically at our own evidence and the evidence presented by creationists. We have solid scientific grounds for rejecting the latter. The evidence, for example, for the earth being over a billion years old is overwhelming, and a few anomalous dating results of uncertain provenance are not enough to sway it. The evidence for evolution from gene sequencing is absolutely solid; and it grows every time we sequence a new organism. Our overall picture of the earth's geological history is comprehensive, self-consistent, and is not going to be rebutted by a few unusual strata or some temporary dating controversies. And there is no way you can shoehorn this huge body of evidence into a model of a 6000 year old earth.

By all means work to reconcile this with your religious faith; I recommend, for example, Alamo Girl's discussion of different time scales. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but it appears to be an intelligent and ingenious attempt to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with a earth that appears to be billions of year age (AG, got a link?).

However, if you try to go up against scientists in their own field, don't complain if you feel like you've been steamrolled. Most of us take our science every bit as seriously as you take your faith.

[general_re]

"If I've told you once, I've told you 3E8 times - programmers will always betray themselves in casual conversation."

[DittoJed2]

I have not taken the time to read through the links you sent me. What you sent me was an entire website full of material, and it will take time just to go through it.

As far as this man's credentials, this goes further to prove what I was telling Ichneumon earlier. It does not matter what I post, your group will either scream "bad science" or "bad credentials" or "bad source". Here are some examples of the latter (incidentally, not all are young earth creationists, they just disagree with the prevailing "knowledge" of evolution):

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe:

Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.

No, but Behe is a SMALL minority in the science community, and I mean SMALL minority.

RESPONSE TO BEHE ON THIS THREAD:

---

Post 1157:Most scientists look at Behe as a joke, and I have to say that I agree with them.

Irreducibly Complex? Come on, give me a fricking break.

When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness.

Behe was lazy, pure and simple, or ignorant, take your pick.

---

From Post 1167: Then lonely little Behe doesn't help you with his credentials or his tiny little handful of ID brothers.

---

Post 1200:I've attended one of Behe's presentations on ID. Behe may or may not be a joke, but his presentation was.

---

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton.

Creationist Anatomist
(AiG - USA)

Biography

Professional Affiliation:

• Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
• Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
• Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)

Professional Activities:

• Guest lecturer in gross anatomy
• Former coursemaster of Microscopic Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine
• Consulting editor in Histology for 'Stedman's Medical Dictionary', a standard medical reference work

Extraprofessional activities:

• Vice-president of Congregation of Faith Lutheran Church of Ballwin, Missouri
• Sunday school teacher for high school students
• President of the Missouri Association for Creation, St. Louis, Missouri
• Technical Advisor for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California
• Lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the Creation-Evolution controversy

Education

• B.A. from Mankato State University in Mankato, Minnesota
• Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University

Honors/Awards/Associations

• Member of the American Association of Anatomists
• Member of Sigma Xi
• Silver Award for Basic Research from the American Academy of Dermatology
• Given 'Distinguished Service Teaching Award' from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
• Named 'Teacher of the Year' at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
• Elected 'Professor of the Year' in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000
• Profiled in 'American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades

Publications

Written numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.

---

Strangely, though I have mentioned him several times, there is hardly any commentary at all (if any) about the work presented by Menton on this thread.

Exhibit 3: Dr Raymond V. Damadian

Born March 16, 1936 Forest Hills, New York Inventor of Magnetic Resonance Scanning (Patent No. 3,789,832) , a $5 billion dollar a year industry, inductee into the National Inventors Hall of Fame (1989), recipient of the National Technology Medal, and founder and president of Fonar, the first company and continuing innovator in MRI technology. Recently Fonar won a $62 million dollar patent infringement award against General Electric.

Damadian attended the Juilliard School of Music for eight years, studying violin. He received his B.S. in mathematics in 1956 from the University of Wisconsin and an M.D. degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York in 1960. Damadian later served as a fellow in nephrology at Washington University School of Medicine and as a fellow in biophysics at Harvard University, where he completed academic work in physics, physical chemistry, and mathematics. After serving in the Air Force, Damadian joined the faculty of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in 1967. His training in medicine and physics led him to develop a new theory of the living cell, his Ion Exchanger Resin Theory. His MRI produced images of the interior of the body far more detailed than was possible with X-ray devices such as the CAT scanner. With the aid of his associates, Dr. Damadian built the first MR Scanner in 1977 which has since been retired to the Smithsonian.

---

Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:

Post 1474:Damadian didn't invent MRI. Paul Lauterbur did. Damadian is a crank who's spent 25 years, largely unsuccessfully, trying to claim Lauterbur stole his idea. I have first hand knowledge of this. When Lauterbur left SUNY Stony Brook, I was hired as his replacement. I inherited the laboratories and equipment Lauterbur used; including some of the first samples and probes using for MRI imaging. I've talked with colleagues of Lauterbur's, off whom he used to bounce his ideas. Not only is it clear Lauterbur came up with the idea on his own, but it's also true that Damadian is an MD and didn't have the mathematical or physical knowledge to invent the technique. No scientist in the field gives credit to Damadian, though quite a few politicos and ingnorant journalists have been swayed by him. He's rich, and persistent.

---

Post 1499 about a radiology website with Damadian's biography: http://www.radiolog.nm.ru ?

You're kidding, right?

---

Post 1530:Was just demonstrating that Damadian was not just "some crank". He's not just "some crank", he's a big crank! An opportunist, really, who nonetheless played an important, if not pivotal, role in the invention of MRI.

---

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority. I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

---

For those who are listening. If you want a list (that purports to be pretty accurate, and to my knowledge is darn close if not completely accurate) of those who doubt Darwinism (not all creationists mind you) then peruse the credentials of some of those found Here

This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.

[DittoJed2]

This thread illustrates what I was talking about to you in an earlier post.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[Doctor Stochastic]

IF you really think so THEN please DO CONTINUE this line of thought; ELSE WRITE us something about it; ENDIF.

[DittoJed2]

1378. No replies. (OK, I wasn't expecting one here as I promise more to come. Already, though, I'm saying 1375 comprises "deliberate AiG fallacies.")
Then why bring it up?

1379. No replies. (But this was a joke from Stolar Storm; no reply needed.)
Again, why bring it up?

1380. Aric describes the evidences as wrong and discredited. No replies.
Aric provided little no no proof for his assertion. In other words, it was unsubstantiated. Incidentally, his commentary on that particular post seems to apply to the whole theory of evolution. They have a hypothesis and then go out to find evidence for it. But, we won't let reason get in the way of a thing like "science."

1386. RWP attacks the helium argument with a research paper on the topic. No replies.
I am still looking for data on the Helium argument. I did not ignore the post, and have been doing research on it.

1409. ThinkPlease links the Meritt FAQ. No replies.
You expect me to quickly provide an answer to a page with close to 100 links on it coming from a website with a clear agenda FOR evolution? Give me a break!

1446. I link How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? and make personal observations on mud deposition, strata folding, and sandstone intrusions. No replies.
I read your observations and do not see how your views on mud deposition, strata folding and sandstone intrusions invalidate other theories of how this could occur.

1476. Ichneumon responds with a proposal for a detailed autopsy of 1375. This gets several replies, eventually even from you. You seem to be one of the least enthusiastic.
I wonder why?

Now, in good faith I have tried to answer as many of the posts as I can. I have not claimed to be a scientist, but I do have a mind with which to reason. I have not claimed to be unbiased. I have not claimed that all of the creationists credentials are stellar. I've not made any of these claims, and yet all of my data has been summarily dismissed, excused, or dissed - in spite of the fact even many NON-CREATIONISTS have problems with the science of evolutionists. Whatever, VadeRetro. Continue to have your little self-congratulatory club. I never expected to convince you all anyway, but posted mainly to get those with a more open mind to consider that the dogma hurled at them by the pro-evolution camp may not be as it appears.

[Alamo-Girl]

Have a wonderful homeschooling/astronomy venture! Hugs!

When you get back, if you are in the mood to do it, we could discuss the difference between the Bible and the Word...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Someone's always gotta spoil my elegant solutions by trying to do it on the cheap ;)

It's true. I'm cheap. That's why I have to work in the factory. ;)

[Aric2000]

Just checking in this morning before heading off into the wilderness.

Good morning RA, and if you need that lock pick, let me know, I'll get it off to you ASAP!! ;)

[Aric2000]

Indeed, we do have common ground, you have much to learn about your bible so that you will realize that it is a spiritual book, NOT a literal one.

Then again, a lot of people are just too lazy to REALLY read the bible and take it literally because it's easier that way.

Well, perhaps someday you will learn the TRUE value of the bible and stop being lazy and learn to ACTUALLY read it.

Yes, you have MUCH to learn.

[js1138]

Most of us do not make fun of Behe. (ok, a little fun, but not slam up against a wall disrespect.) The interesting thing is that Behe says things that aren't acceptable to most creationists and are completely unacceptable to Young Earth Creationists. For example, he accepts evolution and common descent. At least he doesn't try to disprove them.

He differes from Darwinists only on the mechanism of variation, which he says is programmed from the time of creatin. This is not really incompatible with Darwinian evolution, except that Darwinists would argue it is impossible to prove or disprove.

[Aric2000]

Many things about the history of the bible are VERY interesting, the other books that were left out, the mistranslation of some texts.

Shoot, the commandment, THou shalt not kill is a PERFECT example, it is actually Thou Shalt not Murder. BIG difference.

Also, allegory has ALWAYS been a huge thing in religion, because you are trying to understand motivations, learn the morals etc, not that the story was literal and that you have to prove it happened, because it DIDN'T, it is a story by a leader of a religion trying to teach a lesson and reach the spirit within, not the brain.

People tend to forget this and try and prove a story literal, when it was NEVER meant to be literal.

Anyway, we can discuss this on another thread, and at another time, I need to get the car packed and hit the road. 5 days of fishing, camping, astronomy and fun with my kids.

See you on Sunday.

[Aracelis]

it has become obvious to everyone that all this chatter about your SETI project is just window dressing; you want us to THINK you're looking for ET, when in fact you're sitting out that at Area 51 WORKING WITH THEM AS WE SPEAK!

Looks like your cover is finally blown, my friend. Damn shame too, as the Pleiadian ambassador was just about to reveal the secrets of their mind-enhancing frequency shifts. ;^)

[DittoJed2]

Yet you will tell those people, whom you say are far more expert than you, how they should teach science?
Please show me where I said that Evolution should not be taught? To me, it is an unproved hypothesis. Creationism is also an unproved hypothesis. I believe both theories of origins should be taught (with both the confirming and the negating information) to schools. I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught. I am not the one who absolutely refuses to allow any dissent. Evolutionists are.

Most of us are amateurs in most of the fields we discuss. When you posted the list of creationist scientists, for example, I had heard of Cuvier, but I wasn't completely familiar with what he thought. So I looked up one of his own works on line and found out.
Good. I applaud that.

The sort of stuff you've posted has in general been posted many times before on these threads. If a source of information has been shown in the past to be unreliable, you have to expect people to react with 'not this !@#$ again!'. It's not just creationist sites; look at the reaction on a mideast thread when someone posts something from Debka.
My sources are not the same as Debka, and I have made efforts to get data from some of the more reliable of Creationist sources. There are others I have seen while researching this thread that appear to be even stronger in their credentials than the AiG/ICR folks. And, there are non-creationists from whom I've also learned a lot. Just because you all have seen the data before, doesn't mean it should be rejected outright. Attacking the source of information as blanketly "unreliable" throws the baby out with the bath water and closes one's mind to any thought that they say which may be valid. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That being said, I think we have made efforts to rebut creationist material on a substantive basis. If you're going to post, for example, the claim that we can't explain helium levels in the atmosphere based on an 5 billion year old earth, you have to expect that I or someone else is going to research that claim, and try to find a rebuttal, which I did.
Some have made substantive efforts. The helium argument is one example. But frequently there have been assertions made about the data I post as being "contrary to the laws of physics" or something to that affect, but without substantiation.

Perhaps you should take from this thread that scientists are not backing evolution, the big bang, the age of the earth, etc., for ideological reasons. All the scientists posting here are conservatives or libertarians; I'd say the majority are Christians.
On what basis are you Christians? If you ignore Genesis 1-11 as being "morality tales" and don't see them as literal then you destroy the foundation for the rest of Christian belief. If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity. You just have a comforting system of belief which you accept blindly and without evidence.

We have looked skeptically at our own evidence and the evidence presented by creationists.

Not skeptically enough, I'm afraid. You see, the strongest absolute in your minds is that science can not be wrong. That the presuppositions which scientists use when examining the evidence can't be biased. That "evolutionary science" is infallible.

We have solid scientific grounds for rejecting the latter. The evidence, for example, for the earth being over a billion years old is overwhelming, and a few anomalous dating results of uncertain provenance are not enough to sway it.
More than a few, and no, it is not overwhelming. You tested a rock and it tested to be about 4.6 billion years old. Other tests have given results of greater or lesser ages. New lava rocks have tested to be 100,000 years old or more. The science is not as solid as you think.

The evidence for evolution from gene sequencing is absolutely solid;
Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.

Our overall picture of the earth's geological history is comprehensive, self-consistent, and is not going to be rebutted by a few unusual strata or some temporary dating controversies.
Your faith that the dates are correct are what is unshakable, not the geological evidence.

And there is no way you can shoehorn this huge body of evidence into a model of a 6000 year old earth.
I disagree, and I don't have to "shoehorn" anything. There is evidence for a young earth and the creationist theories are valid.

By all means work to reconcile this with your religious faith; I recommend, for example, Alamo Girl's discussion of different time scales. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but it appears to be an intelligent and ingenious attempt to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with a earth that appears to be billions of year age (AG, got a link?).
Reconcile what? There goes that superior tone in your replies again. You throw out an attack and claim victory. It doesn't work that way. The only thing that I've seen could be wrong thus far is the Helium argument, though even that is open to debate.

However, if you try to go up against scientists in their own field, don't complain if you feel like you've been steamrolled. Most of us take our science every bit as seriously as you take your faith.
I do not feel "steamrolled." Nothing that has been said to me has been convincing, because I know the presuppositions involved. You all don't seem to be willing to admit, even to yourselves, that evolutionary presuppositions could be wrong.

[DittoJed2]

And I would respect Behe's right to dissent from the YEC point of view. I don't throw any scientist's work out just because he says some things I disagree with. I believe a lot of evolutionary scientists are probably extremely good at their work. I just disagree with them on their view of origins and would not label any of them a "joke." I wish some of the evolution camp would take some of the highly credentialled folks that just happen to disagree with them and treat them with the same respect. Much of what is proposed is just differing views of the same evidence. Some may be stronger than others, but the going view is that if it is creationist, young earth, whatever, it is to be dismissed along with the promoter of such evidence. Creation scientists are having to sue to get their stuff published. A lot of what the better scientists have discovered can't even be heard by the scientific community as a whole, unless they search the internet. Not a very open forum for dissenting views.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to your discussion with DittoJed2! I am very grateful for the kind words concerning my reconciliation of Scripture and science with regard to the age of the universe: Musings on Origins

For Lurkers:

I am a Fundamentalist Christian which basically means that I believe the Bible is inerrant.

I believe that both statements are true - that the universe is 6/7 days old from the space/time coordinates of its inception at the Big Bang plus 6000 (approx) years of Adamic man from our space/time coordinates. From our space/time coordinates alone, the universe is 15 billion years old (more or less.) This is consistent with the generally accepted inflationary model and relativity.

BTW, my 15 bya figure is an approximation since I cannot be sure at which point on the first Day the Big Bang happened. The current number from the science community is 13.7 bya, but I'm not sure if that number addresses all concerns about dark energy - acceleration/deceleration.

As a final point, in all of this putting of the cards on the table (which I strongly support) --- for those who are among the "willing" --- we have agreed not to demand that another other poster disavow a belief or profess a belief he does not hold. IOW, a "willing" can put all the cards on the table but must stop short of insisting the opposing party change his belief.

[Aric2000]

If you ignore Genesis 1-11 as being "morality tales" and don't see them as literal then you destroy the foundation for the rest of Christian belief. If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity.


Wrong on both counts, but I will let you figure it out, because I don't have time.

I see that same thing from creationists ALL the time, and find it bizarre that they have such a hard time with it, but most other Christians do not.

Look into it and we can discuss it on Sunday when I get back. There are LOTS of resources out there for you take a look see through.

I have such a hard time understanding people that take genesis literally, or most of the bible literally, there is absolutely NO reason to, and every reason NOT to.

Mainly because that is the way it was designed, NOT to be taken literally.

It is a book that is designed to reach the soul, NOT the brain, and when you take it literally, all your reaching is the brain.

You miss the whole point when you take it literally.

Anyway, I'M OUTA HERE!!!

[js1138]

Suing to get published doesn't make any sense. Why do you suppose there are so many journals? There are only a few things necessary to do science. First you must gather data. Scond you must communicate your findings to others who are interested. You cannot force the interest or respect of others, but you can record your dissent. Science is full of stories of folks who were ahead of their time. Eventually people get credit for what they did. It doesn't matter if the journal is prestigeous, as long as the communication is recorded.