[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: pterosaurian monophyly
In a message dated 95-09-19 12:43:16 EDT, email@example.com
(Mickey Rowe) writes (quoting Kevin Padian):
>One of the tenets of phylogenetic systematics is that you can't
> assert convergence, you have to demonstrate it by showing that
> another phylogeny is better supported. And that means a full
> cladistic analysis with all the characters.
All too true. But what does "better supported" mean? Victorious in
I have 50 characters to your 32? Suppose the "true phylogeny" is riddled with
convergences and homoplasy; how could analysis ferret this out? It's time to
start thinking about going _beyond_ cladistic analysis, even though just how
to do this is not yet obvious.