[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Carnosaurs, taxonomy, the usual...[Part 2]

In a message dated 96-06-24 18:50:39 EDT, jrw6f@virginia.edu writes:

>P.S.  Anyone willing to allow that Segnoaurs might be very late Spinosaurs?

Nobody has convinced me, despite a wealth of cladograms, that segnosaurs were
theropods, let alone "very late Spinosaurs," and I continue to find loads of
niggling errata about the presence or absence of certain characters in such
venerable studies as Clark et al. After grinding out a bunch of cladograms,
it would be good to stand back a little and examine their evolutionary
implications, see whether there were any functional reasons for the
character-state changes, that sort of thing. Computers can generate
unbelievable volumes of cladograms, but >at most one< can be correct.