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

Re: Segnosaurs again (was Re: Dinosaur Web Pages' Re-Opening)

        George, could you please respond to each post a minimal number of
times? It is getting difficult for me to keep track, so it must be getting
even harder for those who are less interested.  Thanks - Wagner

At 08:10 PM 9/4/97 -0400, Dinogeorge wrote:
>I know of >no< cladistic analysis of segnosaurs in which the group is
>considered to lie outside Theropoda. All the analyses _a priori_ assume
>they're theropods and then try to figure out where they go. It is appalling,
>given how many characters segnosaurs share with prosauropods and
>sauropodomorphs, that nobody has done this.
        And that's what really burns your theory, isn't it? Russell and Dong
found _Alxasaurus_ to be so clearly theropodian that they didn't think it
was worth the effort to do such an analysis. You cannot blame the demon
cladistics for this one, George, because these folks figured it out YOUR way.
        As far as I know, everyone who has seen the specimens, looked over
the material, and heard the arguments, cladist or not, agrees that
therizinosaurs are theropods, other than you and Tracy Ford (hi Tracy!). So
now, since the methods you espouse have failed to convince everyone else,
you call for a cladistic test? Yet you have already said you won't believe

    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
               "Not the One..." -- Zathras (not Zathras)