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


Matthew Troutman wrote:
>When I first heard of this I was very skeptical (and still am).
        I do not believe we should really be discussing the results of a
study not yet published.

>Hou et al. considered _Chaoyangia_ as an ornithurine by these characters:
        I normally do not go this far out on a limb, but I fear I must:
        Hou et al. 1995 is an extremely poor cladistic study, and should not
be referenced, used, or modified in any way. There are numerous problems in
character coding, outgrouping, character selection (and avoidance), and
taxon inclusion. The study is best abandoned in favor of other, more
detailed and more technically accurate studies. Anyone wishing the data
which support the statements made above may e-mail me, and I will forward a
copy of a summary of the problems in the study to them.
        For anyone interested, when the data matrix is reviewed, the
characters corrected, reoutgrouped using a sensible outgroup (i.e. NOT
_Petrolacosaurus), and neornithine birds are added into the data matrix, the
resulting most parsimonious cladogram shows the "normal" tree structure we
are so used to seeing from workers other than Martin and Feduccia.

>It seems that Science took the data matrix off the web so I am going to 
>have to go by what is reconstructed: 
        I can send you a copy.

    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
                    "...To fight legends." - Kosh Naranek