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


In a message dated 1/21/99 7:48:10 PM EST, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< I can, by your arguments, say that 
 your BCF hypothesis (which is based on very similiar tenuous methods as 
 the faulted Olson and Feduccia hypothesis) is any more or less true than 
 BAMM. >>

Sorry, BCF has very, very little to do with cladistic analysis. It does have
much to do with interpreting phylogenies that cladistics or any other method
might come up with. BCF is much more functional analysis than taxonomy or
phylogeny, and can be applied to any suitable cladogram of the theropods
(even, for example, the ones currently enjoying majority support among
dinosaur paleontologists). Also, since I haven't published my phylogenetic
analyses yet (I have about 50 pages of manuscript on just the stegosaurs, for
example), how do you know >what< they're based on or how tenuous my
methodology is? From my brief and occasional comments on this dinosaur list? I
claim that your statement here is far more tenuous than my methodology is.
You're talking through your hat here.