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

Re: logic; BCF (going gets tough)



On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Ken Kinman wrote:

>      If BCF is even just partially correct, it will have quite an impact on 
> strictly cladistic classifications of dinosaurs (earthquake equivalent of 
> perhaps 6.0).

Actually, no. Although DinoGeorge's phylogeny is a bit different from the
norm, it is not drastically different. There is still this pattern:

--+--Herrerasauridae
  `--+--Ceratosauria
     `--+=="megalosaurs"
        |--Spinosauria
        `--+--Carnosauria
           `--Coelurosauria (including Aves _sensu_ Chiappe)

(Please correct me if I've misrepresented anything, George.)

The difference is not really in the phylogeny, but what is at the nodes
(the plusses of my diagram). BCF holds that they were very small fliers
(or at least gliders [or at least scansors]). The more orthodox (and some
would say more parsimonious) view is that they were terrestrial predators
(size unknown, I think).

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    work, binary files      <mkeesey@dcentgroup.com>
     Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
      AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
       ICQ                     <77314901>
        Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>