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

RE: titanosaurs

Dinogeorge wrote:

> Right. Ignore all the features that make Opisthocoelicaudia a
> non-titanosaur and just consider those that are similar to titanosaur 
> features. 

That isn't what I said (or implied) at all.  The features that make
_Opisthocelicaudia_ a titanosaur far outweigh alternative phylogenetic
scenarios.  Where do you put this genus, George?  And on what basis do you
make your assignment - as a result of a phylogenetic analysis (which
requires a lot of time and effort), or through a simple matter of "oh it
just feels right"?  

> Give the same weight to the shape of an ulna as you would to 
> a whole series of bifid neural spines or to a whole series of 
> opisthocoelous caudals. 

What are you suggesting: That each caudal be coded separately?  Can you see
how absurd this suggestion is?  Do we therefore code each tooth of a
spinosaurid separately; or each wing feather of an _Archaeopteryx_; or each
plate of a stegosaur?  Please, you can't possibly be serious.

> Anyone else smell a rat here??

Yes.  And I think I know where the odor's coming from.