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

Re: Support for Enigmosauria

Mickey you are a treasure trove of information, and if everyone would look at all this information objectively, you all would see the support for "enigmosauria" crumbling before your eyes.
One of those two "enigmosaur" synapomorphies that has survived scrutiny has just bit the dust. "Reduced basipterygoid processes" are also found in "ornithothoracine" birds. If they can be reduced convergently there, they certainly could be reduced even more easily "in parallel" in a paraphyletic "enigmosauria".
Defending this crumbling house of cards just seems like a waste of time. Why not be scientific and test my alternative? Mickey will be doing it one way later on, and I approach it from another perspective. Is there nothing in the convex coracoid glenoids of crocs that would distinguish them from those of my Aves sensu lato? It seems like there is this knee-jerk reaction to defend "enigmosauria" for some reason. To me this case looks just like the coelophysids making the old ceratosaur assemblage paraphyletic.
I am trying to show that "enigmosauria" could very well be paraphyletic, and ironically those who intensely dislike paraphyletic groups are arguing against me. This seems like a perfect opportunity to work together and do some real science, and everyone is trying "to boo me from the stage". I just don't get it. If I have to do it by myself, so be it, but this just strikes me a totally ironic.
--- Sincerely,
Ken Kinman
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
Look here- http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jul/msg00242.html
for seven good characters and five more possible characters that Ken could
use to support his position. Of course, enigmosaur characters outnumber them.

Mickey Mortimer

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com