[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: New AVES definition refined (more testable?)
<<While not as important as Tracy would have you believe, seeing the
specimens has definite advantages and should make you trust their analyses
more than mine if anything.">>
Umm, I have to agree with Tracy. It is imperative you look at the actual
specimens to have accuracy in your research.
<<However, in truth, this probably does not influence phylogenetic analyses
as much as you might think. Assuming I base my character codings on the
professionals' illustrations, descriptions and data matrices, I'm no worse
off than they are.>>
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Please, tell me another joke, pretty please? You should
hear the stories about Gauthier. When he started his analysis of the
Saurischia, his initial codings were from literature. The cladogram that
resulted was ludicrous...Only when he looked at specimens did he get
something with decent fidelity.
<<After all, they based their statements and illustrations on observing the
specimen, so I can presumedly trust those codings. At worst, I'm on par
with them by perpetuating their errors.>>
Well, you need to learn not to trust them! People make mistakes, amazingly
often. This is why it is important to look at actual specimens.