[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New AVES definition refined (more testable?)
Tracy Ford wrote-
> While not as important as Tracy would have you believe, seeing the
> has definite advantages and should make you trust their analyses more than
> mine if anything."<<
> Ok, I have to de lurk and defend myself. What are you saying I said? I've
> never ever said, and never ever will say, not looking at specimens is
> than looking at specimens! Ken Carpenter has told me this, and others and
> is right. I've NEVER said it isn't important. Please explain your
> of what I've assumable said or you believe I meant.
You misinterpreted my sentence. I said that it was important to look at
specimens, but not as important as you usually say it is (for instance-
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2002Jan/msg01167.html, but we all
have our bad days :-) ).
> >>However, in truth, this probably does not influence phylogenetic
> much as you might think. Assuming I base my character codings on the
> professionals' illustrations<<
> You really should tell this to Ken Carpenter, I'd bet he'd have something
> say about that comment :)
Okay, I retract my statement on trusting illustrations completely. But
trusting photographs, descriptions and data matrices doesn't have that
ambiguity associated with it, and is less prone to error than trusting
illustrations (though they occasionally have errors too).