[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Recoded Aves eliminates polyphyly
Ken Kinman wrote-
> I accept Mickey Mortimer's arguments that Confuciusornithids and
> Oviraptorids are closely related.
(several minutes later)
.....ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.......ha............ha........... *pant pant*
*wipe tears from eyes*
Okay. That's it.... Sorry Ken, if you believe that.... well, I've given up
hope. The whole point of that obvious joke post (it had a sarcastic
emoticon in the title for crying out loud, and at the end!) was that one can
use characters to support almost any hypothetical phylogeny. You want
troodontids and birds together? Done. Troodontids and dromaeosaurids?
Done. Troodontids and enigmosaurs? Or segnosaurs? Or ornithomimosaurs?
Or tyrannosauroids? I can support any of them, but it means nothing.
Confuciusornithids and oviraptorids was just a ludicrous combination that I
thought of. Sure, those characters I listed support it, but it's not
parsimonious in the least. It was a demonstration to point out the fallacy
of your anti-enigmosaur and anti-alvarezsaurid arguments. There are sooo
many enigmosaurian, oviraptorosaurian, caenagnathoid, paravian,
eumaniraptoran, avialan, avian, pygostylian (etc.) characters that I ignored
while writing that post. It's supposed to be equivalent to you ignoring the
alvarezsaurid and enigmosaurian characters existing right in front of you.
But you proved my point far too well by accepting my ludicrous hypothesis.
I've tried to be helpful and point you in the right direction, but it's
obviously futile. Thanks for putting so much faith in my work, though there
are people out there far more deserving of it, including several on this
list. Try reading what Jaime, Pete, Tim and Filipo write, and especially
Tom Holtz, who has far more experience than myself. Think more objectively,
don't ignore evidence or make some data more meaningful for some reason.
And dump the "clado-eclectic Kinmanian taxonomic system". It will never be
accepted for reasons everyone's made so many times before. So, there's my
criticism, some of it positive. I'm through trying to correct your
phylogenetic "hypotheses". Classify things how you want. The rest of us
will go on using our "overly objective" cladistic methods.
> 6 Caenagnathiformes Cracraft, 1971
> 1 Pl. Microvenator
> 2 Caenagnathidae
> 3 Oviraptoridae
> 4 Confuciusornithidae