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

Re: a lot of fog?



> Which cladograms does observing Sinovenator confirm or refute? At best, it
> may make some more likely to be real than others.

An unparsimonious cladogram is already considered refuted (at least at the
moment).

--+--Tyrannosauroidea
   `--+--Ornithomimosauria
       `--Troodontidae

looks pretty unparsimonious now.

> << By a few. It certainly shouldn't be that way, in any case. >>
>
> By almost all, if not all. You might want to take a look at the politics
of
> molecular phylogenies versus morphological phylogenies.

There are at least attempts like combined analyses (throwing mol. and morph.
data into the same matrix).

BTW, do you know the strange case of Simon Conway Morris: Crucible of
Creation? The author finds, by means of various "halkieriids" that I drop
here, the following

--+--Mollusca
   `--+--Annelida
       `--Brachiopoda

Looks a lot like the few resolved Lophotrochozoa trees I know (most have big
polytomies here). This time it is paleontologists + molecular biologists
against all morpho-neontologists I know. :-)