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

Re: Megalosaurus = Torvosaurus in Europe -- reply to Qilongia

Stephan Pickering (StephanPickering@cs.com) wrote:

<It is Mr [Dr.] Madsen who insists on aligning Proceratosaurus with the 
ceratosaurs, and it is this my comments were directed toward. Your
comments are without basis in fact.>

  I was citing literature, that facts are not mine to substantiate.

<Please, save your editorial emendations for those who obtain their
knowledge of phylogenetics from Turok, Son of Stone.>

  Never read it. Not my style. (I do understand that it has benefited many
paleoartists in the middling days of the last century, so this is not
really a bad thing to read Turok ... which presents of phylogeny anyway. I
have played the game for the N64, though ... quite good.) Small hómage to
former listmember Betty, our remembered flying goat, who worked on the

  However, as for my emendations ... I have not done any such, and only
point out the previous work and general sentiments (as I wrote previously
and David points out more recently) that *Proceratosaurus* has been
considered a coelurosaur for quite some time. This is not an attack, if
this is how a rather defensive reply is being taken. One author (Madsen
and Welles, from Welles' own manuscript in the word of Jim Madsen)
supports the ceratosaurian identity (without justification). It is easy
then to _ignore_ this part of the paper, as it has no substantiation and
is meaningless to phylogenetics (study of relationship) in which no study
is presented.

Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage