[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Steadman's review of Mesozoic Birds
Quoting John Pourtless <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Occam's Razor is one thing, but naive adherence to parsimony is another. It
> is a central tenet of cladistic analysis that convergence, parallelisms, and
> reversals are very rare and yet biologists working with extant and extinct
> forms have usually argued just the opposite.
But you can't just assume that if the characters uniting a proposed clade are
potentially due to convergence, parallelism, or reversal, then the clade is no
good, in the absence of evidence in favor of some other arrangement. That way
lies madness, since *any* character is potentially subject to convergence,
parallelism, or reversal.
Unless and until some evidence can be found showing that some ratites are closer
to neognaths than others, or linking one subset of ratites to one neognath
group and another subset to another neognath group, the hypothesis of ratite
monophyly remains the best game in town.
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan