[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Steadman's review of Mesozoic Birds
From: Nick Pharris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Steadman's review of Mesozoic Birds
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:09:11 -0500
Quoting John Pourtless <email@example.com>:
> Occam's Razor is one thing, but naive adherence to parsimony is another.
> is a central tenet of cladistic analysis that convergence, parallelisms,
> reversals are very rare and yet biologists working with extant and
> forms have usually argued just the opposite.
But you can't just assume that if the characters uniting a proposed clade
potentially due to convergence, parallelism, or reversal, then the clade is
good, in the absence of evidence in favor of some other arrangement. That
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
to neognaths than others, or linking one subset of ratites to one neognath
group and another subset to another neognath group, the hypothesis of
monophyly remains the best game in town.
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan
There already is evidence suggesting that at least some ratites (read
tinmaous) are more closely related to neognaths.
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up ? fast & reliable Internet access with prime