[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jaime Headden wrote:
David Peters (email@example.com) wrote:
<Does anyone have the latest on Lagerpeton? I've got the JVP article by
Sereno and Arcucci. Cladistic analysis puts it no where near
1993 is the lastest time it has been treated in such depth. Though
Arcucci (1997) did some work on the Chañares fauna when she described
*Pseudolagosuchus,* not much else that isn't available in, say Currie
Padian's 1997 _Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_ that would otherwise change
Given the high level of scrutiny being applied here, would it be
possible to get the specifics on these cladistic analyses? Challenges to
recent work would serve to be based on something that can be examined,
but for the purpose of scientific rebuttal (if the data withstands
scrutiny). In the meantime, was Benton's 1999, Sereno's 1999, and Sereno
and Arcucci's 1993 data incorporated into the database by which such
challenges have come forth?
Jaime A. Headden
All of the above are under consideration and scrutiny. And again, the
greater the amount of inclusion, the more "sensible" the cladograms are
becoming when examined branch by branch. That is, fewer giant leaps and
fewer reversals such as gaining phalanges, etc.
It didn't take that long to figure it out. Why don't we all consider it
a challenge and find out where Lagerpeton fits, then in a week or two,
no rush, compare findings?
PS Still looking for PJ Crush.