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

Re: Jaime's reply - parts 1 and 2 (medium short))

> DP: [...] The point of using photographs is to see ALOT of specimens, a
necessity when working up a cladogram.

The _other_ way around. If you don't see all the specimens in person, you
can't make a publishable cladogram. My "famous" bird analysis is entirely
unpublishable, "even though" I recently added a few taxa and a few
characters (I'll add a few more characters, run the analysis, and show you
the results some weeks or so from now), and "even though" it contains many
taxa and several characters that have never been put into a data matrix

> > Counting vertebrae between ilia
> > DOES NOT correspond to sacral vertebral count.
> DP: Actually, it might. Think about where those unossified transverse
processes are going. And don't restrict yourself to only fused sacrals,
because some pteros have no fusion in the sacrum at all.

Unossified transverse processes??? There are plenty of dinosaurs in which
(of course fully ossified) vertebrae _with ordinary dorsal ribs_ are located
between the preacetabular processes.

> DP: You missed my point. The result they wanted to get, I can double-dog
guarantee you, is a single tree. Unwin got 6 trees. Kellner: 80.

In the real world, you don't get a single tree more often than once a year.

> JH: Examples exist among the salamanders:
> DP: Why didn't you just say insects?

Juvenile chimps would cluster with us in most morphological matrices.