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

re: D.Marjanovics repliesto J'r pts I-II

David Marjanovic had some snipes:

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

The _other_ way around. If you don't see all the specimens in person,
can't make a publishable cladogram.

>>>>> David, David, David. Please show me one cladogram in which all of
the specimens included were personally examined. Certainly _not_the case
in Unwin (2003) and Kellner (2003). They confessed as much. And if the
reader knows going into the manuscript that data was obtained in a
variety of ways, what's the problem?

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
the results some weeks or so from now), and "even though" it contains
taxa and several characters that have never been put into a data matrix

>>>>>> Maybe you ought to try to publish it. After all, it's only data.

> > 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
(of course fully ossified) vertebrae _with ordinary dorsal ribs_ are
between the preacetabular processes.

>>>>>> Actually the processes are ossified. The final connection to the
ilium is  less obvious. Find a pterosaur with only three sacrals and
you'll see what I'm talking about. We'll talk about it if you're still
having trouble.

> DP: You missed my point. The result they wanted to get, I can
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

>>>>>> Not the point. What they wanted and what they got was the point.
And yet, maybe a little more work would reveal the single tree. After
all, Nature is a single tree. I say don't publish until you have a
single tree. Otherwise you're showing your lack of ability to finish a
job and do it right.

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

Juvenile chimps would cluster with us in most morphological matrices.

>>>>>> Again, I say, show me. Otherwise your comment is something
between cocktail chatter and pontification. Lots of cards on the table.
All of them mine. None of them yours. If you're going to play, play.
Send references. I'll do the leg work and report back.