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

Re: Jouve's and Tacquet's Ctenochasma sp.



> I was surprised too. But PAUP did all the work.

And it showed them as sistergroups, not as ancestors -- it's not capable of
doing the latter. I think "sistergroups" is what you actually meant.

A taxon without autapomorphies enters into consideration for being the
ancestor of what the program finds as its sistergroup (if the stratigraphy
fits, obviously). This is one small part of why the sayer goes "a cladistic
analysis is the start, not the end, of phylogenetic work".

> Frankly, with as much praise as was heeped on cladistics in the 90s, and
with no
> other analysis able to solve the problem of pterosaur interrelations, and
finally
> with the precedent of The Dinosaur Renaissance, I don't see why a
rethinking of
> this old problem is meeting such resistance without testing.

For example, nobody gets the photos you use for tracing.