[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Critical Re-examination of Theropod Phylogenetics
> They're all superficially similiar postcranially
C'mon nick, `superficially similiar postcranially'?? what does that mean?
Doesn't that mean
postcranially that on the surface look like but are actually quite different??
contradicting what you said.
> none of those silly postcrania
> have any influence on their relationships at all. Why even run those
> characters? It's a bloody waste of time, and I don't want to miss my
> tea. ;[
Sure, skulls are more likely to be phylogenetically informative - ask Mr
Corthosaurus who doesn't
want to be confused with Mrs Parasaurolophus down the street. That's especially
true at the
genus/species level; Postcrania, however, are likely to offer phylogenetically
at the `family' level (gee, i hate that term). You presented a complete
theropod tree, so i'd
presume that it's value would increase had it included as many `families' as
possible ( or taxa
higher than the genus level).
> and I don't want to miss my
> tea. ;[
See you after tea
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around