[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?? 
- hence
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 
useful information
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