[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Critical Re-examination of Theropod Phylogenetics
On 8/23/05, J <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Just get with the times, mate. All the cool and froody ornithischian
workers (excluding those few silly folks like Hai-Lu You) are clearly
ahead of the theropod workers in recognizing how worthless the
postcranial skeleton is for phylogenetic relationships. Eventually
you'll come around and realize how right I am, though hopefully before
cricket today. Mickey for a short while had a glimmer of hope that
he'd catch onto this reality back in the muggy days last year when he
did this- http://dml.cmnh.org/2004Jul/msg00380.html except he's had a
slipback to his old ways. Poor fellow. =(
> Sure, skulls are more likely to be phylogenetically informative - ask Mr
> who doesn't want to be confused with Mrs Parasaurolophus down the street.
You've been nipping some whiskey a little hard at the tavern, I fear,
dinosaurs are long dead, mate, I couldn't ask them if I took the
notion to do so.
Cheerio and toodaloo~