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

Re: where have all the etc.[Pharris]



You and Nick should get together and find a study in which the following taxa are included (because this is what we're testing): [...]

This still doesn't tell us anything about the characters...

BTW, there was no "cherry-picking" of characters. Because this study included so many more taxa than _ANY_ previous one, it required a new set of characters -- many repeated from prior work -- but many others (particularly in the manus and pes) that were ignored by other workers. And characters that were readily available for checking from published figures and photos.

First of all, it requires _more_ characters than any previous one. It requires _all_ previously used characters that actually have a phylogenetic (as opposed to ontogenetic or size-related...) signal, plus lots more.


It doesn't help if a particular brain vein opening is described but cannot be confirmed and it shows up in only a few fossils.

Missing data doesn't matter much (JVP June 2003 -- at least half of that issue) as long as the character in question retains a (potential) phylogenetic signal. So I'd suggest to code it where you can, code it as "?" where you can't do better than that, and to not submit the resulting matrix for publication.