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

Re: hadrosaur cladogram

Godefroit's analyses are always very limited in scope and bredth of the
taxa chosen, the ambiguity of the specimens or actual taxa selected prior
to labelling (is "Gryposaurus" the type, or is he including Kritosaurus?
Is it a concensus of Gryposaurus, Kritosaurus, "Naashoibitosaurus" and
"Anasazisaurus"?), and the absolute brevity of characters used. I myself
could probably arrive at a meaningful 20 characters for the pelvis alone.
With the amount of gross variation of the cranial material, Godefroit's
analyses just don't cut it for me, and he seems more in the way of a
preliminary, "build on it" kind of work than anything to base conclusions
off of. I would ask Jon Wagner, who is working on hadrosaur systematics,
or Brett-Surman, for a better answer. I don't trust ANY cladogram, and
they would only be tools for assessing other data, but never end-data


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web