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

Re: How was that about Jaime and proof?

On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:16 AM, Martin Baeker wrote:

Just one comment here:

David, you need to show one case, and one case only, of a juvenile
that does not look like an adult of the same genus or larger clade - and
doesn't resemble some other adult taxa that it is totally unrelated to. If you
can, and if you do, then we can fight like rats in a cage about the details
and evidence. Until then you have no evidence and your arguments are based on
rhetoric and examples from other unrelated clades. Stick to pterosaurs.

How the heck should this be possible? Unless you have a complete growth series, how could you identify a juvenile as belonging to a certain adult if it looks not like an adult of the same clade?


                   Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin Bäker
                   Institut für Werkstoffe
                   Langer Kamp 8
                   38106 Braunschweig
                   Tel.: 00-49-531-391-3073
                   Fax   00-49-531-391-3058
                   e-mail <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>

Exactly my point. You're all trying to pull a rabbit out a hat.

What you're promoting is similar to: baby crows become adult hawks. Or baby seagulls become adult plovers.

Just include all pterosaurs and let PAUP find the relationships. It's surprisingly wonderful when you do. Some babies, Iike Pterodaustro and Cycnorhamphus, align with their rightful parent clade. Others are 'orphans' without parents. And that's okay.

David Peters