[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Juravenator; or How not to perform a phylogenetic analysis
Display a majority rule consensus in PAUP (contree "" majrule = yes)
I thought you had to type "contree all /majrule=yes" (except that the amount
of whitespace doesn't matter)?
Keep in mind that some reviewers (and journal editors) are now strongly
pressuring authors to at least do lip service to phylogenetics when a new
taxon is described. Pressure is even put on paleontologists who do not
"specialize" in the subject. The result is, for the sake of expediency
in getting the new animal to press, a less than complete cladogram.
The solution to this problem? Stop pressuring those who's specialty is
something other than cladistics to include cladistic phylogenies in their
The solution to this problem? Get yourself a coauthor who knows how to
conduct a phylogenetic analysis and has done that before as a publication in
its own right. Such as... judging from his work on birds... Chiappe himself.
Its place in the tree, and the changes to the tree that its addition causes,
are among the most interesting questions produced by the discovery of
something as rare as a Jurassic coelurosaur. *Juravenator* did need a
cladogram in its description even if we ignore its scales.