[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Why Thulborn's ideas on dinosaur polyphyly are wrong
On 4/20/07, Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
for 1970's dinosaur polyphyly proposals (and BAND proposals), Thulborn never
addresses which non-dinosaurian taxa are most closely related to theropods,
sauropodomorphs or ornithischians. This leaves his hypothesis untestable.
This is something that mystifies me. What's the use in chipping at the
consensus if you don't have an alternative to express? If we were to
accept, say, that the sister-group relationship between saurischians
and ornithischians is poorly supported, we'd still think they're
sisters till he presents a better supported arrangement.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?