[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: reply to D. Naish: distrust makes good science!
David Peters wrote:
On the other hand, the very first Photoshop interpretation I ever attempted
was tracing the skull of the first langobardisaur hidden beneath its ribs.
The result was much closer to that of the second big-eyed langobardisaur
than that which was originally figured. So some tracings do come out right.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If you're convinced that archosaurs with their atrophied lateral digits and
deep chevrons make better pterosaur cousin candidates than Huehuecuetzpalli
> Longisquama then let's see your cards.
You've implicitly nominated the length of the lateral digits and the depth
of the chevrons each as "key" characters. But you have yet to demonstrate
that having "atrophied lateral digits" or "deep chevrons" precludes an
archosaur origin for pterosaurs. Ones own personal incredulity should not
be a factor in phylogenetic analysis.
Picture this ? share your photos and you could win big!