[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Senter 2004 - Renesto and Binelli 2005 (long)
>< l.p.h.: highly derived taxa so low on the tree?
> | |--Longisquama
> | `--Megalancosaurus
>< Logic problem here: L. and M. are nested within rib gliders? Again,
>no common skull, manus, pedes, pelvic or pectoral patterns can be
Taking this tree as accurate and accepting _Coelurosauravus_ as a
rib-glider for the sake of argument, _Longisquama_ and _Megalancosaurus_
are not nested within rib gliders in it unless all other diapsids are as
well. It would seem much more likely to interpret rib-gliding as
homoplasious between _Coelurosauravus_ and _Icarosaurus_ than to
interpret rib-gliding as ancestral for the clade of most diapsids and
subsequently lost in the vast majority.
Only branching order is informative in a cladogram, not necessarily the
order taxa are in from top to bottom. Remember, the tree above is
exactly the same as
or any other permutation of order you might think of that still retains
the same branching.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.4/860 - Release Date:
21/06/2007 5:53 PM