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

RE: Senter 2004 - Renesto and Binelli 2005 (long)

>    `--+--+--Coelurosauravus
>< 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  
>seen here.
>  `--+--Icarosaurus
      `--[other diapsids]

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

|  |--Megalancosaurus
|  `--Coelurosauravus
`--+--[other diapsids]

or any other permutation of order you might think of that still retains
the same branching.


        Christopher Taylor

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