[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
David Hone on archosauromorph phylogeny
I look forward to seeing how Dr. Hone finds closer ties for
pterosaurs among the basal Ornithodira, where tails are deep, sternae
are small, interclavicles are hard to find, clavicles don't bind to
and wrap around sternae, coracoids are round, lateral fingers and
toes are atrophied, antorbital fenetrae come with fossae, pubes are
separate from ischia, ilia are never hypertrophied, prepubes are
never found, fewer than five sacrals are present, scutes are present,
teeth never have multiple cusps and there's not a uropatagium or
extradermal membrane to be found.
Not colossal. Just the crux of the matter.
David's praise for Chris Bennett's paper misses a big point:
<<Chris' analysis overall is superb
(something which goes unsaid in the paper), and his descriptions of
both the characters and their coding is superb. Phylogeneticsis take
note, this is how cladistics papers should be done! I guess Chris gets
damned with faint praise that I really could only find one error in his
1996 paper, and that is one that he does (sort of ) concede within the
paper itself that he may have overreached with his 'legless' analysis.>>
I found one other error in Bennett's paper. It's like the joke about
the man who lost his wallet in an alley but was looking for it on the
street corner. When asked why, he replied, "because the light's much
better out here."
If you don't look where it's lost, you ain't gonna find it. Inclusion
is key and Chris did not include the right taxa -- the biggest
mistake one can make in analysis.
If Hone also ignores, for whatever spurious reasons, the
Huehuecuetzpalli > Longisquama lineage, he will also, as he has
already admitted, find his pterosaur nesting 'by default.'
And we're back to square one.