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

Re: Pelvis



David,


I must ask for excuses when I used "lies"... however, I still find that much speculation in pterosaurs phylogeny exists. I know that we have little material to work with, after all they are discovered random. in that u spoke on ontogenia, I agree, but has much exaggerated and unknown features between what is ontogenetic and character.

2007/5/23, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Caique Soares Mulatinho" <ephodes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:12 PM

> infact... i agree with some of your ideas
>
> but How can we compare when doing a clad , when we have diferent
> ontogenetic stages betwin  them...

We must make sure that the characters we want to compare don't change with
ontogeny. If they do, we must code them as unknown in juveniles or neotenous
individuals (Wiens et al. 2005, Systematic Biology). Alternatively, we can
make sure that we only compare adults.

> hypotheses and hypotheses
>
> I think we should be more realistic when writing about especulate
> philogeny.
>
> why do we create so many lies on scientific papers?
>
> guys lets wake up , before we fall from bed.

We don't speculate anymore, we make hypotheses and test them.

And what do you mean by "lies"?!?

By the way, there is no separate paper on pterosaur pelves, but of course
all phylogenetic analyses of Pterosauria use characters from the pelvis as
well as from the rest of the skeleton.