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

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny



As a positive-thinking scientist who wants to support the traditional tree, you could say, "It's simple: Here's how you derive Scleromochlus from the proterochampsids and pterosaurs from the scleromochlids."

No, my friend. No. The most recent common ancestor of pterosaurs and scleromochlids was, by definition, not a scleromochlid. (It wasn't a pterosaur either.) The most recent common ancestor of scleromochlids and proterochampsids was, by definition, not a proterochampsid. (It wasn't a scleromochlid either.)


There's a difference between "ancestor" and "sister-group". There's a difference between "mother" and "sister".

Nodes and internodes are ancestors. Terminal taxa are not ancestors. Never ever. By definition.

And speaking of larger surveys, Hill 2005 is full of errors.

That's interesting. If you get to publish that (or, failing that, talk about the details with me), I'll get to cite you in my still-not-begun thesis.