[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
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.