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

Re: something's wrong here: Qianosuchus phylogeny

Really?  What is the reason for knowing a priori that scleromochlids
could not possibly be paraphyletic with respect to pterosaurs?

There is only one known scleromochlid, *Scleromochlus* itself, and it has autapomorphies, so the most parsimonious assumption is that it's not an ancestor of anything else we know -- never mind its geological age, which IIRC isn't older than the oldest known pterosaurs.

And then there's the widely acknowledged principle that only monophyletic taxa should be named above the species level. If there were two scleromochlids known, and the group as a whole turned out to be paraphyletic, that would mean one of the scleromochlids had turned out not to be a scleromochlid.