[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: BFC Epiphany
On 9/26/07, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andreas Johansson writes:
> > On 9/26/07, Mike Taylor <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Put this way, it's obvious that the problem is simply one of
> > > characterisation.
> > I don't think you can dismiss it like that. First, at least in that
> > post, Olshevsky's topology is decidely unusual (monophyletic
> > Phytodinosauria, Longisquama as a basal theropod).
> True, but I think that's a side issue
> Longisquama ... uh. Not sure what's going on here: was George saying
> that it's more closely related to classic theropods than sauropods
Yes. From the very post you linked to: "it is likely that _Longisquama_ was a
dino-bird that had diverged from the central lineage after the phytodinosaurs".
Whether he's changed his views on _Longisquama_ and/or Phytodinosauria
since I do not know - I've only got his 1995 posts to go by.
> If so, I dare say he's shifted position on that idea, too.
> Again, it's not close to the soul of BCF, it's just an incidental
> detail of one particular BCF-compliant model.
> > Second, look at his summary of his hypothesis from a previous post
> > in that thread:
> > "The BCF thesis is that ALL dinosaurs--not just certain groups of
> > theropods--were ultimately descended from small, arboreal
> > archosaurs (which I call dino-birds), of which one lineage (which I
> > call the "central lineage") represents an adaptive sequence that
> > begins with a small, lizardlike, probably arboreal "ancestral
> > archosaur" (perhaps resembling _Mesenosaurus_) and ends with any
> > modern bird."
> > That's more than a characterization of topology: it's a scenario of
> > archosaur evolution. Whether we see Brachiosaurus brancai or Passer
> > domesticus as the end goal of archosaur evolution is a matter of
> > perspective: whether their last common ancestor was arboreal is
> > not.
> OK, it's a fair cop -- I oversimplified. Sort of. But it's still
> true that this comes down to how you optimise the character
> transitions on your cladogram. Given a matrix and a phylogeny, you
> can easily reconstruct the most parsimonious basal states. Where
> George's model falls down is that the character states he advocates
> are grossly unparsimonious.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?