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

Re: Hone and Benton 2009, quick hit

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Peters" <davidpeters@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:33 AM

  DP wrote:
  PS. Still glad that Sobral and Langer 2008 were brave enough to test
    Langobardisaurus, Cosesaurus and kin and found them to nest with

David Marjanovic wrote:

Wasn't that just a supertree, too?

Yes, a supertree. With competing taxa included! Big difference, and a good first step. The results speak for themselves.

But a supertree doesn't test anything. It's just a consensus tree. Only one of the source trees contained "*Langobardisaurus*, *Cosesaurus* and kin" at all, which means that none of the other source trees contradicted their placement next to pterosaurs, so that position didn't change in the supertree.

Do you know how supertrees are made? Please explain it to us.

I can't understand why Hone and Benton 2009 would rig the
process so blatantly when as scientists they should have been testing
for the truth.

And David: What? No sympathy?

I still haven't read Hone & Benton 2009. Just two days ago I submitted a paper and my SVP meeting abstract. Two more papers are in the works, my EAVP meeting abstract is due on the 30th, and I should someday return to the amniote part of my thesis, too...

That part will have a reasonably complete taxon sampling and will therefore really test all hypotheses on the origin of pterosaurs. Just be patient.